By Jack Weaver
We have mentioned here at ExPreacherMan.com how Dave Hunt’s ministry, The Berean Call has been compromised by promoting and favorably quoting Calvinists and Arminians in their weekly newsletters. In their latest newsletter, Monday, 17 Dec 2012, entitled, “‘Genius’ Movie Includes Look at Beatles’ John Lennon” the Berean Call published a glowing, favorable report on Ray Comfort’s latest Lordship Salvation movie, “Genius.”
If you wish to be sick, you may view the “Genius” video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7pe3_VQbUM&feature=player_embedded
In the same newsletter The Berean Call also advertises another Ray Comfort DVD, “Hell’s Best Kept Secret” The recommendation and advertising from The Berean Call asks the questions:
“What is the principle that Spurgeon, Wesley, Whitefield, and others used to reach the lost? Why has the church neglected it? This video provides the answers.”
The principle used by these men and their answer is Calvinism, Arminianism and radical “Turn from sin for salvation,” in other words a “works” message of Lordship Salvation. And that is exactly what Ray Comfort is preaching in his movie, “Genius”!
Comfort brings his audience to a realization of their sinfulness but then, as Dr. Tom Cucuzza wrote to me:
“The movie is filled with Comfort’s strong lordship salvation message. I saw it on line and was almost sick to my stomach.
“As always, he does ok in getting people to understand their lost condition, but then he puts the very strong ‘turn from sin’ and more for salvation to mess it up.”
I bit my lip and listened to the video clip and I agree with Tom completely. After Comfort convinced his audience of their sin, he tells his audience that, in order to obtain God’s Salvation, they must:
“repent and be sorry for their sins and turn from their sins for their salvation. Then they must continue to do so and live in holiness to remain a Christian.” (approximate transcription from the video)
But with all of this apostasy, Tom’s point is true:
- “My point in writing is not Ray Comfort, but how far The Berean Call has deteriorated.”
I’ve had a sickening feeling for some time. The Berean Call, i.e. Dave Hunt, published many years ago one of the best books exposing Calvinism that I have ever read, What Love is This?. He has, however, in the last couple of years, given favorable mention to and glowing quotes from, Leonard Ravenhill, Calvinist; from Gresham Machen (founder of The Orthodox Presbyterian church); C.H. Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Francis Schaeffer and CARM, a radical Calvinist Internet info site, etc. Putting them all together in context does make me sick and I wonder if Hunt and Tom McMahon have gone mad — condemning Calvinism on the one hand yet promoting false teachers, Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists on the other with their favorable quotes.
In all fairness I understand that Dave Hunt is no longer active in the management of The Berean Call due to illness and confinement.
Deborah du Rand,
I am just a commenter here, But, I reread, and the article did not say or intimate that Dave wrote it, although I have personally heard Dave favorably quote certain men and call them ‘brothers in Christ’ before, because I was disappointed in him for doing that (Rick Warren was one). But I saw him get stronger in the end in that regard which was nice.
I just want to suggest this. If you do not know who wrote something in your ministry, that could be the start of a downfall. How is that taking heed to the doctrine or having accountability? I’d really encourage you to change that policy.
Deborah, no one ever said that Dave Hunt wrote the article.
This excerpt makes that clear: In all fairness I understand that Dave Hunt is no longer active in the management of The Berean Call due to illness and confinement.
Thank you. This article below was written and posted by “TBC Staff”. Dave Hunt was in an old age home with his wife at this time and was not active in the ministry he built.
To say Dave Hunt wrote this article is false.
It was written by TBC staff and we don’t know who that is.
Thank you.
Deborah, the article that you are referencing was written by the late Jack Weaver nearly nine years ago.
I wasn’t an administrator with the expreacherman website at that time.
However, I was able to enter “berean call Genius’ Movie Includes Look at Beatles’ John Lennon” (without the quotes) on my DuckDuckGo browser, press enter, and it returned the following:
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/genius-movie-includes-look-beatles-john-lennon
(Administrator’s note: we do not endorse The Berean Call)
I hope that helps!
Thanks. John
Can you please provide a link to this newsletter by Berean Call? If it was a snail mail letter do you have a copy. I’d like to see the proof please.
Not to sound fatalistic, but I’d be REALLY surprised if any reply from TBC were anything more than a bunch of double talking nonsense. I’ve love however for them to prove me wrong, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Chas, it will be interesting, should you get a response, what it might be.
Well, after a couple weeks of attempting to compose a reply to TBC’s reply to me (which referred me to that 2005 article), I gave up. There were many issues in TBC’s reply to me that I could answer, but I just couldn’t seem to organize my thoughts. Events of the last month have left me very tired in just about every way imaginable.
So I just canceled my TBC email subscription. In the “reason for leaving” space, I put something about their “persistent misunderstanding of the definition of ‘repentance’ in salvation” etc. I can only guess what kind of reaction that will get.
chas, I personally don’t think it would do much good to try to clarify. Their materials lean heavily on doublespeak put out by Dave Hunt, who is no longer with us. I seriously doubt they would be willing to correct him posthumously. And, unless they have someone there who is dedicated to going through all of their materials and making sure they are not promulgating errant doctrine, then it seems to me that TBC will continue to confuse people.
I finally received a reply from TBC to the email I sent 8/18/19. It referred me to a response originally written in 2005 by the author of the book “An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith” to someone else who apparently had questions similar to (but not the same as) mine. I can only surmise the questions posed by that person, but it would seem they questioned the need for repentance in salvation, while part of my email to TBC dealt with the definition of repentance. Basically, the person who replied to me either didn’t understand my questions or doesn’t see the real issue himself. Or both. The supposedly relevant article contains the familiar internal contradictions, like:
The article is rampant with such doublespeak. I’m wondering whether I should respond to make an attempt at clarification, or just drop it and cancel.
Yeah, scar it, damage it, rinse it off and send it on it’s way, much-maligned.
Chas, I hope they can see the inconsistencies and adopt a consistent approach – one way or another.
Grace preached intermittently is really a scourge. We were at an SBC church for my father’s funeral and found two gospel tracts side-by-side in their literature rack. One was grace, the other LS.
It’s kind of like pouring salt on a slug and then rinsing it with cold water.
Okay, so I was intending to notify Berean Call that I wanted to be removed from their mailing list, but I couldn’t make up my mind how to explain my concerns to them in the space allotted.
Instead, I sent an email to them about the 1989 article in question; “Eternal Security”. This after reading the entire article, which surprised me by how many forceful arguments it makes in support of free grace doctrine. In fact, the section quoted accurately multiple times in this thread is so jarringly inconsistent with the bulk of the article, it is startling.
I didn’t want them to think I was doing a “gotcha” on them, so I framed the issue as a series of questions which centered around the inconsistencies. We’ll see how they respond, and I’ll decide whether to unsubscribe to TBC based on their response.
Keith, it would seem that way to me as well.
A few years ago, I read Dave Hunt’s book “What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God”. While I thought it was a good expose’ of Calvinism, he wrote in the book that he had many friends who were Calvinists and with whom he disagreed about Calvinism, but he remained in fellowship with them.
I don’t think it’s possible to have spiritual fellowship with someone who embraces Calvinism because, by looking to his works of perseverance for assurance that he has eternal life, he is under the curse of the law (Gal. 3:10).
It seems that, by failing to recognize back-loading the gospel for what it is, Dave Hunt unwittingly embraced the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.
Jason, I agree.
They promote fake pastors. They are not Bereans.
fryingpan9…
Many thanx for the warning. Actually, I had them discontinue the snail-mail paper newsletter a couple years ago. (I’d run out of room to store them.) It was no trouble having them change to Email. Thanks also for reminding me of the “unsubscribe” button on each Email. When I hit it, a list of reasons for unsubscribing shows up. The only one that applies to me is “other” which brings up a dialog box to state a reason. I’m still praying about how I should respond. “Lordship salvation sympathies, creeping Calvinism” etc? Not sure how to put it.
chas, I’m assuming you’re referring the their printed newsletter sent via snail mail. (If it were emailed you’d presumably be able to unsubscribe or block their email address.)
Anyway, let us know how that goes. I wrote them asking to be taken off their mailing address YEARS ago and, as the late Jack Weaver predicted at the time, sure enough, they’re still sending it to me, ignoring my request in order to continue to bombard me with their propaganda. I gave up sending them back marked “Refused, RTS” and similar a while ago too.
Such is the expected MO when dealing with an entity infested with Calvinists.
Dave was a compromiser unfortunately. I think he was very similar to George Zeller of Berean Call in the backdoor load-ship teachings. In addition, his sidekick after Dave died went right into conferences with Calvinists. Ironic but obviously that’s the problem with the leaven of the Pharisees.
chas, I was glad to get it out again.
There is no assurance in looking to behavior for evidence of eternal life.
johninnc…
Re: that TBC article of 1989; it may have been posted before, but thanks for posting about it again. I missed the first couple of times. I’ve been getting TBC bulletins for years but never noticed that quote. It clarifies TBC’s position on LS. Looks like I’ll be emailing them to remove me from their mailing list. I wonder if they’ll want to know why.
Thank you so much for your prayers! I need to get an update. My mother-in-law has a decades old heart for service so it’s common that if we don’t check in, we won’t know what’s going on. She’s not the complaining type for sure! 🙂
fryingpan, I recall you having pointed out Dave Hunt’s errors in the past, but I’m sorry I didn’t recall that particular quote.
By the way, I have prayed again for your mother in law and you and your wife.
Update to my last comment. Upon scanning this thread I wasn’t the only one. Good to see that Dave Hunt quote is making the rounds. I’ve talked about Dave and TBC extensively in this thread so I won’t repeat it here (not now anyway).
Yep,
That’s a terrible LS-infused comment by Dave Hunt in that article, johninnc
Dave was very stealth in his back-loading style of LS and Calvinism. Ironic for a guy who wrote what many consider the go to book for refuting the claims of Calvinism. I actually referenced that exact quote several years ago in this very same thread.
Phil, I have seen a “red flag” or two from Hunt elsewhere. The quote I referenced today led me to believe I was right to be wary.
This is certainly LS from Hunt. David Hunt was a puzzle to me. I’ve read him say one is saved simply by trusting Christ as ones Savior. Maybe he had different messages for different audiences. I still have an article from an old VOICE magazine, an IFCA publication, that’s a red flag.
Hunt was a big heralder of the Reformation and reformers; justification by faith alone, as opposed to the RCC insisting on adding works. Trouble is when you get into both groups’ definitions of “faith” it pretty much amounts to the same thing, “faith-that-works.” The Reformation, IMO, was just what is says, a reforming of their churches without most of the smoke and ceremonies of Catholicism.
From The Berean Call article entitled “Eternal Security” (June 1, 1989), by Dave Hunt:
We offer no comfort or assurance to those living in sin. We don’t say, you’re okay because you once made a “decision for Christ.” Instead, we warn: “If you are not willing right now to live fully for Christ as Lord of your life, how can you say that you were really sincere when you supposedly committed yourself to Him at some time in the past?” And to all, we declare with Paul, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor:13:5).
My comment: This is works for salvation, no ifs ands or buts! It was my realization that I couldn’t make such a commitment and feel eternally secure.
Kate, you said, “I use to live in confusion seeking peace within myself by looking for security in my Salvation.”
How many of us can relate, but the Word rightly understood can sure help us out over time. Trusting what He says and getting into the strong meat of His Word helped me be able to answer with His Word when someone tried to trip me up with, ‘Yea hath God said?’
I didn’t always (and still don’t) get the answer right away, but I’d pray and ask Him (still do) to show me from His Word and to keep me from hearing men’s that were false. I think we’re a type of the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, and living in the last days of great apostasy. The amount of ‘denominations’ that call themselves Christian is great. Not trying to appropriate any literal Scriptures but just thinking on the ones who say they are Jews and are not (the ones of the synagogue of Satan), and who will worship at their feet.
Speaking of AOG, so many have fallen for that trap of the ‘outward evidence’ and have condemned others as not having the Spirit. When I was a teen, I was dating an ex-Oakland Raider (who became my husband) and got caught up for a short time (thank the Lord) in a weight lifting group’s ‘Bible study’. There were some celebrities in the group and I remember them afterwards pressing people to speak in tongues. They would tell people to start babbling, THEN He would do the rest. I remember thinking even at 18, why should they start babbling and where is the wind and why did He need our help and what was the purpose with no understanding. I resisted their efforts to draw me in, and remember being invited to a home of a TBN host who had a popular ‘prophet’ (Bob Jones – not of the university but of the NAR cult) and people were clamoring to get him to ‘prophesy’ over them. I was on the outskirts of the group, I remember vaguely his chilly look of lust, and pointing at me, then being speechless and stopping. I get sickened thinking of what people think is the only false religion, and that they think they have discernment because they know Benny Hinn is false, but they cannot see the wolves in their midst, or perhaps they are a wolf. All I know, is each of these experiences, the Lord was good to use and to save me (in this lifetime) from a completely wasted life.
Too many whether Pentecostals or Calvinists, live by experience and trusting in other men and their words vs. the Living Word of God. Thank the Lord for His tender mercies which are all over His works.
William – quite a list, really gives you a wake up call as to what happens when we listen to men’s words over the Word of God and slumber instead of being Berean’s. So many think they can’t be fooled. When we allow compromise into our lives, when we hear them, when we associate with others who do, we’re just opening ourselves up for error. I have been told so many times by so many people that they cannot be fooled because THEY have the Spirit (said in a way suggesting I do not), but they forget what we see in Scripture, and I figure if the wisest man (Solomon) can fall into apostasy or the apostles (Peter, Barnabas and James) then we probably better just look to Him and stay firmly entrenched in His Word. And not let ourselves be beguiled.
The site hopping is also familiar to me. My experience included rationalizing repent of sin teachings, even after a reorientation to grace that resulted from reading GES articles. Such thinking doesn’t make any sense now.
‘I would go from site to site looking for answers to assuage my manic…’ Boy, that sounds familiar.
Conclusion: Religion is very bad for your mental health.
Oh, I forgot that I wanted to also say that
the testimonies of others that have suffered with similar situations have helped me. I know I am not alone in all of this.
Kate.
William,
Regarding the AOG, I want to add that they believe that if you do not “evidence speaking in tongues” then you haven’t been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They also believe that God will never take your Salvation from you but you can surely jump from His hand and in effect, give back Salvation.
And that once you are “saved” then good works automatically follow.
They also have allowed contemplative prayer, out of body experiences, and they are vulgar because they make demands on God and threaten Him with tantrums if He fails to come through.
Ex: An “Apostle” came to the congregation I was attending for a revival. He told the story of how he wanted a sign from God. God had been slow in coming with the “sign”. SO this Apostle told the Lord he wouldn’t move from the floor of his church until he received the sign. And he laid there for so long until God came through and gave him his sign. It made me think of how my children throw tantrums in hopes of causing me to cave into the pressure and give them what they want. This story of his really bothered me, and his story reminded of the long-hailed tale of the Azusa Street Revival of California. According to the AOG church history this is when the Holy Spirit fell bringing back the “gifts of the spirit”. It is said that the preacher of this revival put a box on his head, refusing to take it off, until God moved among the group. God finally answered by bringing back “tongues, prophecies, and apostles”.
Hence my confusion and why I had the hardest time telling the difference between the AOG and all other faiths.
I was told over and over growing up that the AOG were “full gospel” as opposed to those “dead” baptist that quench the spirit by not allowing the Holy Spirit to flow, and in effect, denying the “gifts of the holy spirit”.
Now, when I see all those “different” denominations, including RC, I know they aren’t really different. I know that they all believe “Works for Salvation” which isn’t the gospel. I now know that the supposed differences aren’t relevant because they have all gotten the actual gospel so very wrong.
Satan is sneaky and subtle.
He will tell you 1000 truths just to slip in one lie. And that lie is the biggest one being that you have to work for your supper and your work will never be good enough to eat at the table.
I use to live in confusion seeking peace within myself by looking for security in my Salvation. I would go from site to site looking for answers to assuage my manic mind. The only rest I have found from that mania is eternal rest I have found in Christ.
He is the object of my Salvation.
Kate
Great post, William!
William, I have looked at the “Baptist Faith and Message” going way back. It has always had a strong Calvinist lean, as far back as I have found any written record.
Katmazdobelieve Chan certainly is wicked as he is a graduate of the “Master’s Seminary” led by Lordship Salvation guru John MacArthur. He is another Loadship Damnation clone.
katmazdobelieve, Praise God that you have come out of Lordship Salvation aka “Loadship Damnation”. I was once deceived by the false teachings of John MacArthur decades ago when I was a young babe in Christ, but like you said the real GOSPEL is found in the simplicity of John 3:16.
Yes, praise God for this site! The majority of all so called “congregations” presently teach false doctrine. There are 18 false denominations within mainstream Christianity that teach damning doctrines.
Check this out:
Even though the below false doctrines all go under different names, they are all inter-related in that they share each others false doctrine. Satan has a whole inventory of false doctrines that he puts into different packages going under different names to steer people of all ages away from the true Biblical gospel of the Bible, which is John 3:16 in its simplicity. They all have one thing in common, that is, they all deny once saved always saved/eternal security and either front load or back load the gospel with works.
1) Calvinism/Lordship Salvation (spawned from Augustine who is the father of Roman Catholicism) They front load and back load the gospel with works and falsely teach that if there is no “life change” and if there is an absence of works, then a person is “unsaved.” They also falsely teach that one must “persevere” to the end in good works in order to be saved. They are chronic works/fruit inspectors who always look at Christian’s works as “evidence” that one is saved. They are very self-righteous Pharisees, prideful, legalistic, and judgmental when judging others who don’t measure up to their “criteria” of who’s saved. Their popular mantra is “you were never saved to begin with” if you don’t measure up to their criteria.
2) Arminian/Lordship Salvation (false as they teach that salvation can be lost. They are opposed to Calvinism, but still false nonetheless.) Their popular mantra is “you can lose your salvation” if one fails in their faith by falling into grievous sin and failing to “persevere” to the end.
3) Roman Catholicism – utterly false and very obvious as they worship the “Virgin Mary” and worship the Pope, elevating him above God and the Bible. The Vatican invoked the name of LUCIFER at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome on April 27, 2014 which was broadcast over worldwide news. They also teach that salvation can be lost. There is also a depiction of LUCIFER at the bottom level of St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican in Rome. This depiction can be found in Mausoleum U.
What is a depiction of Lucifer, who is no doubt Satan doing in a church that is claiming to be “Christian”????
4) Mormonism ( they believe in faith +works, and teach that salvation can be lost, the BYU was very attracted to John MacArthur’s book, “The Gospel According to Jesus” using it as a textbook at BYU) They errantly believe and teach that Lucifer who is no doubt Satan is the “spirit brother” of Jesus.
5) Jehovah’s Witness doctrine ( obviously false and they also deny once saved always saved)
6) Pentacostalism ( their soteriology is Arminian and believe that salvation can be lost and many teach that “speaking in tongues” is evidence that one is saved.)
7) Charismatic Church ( they are diverse and have elements of Pentacostalism)
8) Some Baptist denominations ( the Southern Baptist Convention has currently been taken over by Calvinism like a cancer)
9) Lutheranism ( teach that salvation can be lost when a Christian does not continue in the faith, and insists that baptism is imperative for salvation and teaches infant baptism.)
10) Methodism ( teach that salvation can be lost and believe in prevenient grace rooted in Arminianism)
11) Presbyterianism ( Calvinist in their doctrines)
12) Anglican/Episcopalianism ( have hybrid theology embracing elements of Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism)
13) Assembly of God doctrine (they have hybrid theology embracing elements of Calvinism and Arminianism and teach that salvation can be lost)
14) Seventh Day Adventism – They have hybrid theology embracing elements of Lutheranism, Wesleyanism, and Arminianism. Their doctrine denies eternal security and the teachings of Ellen G.White are elevated above Scripture. Their stand on justification is for sins committed in the past only. They claim that Jesus human nature was weakened by sin and also had a tendency toward sin. They believe that keeping the commandments perfectly is possible, but James 2:10 refutes this false teaching.
15) Church of Christ – They falsely teach that salvation involves the following 6 steps: 1) hear the gospel 2) believe the gospel 3) one MUST repent by “turning from sins” 4) one MUST openly confess that Jesus is the Son of God 5) one MUST be baptized 6) One MUST persist in faithfulness to the end. They also deny eternal security/once saved always saved and falsely teach that one can “lose” their salvation. They definitely add works to the salvation equation making it an accursed “gospel”. They strongly oppose Calvinist doctrine, and at the same time embracing their doctrines, but they are still false in their doctrine nonetheless.
16) Salvation Army – Their 9th doctrine is very revealing which makes eternal security contingent upon the continued obedience and faithfulness of the Christian. This is in essence teaching “perseverance of the saints” which is the 5th false point of Calvinism. The Salvation Army’s 9th doctrine is as follows: “We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.”
17) Christian Science (The First Church of Christ, Scientist) From wikipedia it states, “Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements. It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her book Science and Health (1875) that sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone. In particular, adherents subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion. This includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.” “The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care—adherents use dentists, optometrists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, and vaccination when required by law—but maintains that Christian-Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine. Between the 1880s and 1990s the avoidance of medical treatment led to the deaths of several adherents and their children. Parents and others were prosecuted for, and in a few cases convicted of, manslaughter or neglect.”
18) The Mennonite Church – They believe that one must “repent of sins” and “accept Christ as Lord and Savior”. Their article 8 under “Salvation” states, “We believe that, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God offers salvation from sin and a new way of life to all people. We receive God’s salvation WHEN WE REPENT OF SIN and accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. In Christ, we are reconciled with God and brought into the reconciling community of God’s people. We place our faith in God that, by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, we may be saved from sin to follow Christ in this life and to know the fullness of salvation in the age to come.”
“When we hear the good news of the love of God, the Holy Spirit moves us to accept the gift of salvation. God brings us into right relationship without coercion. Our response includes yielding to God’s grace, placing full trust in God alone, REPENTING OF SIN, turning from evil, joining the fellowship of the redeemed, and showing forth the obedience of faith in word and deed.
Jason65,
I came here under the delusion of LS. I was a wreck. I was unhinged. Riddled with guilt and fear.
This site is the biggest help I received.
I went to local congregations. They all seemed very concerned when I would try to talk to them about the doubts and attacks I was under but none of them could help me. I didn’t understand why.
I now know that they couldn’t help me because none of them actually had the gospel. The only place I have ever encountered that actually preaches the REAL GOSPEL, The GOOD NEWS, is this site.
The gospel saved me through this site.
-Kate
Kate, it is good to hear from you again. You were one of the ones who encouraged me on the day I came here from all that confusion.
Today I received a reply to a comment on a Youtube video criticing Piper over “Christian Hedonism”. I thought the video was actually nitpicking. The commenter exposed endorsement of contemplative prayer and unequal yoking with NAR. But neither Piper nor the video nor the commenters understood the gospel. They all believed the same loadship lie.
My husband once posted something from Chan. I told him that Chan was wicked. He pushes a false gospel that deceives and enslaves searching souls.
He has no room in our lives.
You don’t rely on a broken clock for accurate time even though it’s right twice a day.
Fryingpan, it’s always good to hear from you. I’m glad you were able to turn Chan off in a few seconds. It really is like ingesting poison.
I thought I’d drop by and leave a comment as this was the first thread I ever read and commented on, over 5 years ago now, on 2/10/13.
I don’t comment as much as I used to, but I read some of the comments pretty regularly (if I’m subscribed to the thread, of when I’m on the site and decide to look at some of the recent posts). And I always read every new article that’s posted.
The other day I was on Evil YouTube (owned of course by Evil Google) and the brainiac algorithm decided to put a Francis Chan video in my feed. I honestly think I had not watched a video of him since discovering this blog and I clicked on it out of (stupid) morbid curiosity and was able to get through maybe 18 seconds. That guy is SO BAD. And of course I “heard” johnininc asking me, “Why are you looking at this POISON????”
So I moved on. I appreciate those who have the stomach to research these things and report back here about them. I’d just as soon wander through a cave and have my back covered in tarantulas like Indiana Jones than to sit through one of those “talks”.
Sadly, one of the people I was in the prayer and bible study group I was in when I first posted here recently shared a Ray Comfort video on social media. And this was one of the people in that group who told me that he’d always believed in once saved, always saved, and the simplicity of the gospel.
Sigh . . .
Curtis, the first favorable mention at ExPreacherman of A.W. Pink was from a dyed in the wool five-point Calvinist whom the late Jack Weaver banished from this site long ago.
Pink is a false teacher, and his disciples are deceived.
Holly, I agree with your conclusions, and one of the dangers of reacting to one extreme is to go to another extreme.
Then again, on some matters (ie salvation) there is no middle ground (re Zeller).
Romans 5:6-8 Blast’s what A. W. Pink has to say and exposes his doctrine. In all of the multitude of word’s Pink has to say error is not lacking.
5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
5: 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Jason, I want to just say that liberty can go both ways with others taking liberties that make others stumble. We know there is a balance in love and understanding for the sake of another. Pink is just extreme in every area, so is Wurmbrand, and basically the end conclusion of fruit inspecting is they condemn themselves.
I agree. Such discussions are akin to politics.
Jason, there is no end to different people’s checklists of what is and is not OK.
At ExPreacherman, we do not encourage such discussions.
Holly, I also wanted to comment regarding Pink. What part of liberty does he not understand? Paul makes it clear in Romans, 1 Corinthians and Colossians that Christians have liberty in their conscience and only asks that they respect the conscience of others. Who is Pink to think he can be the conscience of other believers? I have seen similar condemnatory remarks by legalists about reading works of fiction, watching sports, viewing films, doing anything they consider wordly. Richard Abanes thinks he’s the expert on which books are worldly, and others might disagree, but he comes off as the know-it-all.
I have seen evidence of the same kind of legalism in VOM. To them, even possessing a TV is worldly. Yesterday, I found a free pdf of Wurmbrand’s “Soviet Saints”, and there I found examples of IFB-like behavior in the Russian underground. Wurmbrand’s ways of expressing “agape” were bizarre and included beatings. Underground churches avoided all secular influences and used control tactics similar to cults. In Russia, movies and schools were tools of corrosive propaganda, but the cultlike tactics were still too extreme. There was no freedom even in the illegal churches. Wurmbrand promoted ecstasy and claimed that those who suffered acquired miraculous healing powers. The propaganda sounded more credible than such bizarre claims.
Even churches who are clear on the gospel sometimes have this sentence in their SOF: believers should “separate themselves from worldly and sinful pleasures, practices and associations”. This sounds open-ended and muddles Christian liberty in my opinion. Is Christmas a “worldly practice”? Is gift exchange a “sinful pleasure”? Is the cinema a worldly “association”? What if the film is clean and honors God? What about products from China? What about meat sacrificed to idols? Where does this stop? I liked what you once said about Daniel walking in Babylon.
Holly, it is comforting to know that I am not alone. There could be yet others who come here. Perhaps you could write about this on your site.
There was one site that offered comfort and exposed Wurmbrand and VOM: Spiritual Abuse Sanctuary. Unfortunately, they are chariswhacko and promote automatic healing. They wanted me to write an article, but the next week I criticized a past article promoting a dream and prophecy. I fell out of fellowship with them, and my critical remarks got deleted.
Jason, I also share your horror with the Voice of the Martyrs. I was involved in that for years and I couldn’t word any of it better, I didn’t know how to voice the condemnation that came through that ministry. And the error, ecumenism, mysticism, loadship, etc. The Lord will use these things the enemy meant for our harm though Jason, and praying He uses it for us to be a part of the harvest.
Johninnc exactly (re: Ecc 12:12), I didn’t even have to look it up because it’s been a thought for me many times (I did though to be sure it was what I was thinking of). I also often think of 2 Tim 4:2-4 and Ps 50:16-17 in the way these men treat God’s Word.
Foreigner Chris
I so completely agree with you — Pink is horrific, leaven of the Pharisees. I did an article about Christmas several years ago. I used some of what A.W. Pink had to say about it. He is absolutely horrific in accusations. If you exchange gifts you couldn’t possibly be a believer in his eyes, it is worldly to him.
It was these kinds of comments by people like him that shocked me so much when I saw them recommended to others I started speaking up. Of course I was more naïve back then and didn’t realize the hateful backlash I would receive from others, but I should not have been surprised. They did and said awful things to Jesus being perfect and full of love for them.
In Him, Holly
I notice how few books we have compared to them. It takes relatively few books to straighten out the confusion caused by many, and to get people back to basics.
Since I was born and raised with these bad associations, it was a hard lesson for me. I had no idea that Calvinism was this bad. I thought reformed churches could be trusted. I knew martyrdom should not have been taken to such extremes, but I had no idea how bad it was out there. The loaded language that they used overwhelmed me: the persecuted church, lukewarm, watered down, smug acceptance, mammon, mention of critics saying lies about them, “if he were Jesus, would you give him your blanket”, the very name of the organization. The implication was clear: if you avoid them, you have no fellowship with Jesus; if you mark them, you are the one spreading slander. There is no exit support group in the internet wilderness for this cult.
Secular critics of Islam often criticize them for their martyr complex. It brings shame to the name of Christ when his followers carry on in a similar manner, even more so when they are the persecutors. Now I know, such is churchianity. Victim complexes do not go over well at a job interview, yet they work too well in Calvinist/LS confusion land, where I was.
Holly, all of the books that people write and read as if they are Bible substitutes.
I am reminded of Ecclesiastes 12:12.
Jason, churches need to be clear on the gospel. If that part is missing, I would steer clear. Even if there is an association with groups or individuals that corrupt or muddy the gospel, I would steer clear.
Jason, it is possible to be a martyr for a cause that is not Christ. People sometimes venerate martyrs without understanding anything about what they believed or taught. Martyrdom is not necessarily a barometer of truth.
I can conceive of a trap worse than AW P!nk. I have mentioned him before. It might be an obvious trap to some of you, but it really traumatized me. He promoted Michael Brown through his organization Voice of the Martyrs.
When I was in school, I was recommended to a Christian school. It wasn’t a free grace school but simply nondenominational and evangelical. Evangelical ought to mean what some of us intend free grace to mean. So what? Labels get caught in the zeitgeist. At this school, I had a Calvinist teacher for my Bible class. We studied church history. For a test I memorized a quote from Tertullian. “The blood of the martyrs is seed”. The version of the quote went on. “…of the church”. To my impressionable mind, martyrs were presented as respectable authorities, to be treated with honor if not veneration.
In communist countries, Christians were being martyred. They might be Catholic, but so what? They gave their lives to Christ and put me to shame. It was a guilt trip. In my mind persecution purified them, humbled them, made them wise. It was a trap. Who knew? If they taught me lordship salvation, they gave authority to that teaching. In Tortured for Christ I read blood chilling stories that brought me to tears. It was not repent of sins so much as repent of separation, have fellowship with their sufferings. It made all quarrels over doctrine seem trivial. I felt led by the Lord to buy more books from “Cult” of the Martyrs. What I was about to read was so blasphemous that avoiding them was a zillion times better than being sober. Richard Wurmbrand rejected grace and accepted an alternative proposal from a Jesus he had envisioned. It was as lordship as all get out. It made martyrdom seem like a requirement for salvation. He called acceptance of the free atonement the greatest wickedness. I think in retrospect that most of these modern day Perpetua stories were exaggerated. There was an agenda.
There were so many things said that are too horrible to quote here. The Shack pales in comparison. As I was recovering from the poison, Psalm 11:3 spoke to me. For me, these martyrdom lordshippers were destroying the foundations. How was I to live? I had so much other loadship to recover from in the next 20 years. It is so wonderful to go back to John 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 10:28.
As the years went by, I noticed more and more falsely so-called evangelicals promoting this garbage, as they do Bonhoeffer. Commercials on the radio during the breaks in Hanegraaff’s show promoted it, while flinging the epithet “cheap grace” at their beloved audience. Another source of trouble was the pantheism and mysticism that all the martyrs I had read from were prone to. Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Sienna (I call them aints) were quoted ad nauseam. VOM is currently implicated in sexual abuse scandals both here in the US and in Nigeria. If I hadn’t been into church history and Luther, I might have stayed clear of it all.
Also, my experience with the internet would suggest that I shouldn’t trust any churches that aren’t sister churches with ones we know, such as Northland and Duluth.
I fear for my mom, more than ever, as she finds fellowship in a United Methodist church.
Jason, it can be hard to tell with many churches.
I saw the following today in the statement of faith of a Bible college under the heading “About the Holy Spirit”:
The Christian seeks to live under his control daily.
My comment: The Christian SHOULD seek to live under His control daily. But, if it were automatic, or always the case, then there would be no biblical exhortation for believers to walk in the Spirit.
I share Phil’s suspicions. There is a Bible church near me that is small and has no website. Their marquee sign quotes a Bible verse about the Lordship of Christ. I feel that if they are serious about a clear gospel, their sign would reflect it. That sign does not tell me if they reject loadship, which to me is a non-negotiable. It is the sign that I mentioned on the thread about signs.
Jason, that happens on some computers. You can copy and paste it, and it will show up in its entirety. Here goes:
If you want to know the doctrine that a church teaches, don’t ask to read the doctrinal statement. It may be gathering dust! Meet several members of the congregation who have been there for at least three years. Ask them what they believe about certain topics of theology. These men and women are the real fruit of the pastor’s labors! And by them, you will know what he really believes. Their emphasis will be that which he has emphasized. Their ignorance on certain topics is simply a reflection of their pastor’s failure to address those topics with clarity and accuracy. Trees beget fruit after their own kind!
And what was the fruit of the Pharisees whom Jesus addressed above? What does Scripture teach us? “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15) Their fruit was to proclaim salvation by the works of the law to their disciples, to root their disciples in that doctrine that they became more a child of hell then their teachers! This was the “fruit” of the Pharisees. The term “fruit” is a figure of speech, and does not have a fixed meaning. As with any metaphor or figure of speech, its meaning is determined by its context. And to look to Paul’s words in Galatians 5:22-23 or Ephesians 5:9 for the meaning of the figure of speech “fruit” in this dialoge in the Gospel of Matthew is just plain nonsense.
The fruit of the Pharisees and Sadducees was the seed(s) of false doctrine that they planted, and the converts that sprung up from those seeds.
When I meet believers who are unclear on the gospel, and they tell me they have a very good Bible preaching pastor, and a solid doctrinal statement, but they are confused on the message of the gospel, and the doctrines thereof, I need not see the doctrinal statement, or meet their pastor. I have seen the fruit of his preaching in his disciples. This tells me more about their church than I could ever learn from aprinted doctrinal statement, or a face-to-face meeting with their pastor!
John, the right column in that link is defective. Half of the words are not showing.
Phil, Ron Shea has a section on “fruits” at Clear Gospel, under the “repentance” section. He says you can find out a lot about how clear a pastor or church is on the gospel by talking to some long-time members.
See link below:
http://old.cleargospel.org/topics.php?t_id=27&c_id=155
John, I too join holly, you and others here in thankfulness for this Grace Oasis Fellowship.. It has filled me with joy!
I am concerned with churches I have attended where their statements of beliefs will sound faith and grace alone in the gospel alone. BUT then you wonder what is their definition of “faith.” I made the mistake when i joined an IFCA BIble church in 1996 when their statement of faith sounded like you accept Christ as Savior by faith at some point, and from then on you are eternally secure. Little did I know the underlying meanings they attached to their version of “saving faith” that included “repenting of you sins” and a changed godly life, IOW, faith plus works. And I ended up leaving this church in 2000 because of the infestation of LS.
My point is, that now I am suspicious of any church even if they sound perfectly faith alone. And I wonder what their definition of “faith” really is? One Bible church that I have attended the last few years on and off sounded good, but the pastor quoted from Francis Chan on a couple of occasions. They also use the ESV Bible in their services. Another “sister church” of theirs in another town I have also attended, I saw a member toting John MacArthur Study Bible. This can be a bad sign that LS is spreading. I saw these JM Bibles in the IFCA church I mentioned that I gladly quit in 2000.
So my point is, how can you really know if a church believes and stands literally for salvation by grace through simply believing good news of ones salvation totally thru Christ alone? Even if their statement of faith is really meant to mean faith alone, what’s to say the leadership and/or membership hasn’t strayed off into LS legalism? Is it worth the time to meet with the pastor, elders, deacons, and membership to get to the truth of what they really believe? (BTW, these two recent Bible churches are both completely independent; they are not a part of the IFCA or any other association.)
I still attend church there sometimes, but i don’t want to take the chance again of getting involved and even becoming a member of what could turn out to be another LS/legalistic church that i will regret becoming a part of and end up quitting, again.
Holly, thanks for your true words.
And yes, they are very successful with their books.
In Germany there is a big and influential calvinist publisher, and he is not the only one of his kind here. Seems meanwhile they are dominating with the teachings they spread, from Puritans and Spurgeon up to MacArtuhr, Dever, Platt, Chan and so on. This publisher also runs an Internet-Blog, and there some time ago I read a post from a young believer who was confused about what the biblical truth is and desperately sought for help and orientation. The advise he got was: First read A. W. Pink! – Now, that’s not just false but horrific in my eyes! That really hurt me, as this person obviously was so anxious and unstable already. Could there be a worse trap to fall into? After reading some Pink quotes I don’t think so. Not positive, but sadly true.
Best regards in Christ, Chris
Johninnc, yes, usually always a loaded gospel, and if by some chance they might not have a loaded gospel, they seem to have compromise as the next issue. Usually they excuse their visits to TBN or associations with other Mega Pastors because they say they are ‘getting the gospel out’ as they lead the sheep to other wolves. I just pray some have their eyes opened, and some are protected.
Holly, it is a privilege to be able to discuss God’s word here among people who had a heart for the gospel, a heart for fellow believers, and a heart for those who are lost.
I am thankful for this ministry and all who participate.
Holly, it would seem that having a big audience to buy books, join mega-churches, etc., requires a message with a broad appeal, including ambiguity on the gospel in many cases.
Johninnc, I joined you in prayer for this site, for those who come looking for help, and for fellowship. I think like Foreigner Chris mentioned, so many I know do not have a local church family. I know some many across the states, and some in other countries who are suffering from lack of fellowship and sound teaching. Thankful for what the Lord has allowed to happen here, and praying that He will continue to bless it and lead people here that are enmeshed in error. So that they might know the truth, and the truth will set them free.
Foreigner Chris, it was mainly all I was concerned about. Reading these people can be devastating, and they’re everywhere. Seems odd that so many buy their books doesn’t it? The enemy is always prowling around seeking who he might devour.
I am so thankful also for this place of fellowship here. Many do not understand how important it is to know others who love the Lord and His Word — who defend the clarity of the gospel, who mark and avoid the false teachers, who look at Scripture in context. Who watch out for the other sheep 🙂 In Christ, Holly
Phil, thanks for your encouraging comment. This is a very special ministry and I am thankful for everyone who reads and contributes.
John, if this Grace Oasis did not already have a mission statement, then what you just posted would make a great one!
I never read Lloyd-Jones, but I heeded plenty of other erroneous sources because I didn’t know better.
I got into church history
I studied the reformation
I read Luther
I listened to Hanegraaff
I read Tortured for Christ
Other works by Wurmbrand
VOM newsletters
CS Lewis (not just fiction)
Tony Evans
Charles Stanley
Herbert Armstrong
Plain “Truth” magazine
Peter Kreeft
Richard Abanes
Kenneth Gentry on prophecy
Gordon Fee
Craig Wynn (sacred name)
Smith Wigglesworth
Michael L Brown
Left Behind series
I could go on. I went to the GES site before I came here. One of my own teachers at a Christian school was already leading me astray with Calvinism, warnings about apostasy, and warnings about sinful lifestyles.
Foreigner Chris, I join you in asking God to bless this ministry. I pray that those who come here who know Jesus as Savior will seek to honor God with their posts, that we will be faithful to Him and His word, that we will comfort and encourage one another, that we will be bold in proclaiming and defending the gospel, that we will be gentle and wise, that we won’t become confused with the wisdom of men, and that we will not allow our comments to become sidetracked with unimportant things.
Also, I pray that those who come here who are seeking truth, and do not know Jesus as Savior, would hear/read and understand the gospel message.
I was reading Lloyd-Jones, like Spurgeon, in the past, when I didn’t know better yet. But not anymore. It can be even devastating. Meanwhile I avoid them prudently. Recently I left my calvinist church after almost a year as a member (was not my first wrong choice of a church since I became a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ more than three years ago; there are several terrible, false things these days), and for sure I will not go back into these fruitinspecting circles who admire people like John MacArhtur and Paul Washer and accept the puritans as authorities.
I went through this error for some time and then found to the truth of God’s grace. That was a true liberation! Mainly thanks to this website of the Expreacherman Jack Weaver and you all who keep it alive. I thank God for it, it’s invaluable. May He bless and protect this oasis of grace He has given to us. There are not many other places to stand for the true Gospel message of God’s grace in the Lord Jesus consistently. I don’t know of any in my town or in the whole country. Church is important, but what to do? As long as we still have the Internet, and thus the opportunity to listen to some biblically sound sermons, it’s not too bad but full of blessings!
Definitely I’ll remain a loyal reader here and maybe from time to time ask a question or something.
God bless you all.
And I will probably never read Lloyd-Jones to get familiar with his teachings, lol.
Hello Holly, I completely agree with you. By no means I wanted to recommend Lloyd-Jones’ teachings. I just find it noteworthy that Dave Hunt ignores the basic difference between justification and sanctification pertaining eternal life, a difference which is pointed out even by Lloyd-Jones (whose views I don’t share in many important points).
Foreigner Chris, so sorry, I copied the wrong quote down, (although I still heartily disagree with Lloyd-Jones) I’d like to paste the correct one.
The main characteristic of people who are sanctified is that God is in the center of their lives. That is the first thing we may say about them. Before we get them to say what they do or do not do with regard to a particular action, we must be clear about the central, primary, most vital thing…Sanctification is that which separates us from sin unto God…The essence of sanctification is that I love God in whom I believe and who has been revealed to me, with the whole of my being…Sanctification is a matter of being rightly related to God, and becoming entirely devoted to him…not only separated from the world but separated unto God and sharing his life (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Sanctified Through the Truth (Westchester: Crossway, 1989), p. 86, 85, 91, 77).
Hobbs – me too… our flesh and blood isn’t going, what is corrupt cannot inherit the incorrupt (1 Cor 15).
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Cor 13:12
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 24-25
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 1 Cor 15:50-58
Foreigner Chris, glad you’re back.
I have to share, I absolutely believe D.M. Lloyd-Jones completely has it wrong in a different way then Dave Hunt, and likely a lot more serious.
Even though he makes a distinction between justification and sanctification, (who am I?) I still don’t think he’s even close to what Scripture teaches. What his definitions are just don’t square up with Scripture. I don’t agree that justification always pertains to eternal life or that sanctification always pertains to discipleship, so I see it more as asking the question justified to whom or in what respect, or sanctified in what respect — one time positionally before God or in our walk as believers?
A short example is James 2, we know this justification is not speaking to eternal life, however Lloyd-Jones would find it so, a proof that these men were saved. And Heb 10:10,14, speaks of sanctification as a one time happening (as in positional salvation – perfected forever) but not the same sanctification as Jesus prayed in John 17:17 (for them to be sanctified by the truth), or as we see the bride being cleaned up (Eph 5:26) by the washing in the water by the Word. I may not be explaining it well, but I can’t agree with him at all.
Here is an example how he views sanctification and justification:
Lloyd Jones says, “Christ himself says: ‘Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 7:21). The apostle John warns us that a profession of salvation will be proved by a life of obedience to the commandments of God, i.e. a life of sanctification (1 Jn. 2:3–6). Paul teaches that only those who have forsaken sin and are walking in holiness of life will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–11; Eph. 5:5–6; Gal. 5:19–21).
Yes, obviously.
One thing still, mentioned by Holly: While reading in Hunts book, I , too, was wondering, how he could stay in brotherly respect to calvinists whose teachings he with outrage had recognized as willful misinterpretations of the scriptures and of God’s loving natue in order to support (or save) the calvinist system. After all, that seemed not to be too big a problem to him. Just amazed me.
Double-minded men, dilogoi, are everywhere. It is impossible to tell apart the grace posers from the grace fallers, those who who pretend to be saved by grace and those who fall from it. Only the latter are saved, and both are unprofitable. Luther was such a man. Sola fide, and then baptismal backdoor.
One thing I love about the book of James is that it warns of such men. They are unstable in all their ways.
At best, Dave Hunt’s contradictory comments revealed double-mindedness.
Holly and fryingpan9, sorry for my late answer, normally I’m here almost every day but now it came to a little break.
For me, too, it is obvious that Dave Hunt makes no distinction between salvation and sanctification. For him discipleship and saving faith obviously are the same. Didn’t he know the doctrin of justification (before God)? I mean, even the presbyterian calvinist M. Lloyd-Jones makes it clear that there is nothing so erroneous, confusing and unbiblical as not to recognize the difference between justification and sanctification. Very true, of course.
Dave Hunts book on Calvinism is indeed well researched an written, and the first half of it was excellent and delighting to read. But then at a certain point this LS attitude comes to it, and it really poisons the second half of the book. I could hardly read it all to the end. Besides two other clear passages before, Hunt states: “Man has not the last word. If he is not willing to turn to God wholeheartedly, he is eternally lost.” If I’m not mistaken, this is Lordship “Salvation”.
And as far as I saw, he never mentions the possibility of carnal believers, but here I may have missed something.
Anyway, I was curious what he writes about the point of “perseverance of the saints”, and that was interesting. There he brings a clear biblical anti-LS-message, but not without a certain point of tension due to his LS tendency, when he writes:
“But to find assurance in ones good works leaves questions unanswered, because it cannot be denied, as we already mentioned, that the visible good works of the unsaved sometimes embarrass PROFESSING, christians.” – A few pages before he said the same thing with another word which makes it even more clear:
“The bible and experience are proving that all people do something good; and some ‘totally depraved’ people sometimes behave better than some APPARENTLY (or SEEMINGLY) real christians.”.
Sounds to me as if nevertheless Hunt is in doubt if such christians are “real” christians because of a certain lack of works.
Very sad, because Hunts biblical refutation of Calvinism in general is indeed excellent, as far as I can say. But a false salvation message “leaveneth the whole lump”. Therefore I have no good feeling with his writings anymore.
Sorry for the length of this comment. Should be enough now!
Thanks Holly.
‘…one day though we’ll be perfectly conformed to the image of Jesus’
Amen, what a relief that’ll be! :’)
Curtis, you said that Religion tries to bypass Christ Jesus by good works.
Well put! They say Lord, Lord… but they declare their own wonderful works. These very same men that often use that passage in Matthew 7, condemn themselves with all blindness.
I can’t imagine what would have happened if the Israelites had confessed their unworthiness and inability. They might have all been prophets.
All that the LORD hath spoken we will do
The First promise keepers meeting..
and how did that go for the Children of Isreal?
All that the LORD hath spoken we will do
EXO 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
I whatched a cooking video were the person interviewed Menonite ladies and she asked the oldest lady “what makes you different from all the religions of the world?
Her response :
” We follow the Bible doing what we feel the Bible is teaching us we read the Bible and live by that”
They are living like the Hebrews of Old Testament were believing God is righteousness.
The new testament or better Covenant Christ Jesus and His Finished work is the Standard for righteousness. Religion trys to bypass Christ Jesus by good works.
When we place faith/believe in/on Christ Jesus we receive the Free gift of eternal life and our life is hid in Christ before God.
col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Everything Everything that counts for eternity being sealed by Holy Spirit is produced by Holy Spirit anything else simply does not count. That production is a byproduct of fellowship With God Through His Word.
The believer soul looking for production will never see it because it is invisible and vertical.
The Holy Spirit gets ahold of us through the Word of God applying the Promises of God to the problems of life.
Application of The Truth of God’s word to experience.
Hobbs – your prior comment just seemed to me a humble confession of what I understand too. The whole Christian ‘walk’ for me was like dieting. Fall off the wagon and try again or delay for a day or weekend and start on Monday 🙂 And it was consistent failure because I really didn’t understand what I needed.
Like John said, none of us are committed perfectly, just can’t happen, one day though we’ll be perfectly conformed to the image of Jesus. I am in awe of the loadshippers who think they are doing something well enough and yet they have never fulfilled the greatest two commandments. None of us have. We may strive to do it, but we can’t. It keeps us pointed in the right direction. Looking unto Jesus. We need Him, we need His Word, and we need to put on our armor each day.
John and Curtis, thanks for supportive/encouraging comments.
Jason, either that, or it is a continuation of Paul’s defense of the resurrection.
Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
How did you receive Christ? by faith
Walk is your life
so how do we walk? by faith
were does faith come from?
Wake up tomorrow morning and say Im going to commit my life to Christ and I can guarantee you failure.
does God need our Help to live the Christian Life? .
God has given us The Holy Spirit.
Does Holy Spirit need to make a commitment to serve God?
Failure is the key to success in The Christian Life. God shows us by our failures were we are getting in the way for Him to live the Christian life through us.
Commitment to Christ, Faithfulness is a by product of Holy Spirit as we abide in His Word.
Hobbs, I think many of us can identify with not being perfectly committed to Christ at all times. I am also thankful that God provided completely for our salvation through Christ Jesus.
I’m feeling somewhat uncomfortable when I read my recent statement: ‘Even now I can’t honestly say I’m committed to Him’. That sounds very wrong and shameful. And really, it is. It’s my reasonable service to live for Him.
But it does serve to hightlight the commitment issue;
it’s good, it’s right, but no believer will ever be perfectly committed this side of heaven.
And that’s why it makes no sense in a salvation context;
God doesn’t expect anything from us at salvation but belief.
And it’s another reason why God’s Grace is better than ‘Lordship’ Probation – you can talk openly about your weaknesses without fear of being ‘consigned to hell’ every 5 seconds!
Ok I feel a bit better now.
Another nuisance is the common misuse of “die daily” in 1 Cor 15:31. I don’t see how it has anything to do with dying to sin. It seems that Paul is saying that it kills him that they are carnally boasting.
Foreigner Chris Thank you for commenting, it is clear to me from the quote you translated from the German edition, that Dave Hunt had problems separating discipleship from salvation/gospel truths.
He also had difficulty separating from those he identified as ‘brethren’. Odd that he would suggest some are not saved (how do I know Barabbas was or was not?) and yet state that some (in false doctrine) are brethren? I was watching his Calvinism expose, and he was calling them all his Calvinist brethren. Way back then it was troublesome to me. Not sure how you can identify someone as teaching a false gospel as a brother (or even not a brother), but should we call them brethren? If they are saved, the Lord knows, but I’m not stating that when I don’t know. Funny how they can know the opposite by behavior, but not know when someone’s doctrine (fruit) identify them as a false prophet.
I also wrote his sidekick (McCall) regarding going to conferences with Calvinist speakers, but he also had no issue with that and excused it in his answer to me. Allowing leaven in is obviously an issue, and it is going to affect their followers.
It will also affect people like Dave Hunt. I remember him defending Rick Warren as a brother, which to me shows he is defending works and a name vs. the proclamation of the true gospel. Whether Dave was clear once, I do not know, sure hope so, but I do know that his compromise at the very least also cost him in not having a clear gospel.
The misuse of 2 Cor 13:5 is typical of load-ship (lordship) sadly. But really it’s inexcusable if people will just look at the Word in context. No way is Paul suggesting these people are NOT saved because of their carnal, unruly, divisive behavior. In fact he is basing the proof of his apostleship on the FACT that they ARE saved and have the Holy Spirit in them, even with his comment ‘unless they be reprobates’ proves they are not, because he again is using this second sarcastic statement to back up the fact that he is an apostle. (They aren’t going to claim they’re reprobates) and he identified them as believers all throughout the same letter. These people act as if each verse or each chapter was some separate entity. I shake my head, these men are teachers, yet can’t follow a simple method of contextual interpretation when they touch on a passage. No fear either evidently, it scares me to misuse a portion of God’s Word (Is 66:2), how do they so lightly handle God’s Word? Or is it just deceitful handling? (2 Cor 4)
Calvary Chapel is a greedy corporation disguised as a church. It was Hanegraaff’s former church, which he left when he joined Aint Nectarios.
Point taken, johninnc. I will reconsider my previous statement about continuing to ingest his propaganda.
I remember when you called me out on my dawdling to get out of the Calvary Chapel church I finally abandoned on Memorial Day weekend in 2013. You used the same word: POISON
fryingpan, I try to avoid poison like Dave Hunt, no mattrer how strong I think I am.
If the Apostle Peter could be swayed from the truth, who am I to think I am impervious?
Hello foreigner Chris,
+1 to what johninnc said: “Foreigner Chris, we will probably have some readers and commenters who disagree, but I see it the same way you do – Dave Hunt taught Lordship “salvation.” ”
Dave Hunt TOTALLY taught Lordship “salvation” but if I had to guess I’d say he just didn’t realize it. I used to eat, drink and SLEEP “all things Dave Hunt” but I was also mired and confused in a terrible LS “haze” for many years and reading Dave Hunt, while helping me in other ways, only exacerbated the problem.
If you search this thread for my comments you’ll find PLENTY about Dave Hunt. It’s really sad too because he was a great writer and lecturer and I had the pleasure of meeting him in 2001.
Here’s a typical Dave Hunt type answer to a common question believers ask other believers:
Inquiring Mind: “So, what would you say about someone who claims to be a Christian but is so lost in sin that they may as well be like someone lost in the world and mired in their sin?”
Dave Hunt Devotee: “I’d say they were never saved in the first place.”
Dave may have written The Non-Negotiable Gospel, but if you have immersed yourself in his work like I had in the past you will notice LOTS of red flags concerning what we here basically call a “back loaded” gospel. Dave was really good at proclaiming a clear gospel on the front end, but unfortunately much back door Lordship Salvation made it’s way into his understanding of things. Stuff like, “I would question how sincere that person was when they “believed”, and “We offer no comfort to those who recite a prayer but who have no evidence of a life changed by Christ.” (I’m not quoting directly, but my paraphrases are accurate and fair.)
And I will say that I’ve heard and read Dave defend VERY CLEARLY the gospel in terms of it being by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And it was actually T.A. McMahon who once on their radio show explained very clearly that (and gain I have to paraphrase) “Anyone who believes and puts their faith in Christ is saved. Period. It’s that simple.” (But by that time I was so confused I remember thinking something like, “Well, I know I’ve heard that and I believed it but . . . ” –I was so confused I was temporarily unable to fully accept the real gospel of grace by faith when it was being presented to me!)
My immersion in Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon’s works did NOT enlighten me enough to avoid saying or believing silly and unbiblical things such as:
“Well, OBVIOUSLY you can’t be a Christian if you’re not willing to be devoted to following Christ.”
It’s almost ironic because when asked about the Chronicles of Narnia being made into a film (released in 2005–the first one, that is), Dave was dismissive and said something like, “Why not just read the real thing?” (Meaning of course, the Bible, and not some man-made allegory.)
Good idea Dave. Maybe I should extend your advice to times when I want to read YOUR take on what’s in there . . .
In truth though, I will probably still read some of his books again, but that’s only because 1) I know how to not be tripped up by his bad theology now and 2) they’re REALLY well researched and written.
But I could never recommend him to anyone I thought might have an INKLING towards being swayed by the false doctrine that infected much of his thinking. If you can handle it, you will find plenty of examples of what I’m talking about in the Beyond Seduction DVD series, which are lectures based on his promotion of that book, which was the sequel to The Seduction of Christianity. (Administrator-feel free to delete anything in here that you feel might be a stumbling block. I just know it’s not a stumbling block for me anymore. In fact, it’s the opposite–it’s work study that helps me hone my LS doctrine spotting skills.)
After hearing all the things that are said about the Tea Party, Islam, 9/11 (“truthers” are a mess), Sarah Palin, the Great Depression I and II, and list goes on, I have to say I absolutely agree. They could probably get away with writing whole books and attributing them to their enemies back then.
jason, with so much of current news being slanted, or even invented out of thin air, who is to say how much of history can be believed?
I don’t fret about it. I think there has always been a contingent that has taught the gospel faithfully. I don’t know what the numbers are, but I would not be surprised if it has always been a narrow subset of professing Christendom.
The Bible says that there is a straight gate and a narrow way that few find. I think that was true when Jesus said it and I think it has been true ever since.
How many churches are there that haven’t muddled it? I can only think of Duluth, Northland, a few in Florida, and Gracia y Fe in Washington, DC. That’s less than the number of churches Paul wrote to. To think that I once thought that Calvinists and Wesleyans were “within the pale of orthodoxy”.
Who was the real deal 30 years ago? Stanley? Bowen ripped him to shreds. Ryrie? His double-mindedness was exposed. My own church taught me a clear gospel by the age of ten, but then I heard that I could deny Christ.
Before then? Chafer is often quoted here, but I have seen doubts raised. Even Darby was Calvinist.
Before 1800? Dispensationalism did not exist. Everyone replaced Israel with the church. Every teacher confused the bema with the white throne. No one dared split the second coming. “No more condemnation” was much harder to believe.
Before 1700? Not puritans. Anne Hutchinson? Maybe, but I have heard too many bad things. Roger Williams? Since I don’t go to church, I can relate.
Before 1600? Certainly not Calvin and luther. I browsed a writing of Menno Simons, and I saw repent of sins.
Before 1500? Maybe Wycliffe and Hus. It is too easy for back doors to slip through.
Before 1300? Total darkness. I hear about various groups, but human nature has not changed. If most movements are muddy mixtures today, they sure were back then. Meanwhile, Mary, Mary, Mary.
When I studied Latin, I got the impression that everyone who uses it loves the eloquence of words and despises plain speech. The first three chapters of the Vulgate’s gospel of John are the easiest Latin I ever read. The Aeneid is still light years ahead of me.
4th century? None of the councils. The creeds have too many essentials, and the essential of essentials is left unsaid. John 3:16 is no one’s favorite verse and is never quoted. Constantine advances big government by bringing it into the church. Monks murder Hypatia.
3rd century? Persecution breaks out, and many brethren deny Christ. Everyone thinks they are going to hell. Everyone lives in fear. No assurance found. Imagine two brothers face persecution. They both trust in baptism. One denies Christ, the other loses his head. The former hears the gospel at a church whose bishop we will never hear about. The former believes. The latter just goes to hell. If you believe a false gospel, it is actually better to deny Christ, imagine that. Better to deny Christ and live to hear the gospel and believe than to die for Christ only to wake up at the white throne and hear those dreaded words, “I never knew you”. He who saves his life might find it, but he who loses his life for a false gospel’s sake will only lose it because the way is narrow and he did not find it. Then again, you could just as well deny the Buddha because there is no difference.
To make matters worse, if you did not trust the bishops, you probably did not have a bible to study for yourself. The printing press was not invented.
The church fathers? They were the fathers of lordship. The desert fathers were the worst. Vigilantius gets in an argument with Jerome about asceticism, but the argument never turns to believer’s justification.
2nd century? Irenaeus is confused. He was discipled by Polycarp, also confused. Polycarp was under John, so he must have heard the clear gospel, right? No evidence in his writings. Polycarp may have been saved, but he didn’t save Irenaeus. Shepherd of Hermas is John MacArthur. Clement of Rome sounds like a disciple of Paul but then he muddles it just like Ryrie. Just one generation from the apostles, and the lampstands have all been removed.
1st century? We know from scripture that Paul and John had it. Peter kept going back to Judaism, and the rest were confused. James the “just” kept sending the lordshippers, yet his book is cannon. Hebrews was very likely written by Paul, because the rest were too confused to write it, lol. But who is to say the Holy Spirit cannot inspire a confused person? Even James may have momentarily left Judaism. Surely, the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia had a clear gospel, or they would have been corrected.
Church history is not kind toward Simon the Sorcerer, whom we are told was saved. So much of it is gossip and unreliable. Sometimes I am left with the impression that early lordshippers had gnostics and Bible believers confused. Church history seems to be entirely about the successors of Diotrephes (the first pope?) and those we are warned would arise from our midst. Which is why we call it “churchianity history” here.
Surely, I have thought, the way is narrow and few find it but not that few. Therefore, I thought the reformed churches were acceptable, or we are without hope. History seems like a series of lordship events, and His Story has been lost in the shuffle. I guess most people get saved, if they get saved, in the land of confusion and never find true fellowship.
Hobbs, you’re right – receiving eternal life is not about us making a commitment to reform ourselves, or to follow Christ in obedience.
To be honest I don’t recall ever committing myself to the Lord when I got saved, as a 7 or 8 year old. I just one day understood what He did for me and believed it.
Even now I can’t honestly say I’m committed to Him, I’m often a jumbled mess. Maybe that will change, maybe it won’t.
But He is the object of my hope, especially when I think of dying.
These days, whenever I wobble over my salvation I speak to the Lord and confirm that I’m trusting in Him as the keeper of my soul. I really don’t know what else any of us can do. He knows our feeble frame, He knows we are attacked from all sides in such a depraved generation. He loves us dearly and I imagine is overjoyed whenever an individual just…. simply….. believes.
At that point they are rescued, He then has them safe for all eternity.
Yes, the wolves will happily rip me to shreds for such a ‘naive’ comment.
BTW, Middletown Bible Church, another grace poser, used the IFCA POS statement to validate their own assault on the gospel.
Phil, the IFCA has LS written into their statement of beliefs. Please see below:
“This We Believe”
“The Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA) published a doctrinal booklet entitled This We Believe. On page 30 of this booklet (the Chapter on Eternal Security and Assurance of Salvation) there is a section entitled, “The Marks of a True Believer.” It reads as follows:
Not everyone who professes Christ actually possesses Christ. Some people profess Christ but by their works they deny Him (Titus 1:16). Some name the name of Christ but they do not depart from iniquity (2 Tim. 2:19). With their lips they say that they know Christ, but they are found to be liars (1 John 2:4).
It is therefore needful for each professing believer to examine himself to see whether or not he has truly believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible clearly reveals certain marks which should characterize every child of God. Some of these are as follows:
The true believer (1) believes the Word of God (1 John 5:9-12); (2) hungers for the Word of God (1 Pet. 2:2); (3) loves the brethren (1 John 3:14); (4) obeys God’s commands (1 John 2:3-5); (5) performs good works (2 John 11; James 2:17-26); (6) does not continue in sin but lives a righteous life (1 John 2:29; 3:6-10; 5:18; 2 Tim. 2:19); etc.
Obviously believers often fail to fully exhibit the above characteristics, and yet if a person truly has life, that life will be manifested (1 John 5:12). Those who consistently live in sin have no right to claim assurance of salvation.”
Hunt is not the only one saying grace alone and then slipping in works. Les Feldick who emphatically says that you just believe the gospel of your salvation (! Cor 15) and that’s it, you’re saved: no works need to follow. But then he will sometimes say that if the believer continues in sin,,.”Well, I wonder if the person was ever saved in the first place.” Which is it Les, faith alone, or faith plus a changed lifestyle in the person? Also, Feldick is ultra dispensational– the church didn’t actually start until some point in mid Acts..Who knows when that could be? Also they over divide the Bible instead of rightly dividing it.
Also, on the late Dave Hunt, I saw an article of his written in “Voice” magazine of the IFCA from 1997. The IFCA says they are grace alone in their Statement of Faith, but the Bible church I used to be in was LS. And as far as I know J Mac is still a part of the IFCA. I wonder how many of the IFCA member churches have been seduced into LS over the years since the “Moses of Lordship salvation, J Mac, has been spreading his false “gospel according to Jesus”.
Foreigner Chris, and that is Lordship “salvation.”
Here is an excerpt from the website I mentioned where Dave Hunt quotes from one of his books, defendig the content, and I think, that says it all:
I didn’t say that those living in sin “have no right to assurance of salvation.” I said, “We offer no comfort or assurance to those living in sin; we don’t say, ‘You’re okay because you once made a decision for Christ.’ Instead we warn, ‘If you are not willing right now to live fully for Christ as Lord of your life, how can you say that you were really sincere when you supposedly committed yourself to Him…in the past?’ And to all, we declare with Paul, ‘Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith…’ (2 Cor:13:5).”
I agree that Hunt was teaching Lordship and was going to say so, but I forgot that point while composing the message.
I have never heard of a gospel of Barabbas, not even in the pseudepigrapha. That is a backslap from Dave Hunt, just as backhanded as “cheap grace” and “easy-believism”.
I first knew of Hunt from A Woman Rides the Beast. In that book, Hunt seemed to be a full Calvinist. Hunt believes that the “reformation” was genuine. I gave that book away a long time ago, while wandering in the land of confusion myself.
Jason, agree that the Bible doesn’t make it clear whether or not Barabbas was a believer.
My problem with Dave Hunt’s statement is that he made it sound like a person who is unwilling to change his way of life would not receive eternal life.
The Bible does not teach that someone must be willing to, or even desire to change his way of life in order to receive the free gift of eternal life. If one had to be willing to change his way of life in order to receive eternal life, then eternal life would not be a gift. It would be a trade.
Barabbas is a type for believer’s justification, but Barabbas is not justified unless he was a believer, which the Bible does not actually say, unless I missed something.
Lagerkvist has written a fictional account of Barabbas, and the story leaves me with the impression that Barrabas was right at the empty tomb and yet never understood the true gospel. He gets wrong definitions of a Christian throughout the story. From the brethren, he learns that a Christian is one who prays daily; from a rumor, one who sets fires to Rome; and finally from the persecutor, one who does not deny Christ. All these definitions are woefully wrong, and the first and last fit the Lordship paradigm. He even tries to witness the Resurrection and misses it, leaving me uncertain the author himself believes it is factual. When he asks for doctrine, all he hears is love one another, no promise or assurance. All through his life, he “wants” to believe and can’t. He never learns that that the gospel is simple or that faith is a matter of persuasion. You would think that a real character who had lingered at the scene of events as long as this fictional portrayal, would have had an encounter with the risen Savior. The story seems sad and gloomy and typifies the experience of a confused believer in the lordship land of deception.
Foreigner Chris, there are quite a few folks who claim to oppose LS, but who contradict that claim. Hunt appears to have been in that category.
Thanks John. I just found a statement of Dave Hunt concerning these matters on the Berean Call website where he denies promoting Lordship “Salvation”, but I find it quite confused, no clear and convincing stand. It’s Indeed better to avoid his works.
Foreigner Chris, we will probably have some readers and commenters who disagree, but I see it the same way you do – Dave Hunt taught Lordship “salvation.”
We had previously seen and commented on part of the Dave Hunt quote about Barabbas that you mentioned. Please see below:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/12/18/dave-hunts-berean-call-promoting-not-only-calvinism-but-now-the-terrible-lordship-salvation-of-ray-comfort/#comment-58973
I do not recommend Dave Hunt, and will not personally use any material (sermons, etc.) in which he is favorably quoted.
I would like to contribute something concerning Dave Hunts understanding of the Gospel. First of all, I apologize for my faulty English, as I’m a German reader of this wonderful website, who unfortunately is lacking practice and perfection in the English language (with my best conscience). For the rest, I hope, with some good will you will be able to understand what I’m trying to say.
To me it seems clear that Dave Hunt did not make a distinction between salvation and discipleship (or between salvation and sanctification). I currently read his book “What Love is This?” and found it excellent so far. But now I’m at a point which confused me. Unfortunately I have only the german translation of the book, so I have to quote it in my own english words. In chapter 19 “Abusing God’s word”, Hunt writes:
“Some go even further and argue it would be a mockery of righteousness that Christ, an innocent, was punished instead of the guilty and therefore the guilty are free. Strictly speaking, that is not the gospel according to Paul but according to Barabbas. Barabbas could say: ‘Christ died for me, in my place.’ That’s true but Christ’s death in his place had neither an eternal nor a moral effect on Barabbas. It delievered the criminal just to continue in living for himself again. The truth of the gospel was expressed by Paul: ‘I am crucified with Christ … (and) Christ liveth in me’ (Galatians 2:19-20). Indeed have all who believe in Christ and gave up their lifes the way they would have lived it, and who in faith accepted His death as their own death, been crucified with him. That wasn’t the case with Barabbas, although Christ died in his place. Who not believes in Christ, has not accepted His death as his own death and will therefore eternally suffer ‘the other’ death (Revelation 20:14-15).”
Now, am I mistaken, or is this understanding of the gospel a clear Lordship Salvation message?
And earlier in the same book, at the end of chapter 17 “Foreknowledge and Predestination/Election”, Hunt writes (about the correct understanding of 2 Thess 2:13):
“If all are elected unto salvation, then why are not all saved? Christ said to his disciples: ‘Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot … he it was that should betray him …’ (John 6:70-71). Judas was one of those who were elected as disciples, but by his own decision he did not fulfill this call and is in hell now.”
If I get that right, Dave Hunt says here, that an unfulfilled call for discipleship is a reason for not being saved, rather than lack of faith in what Christ did on the cross.
Quickly going through another one of his books called “An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith” (which I also have only in german language) I find the same “Gospel” message. Hunt states in the chapter entitled “The Cross that saves us”:
“Christ himself reminded his listeners repeatedly, that it is impossible to be his disciple and therefore a true christian without denying yourself and taking up your cross daily.” Where have I heard that before? Didn’t Dave Hunt know about imputet righteousness, as he thinks we are justified by the works of following the Lord?
I’m sorry for not quoting Hunt’s original english words, but that’s what I read from him, and it leaves me deeply disappointed.
Hi Rick,
This is the 590th comment on this thread so I don’t expect you’d read every comment here, but if you read some of my comments (I’d start w/ the most recent and work your way back . . . sort of) you’ll get a better insight into how someone who used to be a HUGE “fan” of Dave and The Berean Call could become so disheartened and disillusioned.
I do know for a fact that Dave attended a Calvary Chapel in his final days (or at least not long before his last year or two alive) and while Chuck Smith was diligent in disavowing all 5 points of Calvinism, his movement nonetheless is not clear on the gospel and people getting saved in those churches are being saved in SPITE of their theology, not because of it.
Hi Rick, Here are some of my thoughts. I don’t know a whole lot about Dave except I have read those books, (although it’s been many years now). I watched a few videos too, what Love is this I believe was a several parter back then. Those videos troubled me in that he compromised on ‘brothers in Christ’ such as Rick Warren and some of the very Calvinists he was exposing, he was identifying them all as brothers in Christ. I wondered how he could call their gospel false and then so very confidently identify them as brethren?
And then when he passed away one of the first things MacMahon did was speak in a conference side by side with almost all Calvinists. I wrote him asking why. The answer was placating and vague at the same time. Is it compromise? Don’t know, the Lord does, but I do know Jesus warned of just a little leaven and so I believe it’s what we have to do also. After that I was kind of done with the group entirely.
Rick, sometimes people that teach against something will make comments that seem to embrace some tenets of what they profess to teach against.
I have no idea how you can believe the late David Hunt supported Calvinism. This is totally false. Two books alone completely destroy your view. 1.” Debating Calvinism”, debating the Calvinist James White. 2. “What Love is this?” ‘ Calvin’s misrepresentation of the Gospel.’ Plus all the debates I’ve seen him debating against Calvinists. And all the talks I heard on his site The Berean Call. You sir are in error of this subject. I suggest you read the books. If you already have you definitely need prayer.
John,
It’s somewhat cloudy to me but I think of it this way: Calvinists are LSers. Arminians are LSers. Not all LSers are Calvinist or Arminian. The Calvinists have set a bar for themselves. To them, one must hold to all 5 points of TULIP, as they define them, or one is not in the club. They generally label all others as Arminian. The Arminian also seems to label (or accept) all non-Calvinist as Arminian (they have a bigger tent it seems).
Ariminianism is harder for me to get a handle on because I haven’t dealt as much with it. Also there seems to be different degrees of Arminianism i.e. Classical, Wesleyan, Semi- Pelagian.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism center on 5 points and their arguments are over those 5 points with perseverance being the linchpin for both.
That being said I do run across people who express all 5 points of the TULIP yet claim not to be Calvinist. I think they just don’t know the name of what they have been taught.
Calvinism is more unified while Arminianism seems to be fragmented.
William, the more I learn about Islam and its adherents, particularly the apologists and debaters, the more resemblance I too see between Islam and Calvinism as well as between the adherents, apologists and debaters; between Allah and God as conceived by Calvinist. Both Islam and Calvinism teach perseverance, that God does not love all, that He decrees the evil in the world—as you said—fatalism.
Calvinism certainly relies on theologically contrived definitions of key words to prop up their presuppositions. I’m not so sure how it works in Islam with the Quran and other writings, but the Calvinist claim “sola scriputra” yet lean heavily on creeds and tradition and rarely fail to appeal to them.
William, interesting comparison to fatalism.
What’s fascinating to me is how some LSers will swear they are not Calvinists, yet still hold to the perseverance of the saints heresy.
John, Yes, Calvinism is just another name for Satanism. Also, Calvinism’s perverted definition of “predestination” and “election” sounds identical to the Islamic belief of fatalism. Satan has so many creative ways of repackaging the same thing under different names.
William, wow!
Those quotes fit pretty well with the logical, but false conclusion of Calvinism that God caused sin.
Calvinism is the epitome of Satanic evil. Check out what the following Calvinist apologists had to say regarding sin and evil:
1) Loraine Boettner – “Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God” – In his book, “The Reformed doctrine of Predestination, page 234
2) Jerom Sanchius – “Surely, if God had not willed the fall, He could, and no doubt would, have prevented it; but He did not prevent it: ergo, He willed it. And if He willed it, He certainly decreed it.” – In his book, “The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination” page 88.
3) A.W. Pink – “Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed.” In his book, “The Sovereignty of God” page 147, (1961).
4) A.W. Pink – “Not only did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, but He decreed beforehand that he should do so.” In his book, “The Sovereignty of God” page 249
5) Edwin Palmer – “It is even Biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. If sin was outside the plan of God, then not a single important affair of life would be ruled by God.” In his book, “The 5 Points of Calvinism” page 82
6) William Shedd – “Nothing comes to pass contrary to his desire. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which He abhors and forbids, occurs “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” In his book, “Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, page 37, 1986.
7) J. Gresham Machen – “All things including even the wicked actions of wicked men and devils — are brought to pass in accordance with God’s eternal purpose.” In his book, “Christian View of Man, page 46, 1965.
8) William Shedd – “Sin is one of the “whatsoevers” that have “come to pass”, all of which are “ordained”. In his book, “Calvinism” Pure and Mixed, page 31, 1986.
Dr William Watson has done considerable research into pre-Darby rapture beliefs (so has Tommy Ice). Watson had access to a data base assembled by the University of California of thousands of English language books dated from the 15th-18th century. Darby may have popularized futurism and the use of a literal hermeneutic of the prophetic, but futurism and the pre-trib rapture certainly pre date him.
Most people who are adamantly opposed to the pre-trib rapture actually hold to positions that are reactions against the pre-trib view and therefore those positions are newer to the “church” than the resurgence of the pre-trib doctrine. The old post trib position was that the tribulation (and book of Revelation) was ongoing (not 7 years) through the Church age, therefore they of course thought the rapture was after the tribulation—they were living through the tribulation.
I was in a conversation with a lady who used the “new- 1800’s” argument to dissuade me from the pre-trib rapture while trying to persuade me of the “pre-wrath” view. I pointed out that the “pre-wrath” view was first expounded in the 1990’s. She never replied.
Holly, these outside sources, from long ago, reinforce the proof from scripture that the rapture is not a new teaching.
John, on the pre-tribulation rapture, there is proof even in outside literature which I’m going to grab from a paper I started years ago, before I complete this post.
This is from a book ‘Understanding End Times Prophecy’ by Paul Benware, from what I have found so far, I have seen no hints of Calvinism or loadship from him. But always prove all things.
• “Peter Jurieu in his book, Approaching Deliverance of the Church (1687) taught that Christ would come in the air to rapture the saints and return to Heaven before the battle of Armageddon… (Holly: we see the word “rapture” that they say was not taught until the 1800s)
• Philip Doddridge’s commentary on the New Testament (1738) and John Gill’s commentary on the New Testament (1748) both use the term rapture and speak of it as imminent. It is clear these men believed that this coming will precede Christ’s descent to the earth and the time of judgment. The purpose was to preserve believers from the time of judgment.
• James Macknight (1763) and Thomas Scott (1792) taught that the righteous (that’s US!) will be carried to heaven, where they will be secure until the time of judgment is over.”
Here are a couple more, none are to say the teachers were sound, just to show that it was not some new idea that Darby came up with.
Shepherd of Hermas written between 95-150 AD referenced a pre-trib rapture and a definite difference in tribulation that they were experiencing, and the Great Tribulation. Victorinus, died in 303 AD also referenced pre-trib removal. Ephraem of Nisibis (306-373) An excerpt from a sermon on “The Last Times” – Because all saints and the Elect of the Lord are gathered together before the tribulation which is to about to come and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.
I still am perplexed at how they can justify promises of DOING something in order to receive this free gift. Not of works…
Blind leading the blind into the ditch.
Phil, good points!
I had a pastor at a Southern Baptist Church tell me that we agree on the gospel, just not how Christ is received.
Yes John, there are lots of church members who have never heard the gospel of their salvation and received it by faith. But there are others who have heard the gospel of salvation, but are told that it must be received by faith co mingled with repentance of their sins and changing their lives toward godly living to result in their salvation. They are told that their repenting of their sins is a necessary accompaniment to their redemption. Sadly, their repentance from their sins and becoming changed people are filthy rags and will not admit them to heaven. In the first place they never completely repented of their sins–it was just meant as like a token along with faith in Christ like at some altar call. Secondly, they didn’t stay repented; they still have their failures like all of us. (Are you listening loadshipers?) Or they may say, “my life is now characterized by good works and godliness because I repented of my sins and therefore was saved.” And the Bible says the only thing that counts for justification and eternity is Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to you which is the only thing that can saved you. Good works are rewards for the justified, not the condition for justification.
Tom did a good sermon regarding the pre-tribulation rapture, using Revelation 4:1-2 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5.
Tom emphasized that the pre-tribulation rapture was not a new teaching, starting with Darby and Scofield, but one that was clearly taught by the apostles under divine inspiration.
One chilling comment – Tom said that “hundreds of thousands, if not millions” of people would be taken up by the rapture. Since he teaches that all Christians will be raptured, this would imply that there are lots of deceived people in churchianity today.
See link below:
http://northlandchurch.com/content.cfm?id=213&download_id=1137
Bob Wilkin (yes I know his issues, but he does a great job of crushing MacArthur in his book “A Gospel of Doubt”), made a point in one of his books (and I’m paraphrasing him) that 1 Thess. 5:10 is in the context of the rapture, and in the Greek, it could be translated:
“10 who died for us, so that whether we are alert or apathetic, we will live together with Him.”
This is due to the word for “wake” being the same Greek word for “alert” or “watch” in verse 6 and the word for “asleep” also is the same word in verse 6, which isn’t talking about death or life, but alertness or apathy. It’s also a different Greek word that Paul uses when he talks about dead Christians as “asleep”. .
Fryingpan, it does seem like you asked a pretty straightforward question. And, the answer should have been “yes,” followed but applicable scripture, such as:
1 Corinthians 4:17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Pity I never saved a copy of my original letter. I did think when I read Mr. Newby’s response, “Um . . . I think you’re putting words in my mouth. I just want to know if a believer who doesn’t believe in the rapture gets raptured anyway.”
I will say this much, that response never really made any sense to me. Good thing . . . but it did serve to encourage my confused state.
Fryingpan, I am not surprised by the response that you got? Yet I am still saddened.
Anyone who has believed in Jesus as his Savior has been born again, and thereby possesses eternal life that can never be lost or forfeited. A person has a relationship as a child of God by virtue of believing in Jesus as Savior. This does not require serving Jesus, or wanting to “hang out” with him, or anything else.
This will be Comment # 569 in this thread . . .
Anyone who has followed this thread for a long time may recall that I found this blog by researching the internet to find out what was the docrtine behind what Ray Comfort was preaching.
Since my first post on this blog a little before Valentine’s Day 2013, I’ve written a lot about Dave Hunt and The Berean Call (TBC). I may even come across like I’m bashing them from time to time. I don’t intend to, but I will admit I sometimes get really disgusted by what I find and what I remember.
I think I may have alluded to it in the past, but I once received a letter from TBC that, after discovering this blog, became something I remembered as being a Lordship Salvation “red flag after the fact”. What I mean is, I discovered what LS is (and got clear on the gospel) thanks to discovering this blog, and through this blog meeting Tom Cucuzza and Ron Shea. So after I got “schooled” I remembered the letter from TBC (which I’m about to share in total) as something pretty severe in its LS “content”. The problem was I never got around to finding the letter, hadn’t read it in MANY years, and wasn’t exactly sure where it was anyway.
So today I stumbled upon the binder I placed it in and read it. It was worse than I even remembered:
Below is a transcription of a letter I received from Edwin Newby with The Berean Call on 10/6/97.
I don’t have a copy of it, but he was responding to a letter I’d sent to Dave Hunt. Here is the gist of my letter to Dave Hunt:
“Dear Dave,
My wife’s parents are Missouri Synod Lutherans and don’t believe in the rapture.
I’m confused about this issue. They are committed Christians who take their faith very seriously. Will they be raptured anyway? Some seem to believe that “it really matters what you believe” and imply that my wife’s family won’t be raptured because they’re in unbelief about this doctrine.
What is your understanding on this issue?”
Mr. Newby’s exact response:
Dear XXXXXXXXX
Thank you for your letter to Dave, which we received September 17. Currently, he’s in Europe on an extended speaking tour. Because of his ongoing heavy workload he counts on us to help answer his mail.
You ask about the difference between a Christian who does not believe in the Rapture and yet will be raptured, versus a professing Christian who will not go in the Rapture.
The first one is someone with an authentic relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, whose understanding has not grasp [sic] the glorious Scriptural promise of the Rapture. The other is someone who professes to be a Christian, but has never had a real relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. He may agree with the correct doctrine, but he has not truly been converted. He has never been born again (John 3:3). Jesus said that, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).
There are many who claim to be followers of Christ, including some who have “in thy name done many wonderful works” (Matthew 7:22). Yet, the Lord Himself says to these ones, “I never knew you. . .” (Verse 23). If He never knew them, He certainly won’t take them when He come for His own.
May God encourage you in these interesting days.
In Christ,
Edwin L. Newby
I got pretty angry several times dictating this Calvinist drivel. No WONDER I was so confused for so many years!!!!!!!
Is this not seriously compelling evidence that TBC was LS long before Jack wrote this blog post?
I’m still disgusted . . .
Btw, the interesting part here, is they also are of the doctrinal stance that we do not have free will. They teach unconditional election. They also are of the belief that God will bring ALL into harmony with Him, making them all have a relationship with Him. God created evil so man could grow spiritually. Sounds like these people were likely brought up in Calvinism and also have woven in universalism. They preach another Jesus…
Fryingpan9, when the enemy has someone bound up, they can be truly maniacal, demonic… You know Curtis, I decided to go look up their statement of faith. This was a number of years ago, and I remember it was a brief look at their site, seeing the “mess-age” used that prompted me to shoot them a quick email. That was how the whole conversation began. I never even had time to look, and their behavior and speech demonstrated to me that I was not interested in further dialogue.
I went to go look, and was happy to see that one of them was no longer listed there. The two main ones Victor and Paul and the woman were still of the original group that attacked me. I pray that the one was delivered from these ravening wolves.
John, like the Westboro people, pretty pathetic, so bound up in legalism, false doctrine, vitriol, accusations towards others. No love of Christ, no understanding of their own need to be saved. Another gospel, another Jesus, another spirit…
Sooner or later (some like ‘path of truth’ were sooner), many of these wolves will bare their fangs. They were not afraid. Since they had come to me in a group, I decided to ‘cc’ a group of my friends who were solid in Christ. I don’t think they had ever seen anything like it in their lives. The sheer hatred and the accuser of the brethren’s voice, pouring out with sulphur and murder was apparent. These people are bound in religion, and pointing at one another.
I wish to be more Christ like. As I get to know Him more, it seems that it becomes more apparent to me, how much I am nothing in myself, but anything I have worth anything is due to Him. My need is to stick close to Him and His Word.
sometime ago I did listen to some Steven Anderson youtube vids on repentance and thought they were good . but after reading some comments here I went back and looked through some more vids .
SA is one to be marked and avoided. SA even goes on and denies the holocaust . you have to buy his book on the holocaust hoax to believe the hoax SA says.
most all works for salvation or post salvation as evidence of salvation preachers/teachers are all wound up tight like that with pressured speech.
Christ died for the ungodly , what about you ? are you ungodly? ouch
All them words in that doctrinal statement “path of Truth” and no mention of “The Blood of Christ Jesus ” (that i have found) . They also deny the trinity which is an attack on the divinity of Jesus . I know because I have been down that rabbit hole as a born again Justified before God believer in Christ Jesus.
Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
in Christ Jesus the blood of Christ
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
I drove passed a bus stop and there was a man dressed as an outlaw biker (without a motorcycle) and an amish man holding a baby standing side by side what a contrast on the outward appearance . I wish i could of stopped and took a picture of the two better yet what a wonderful witnessing opportunity to them both it could’ve been .
the biker was smoking a cigarette with head hung down , the amish man dressed in full black amish garb holding a baby wrapped in bright blue head up high .
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Mat 9:12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Christ died for the ungodly.
repentance = what “thinky” of christ Jesus ? in the specific context of area that provides eternal life and justification before God
are you one of the ungodly christ died for ? or are you righteous in your amish garb ?
the amish could look down at the “path of truth ” followers and say what a bunch of slackers all them words of doctrine and they still got copper wires in their houses . They need to follow the red letters of Jesus
Holly, what a pathetic bunch the self-professed “path of truth” turns out to be. They should go by “pack of lies.”
I guess they think that everyone who has ever died was without Christ.
And,if everyone without the Spirit were struck dead, we would have no one to evangelize.
Wow, a whole group. Not one lone psycho. An entire GROUP saying those awful things. Those He calleth, He enableth.
Fryingpan9, I’m with you, I think it helps us learn about how to resist the enemy as we submit to God. I see so many blindsided by some of these people, but I ask them, “is this the voice of your Shepherd”? I could write a book on some of the absolutely horrific things that have been said to me, above and beyond ‘shut your trap’ or ‘Jezebel’ or ‘false prophet’. I had one group of people in one ‘ministry’ tell me that God killed my husband because he didn’t have the Spirit. (They had researched me on FB to find me a widow, and my parents a recent mission that spoke of my dad’s stroke and mom’s cancer, so they said God struck them with those diseases because they didn’t have the Spirit. They are called ‘path of truth’. Interesting choice of a name for murderous railers.
God has shown me the ludicrous I believe to help others, to also remind me about my armor, to strengthen me and prepare me in the battle, and to help comfort others with the comfort I’ve been given. God bless you all…
Good point, Holly. There’s little if anything to be gained from dwelling on past miseries (unless they can be used in a book or lecture series to warn others, for example). But there’s everything to be gained by focusing on God’s healing Word.
FryingPan9 and Benchap. God is good to lead us out of error. He also is good to fill us with good things from His Word. Praying that all of that will soon be a distant memory.
So sad. I’m glad you were delivered, Benchap! It is sometimes a struggle to not hold a grudge against these types for me and I have to remind myself that Jesus’ blood was shed for them too.
Holly, Steven Anderson and a follower of his that used to attend his church and attended the church I attended in Australia, did untold damage to my life through their doctrinal errors.
Yep, SA was the first one I saw spewing that confusing doctrine. Then I started to see it on TBN and thought, “If these guys on TBN are pushing this, I KNOW it’s wrong!”
Yes, that was a bit of hyperbole, and this was before I realized what SA was all about. I call him Westboro Baptist Lite. That explains why it took watching TBN to reach my knee jerk reaction, not S Anderson.
Scoffers…I see a huge amount of people touting pre-wrath. And Jacob Prasch went so far as in his book, Shadows of the Beast to suggest we were heretics. As does radical railer, Steven Anderson, crazy fundamentalist pastor here in my town.
Yeah, they’re going to survive because they’re really good at turning from sin and STAYING TURNED from sin. So they think. (Sarcasm)
Benchap, I agree. I guess enough gold, beef jerky, and bullets will get one through anything.
You have to admire with sarcasm post-tribulation/prepper thinking.
They are going to survive the most cataclysmic period in human history because of their level of planning and supplies.
Fryingpan, thanks for the update.
There are profiteers, such as Jim Bakker, using the post-trib rapture concept to sell supplies for riding out the end times.
An “update” of sorts.
The “honeymoon” MAY be over between Ray Comfort and The Berean Call, at least by implication.
A bit of background . . .
If you study the comments on this thread (I believe it’s all on this post) you will know that over 2 years I canceled my subscription to The Berean Call newsletter, but they keep sending it to me anyway. I usually just tear it in half and toss it in the trash, but today I decided to open it and skim through.
On page 4 of the newsletter is a guest article by Dr. Paul Wilkinson, which is a short critique of a new DVD documentary by Good Fight Minsitries (run by a post-tribuationist) entitled, LEFT BEHIND OR LED ASTRAY? The DVD is basically an “exposé” on the “secret history” of pre-trib rapture doctrine and seeks to refute its authenticity.
I’ve been seeing the anti-pre-rapture crowd getting louder and louder over the past year or so . . .
Anyway, the article in this TBC November 2015 newsletter points out that this DVD is promoted by Ray Comfort.
In other words, TBC has a published an article exposing Ray Comfort for endorsing an anti-pre-tribulation rapture agende. The article goes on to point out that the DVD is critical of the late Dave Hunt for more or less being spot on re so many issues, but really missing the boat when it came to doctrine pertaining to the rapture and Great Tribulation.
That is all . . . from me that is.
John & FryingP; Your admonishment is well taken > I got carried away. I don’t want to be guilty of that which I accuse others (fruit inspection).
I first heard of Dave Hunt from Brannon Howse. I was under the impression they were very close and Dave Hunt was BH’s mentor? I found this rather hard to believe as BH is a staunch JMac/Calvanist.
Don, you said: I have NEVER met a grace believer who said or seems to believe, “Woo hoo! Now that I’m forgiven I can sin all I want!”
My comment: My wife and I just discussed this.
For each of us, it was like “Woohoo, I’m off the hook. It’s not on me!”
Everyone does what they want. Our wants may change once we get saved, but we should not look to that for either primary or secondary assurance of salvation. To know that one can sin all he wants and still go to heaven is core to understanding the gospel.
The apostle Paul must have anticipated that some might want to use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh, or he would not have told people not to do it.
From Clear Gospel:
“Oh, so you’re telling me that once someone is saved, the can do whatever they want, and they are still saved?”
Of course, the truth of the matter is that, apart from epilictic seizures, snoring, and other involuntary actions, each of does exactly what we want twenty four hours a day! The reason I pull my hand out of a hot stove is because I want to. The reason I eat is because I want to. The reason I sin is because I want to. And the reason I flee from sin is because I want to. In truth, the question is so trivial as to be meaningless. A “yes” answer does not even hint at a person’s theology! It only shows their sense of personal responsibility over their own actions.
Dave was a big fan of Charles Spurgeon. Connect the dots I suppose . . .
They have imagined that the death of Christ in their place delivered them from their deserved eternal punishment in hell, so that, like Barabbas, they could live as they pleased.
That is eye opening. For all of Dave’s consistent defense of salvation without works and eternal security in Christ, that argument is one I’ve seen used by people who HATE even the idea of eternal security. Very, very strange. Thank you for posting it! And incidentally, I have NEVER met a grace believer who said or seems to believe, “Woo hoo! Now that I’m forgiven I can sin all I want!”
I own Dave’s DVD series Beyond Seduction (a companion to his book and sequel to The Seduction of Christianity) and used to watch it fairly regularly. After discovering this blog in Feb. 2013 and doing a lot of studying on the subject I found that when I re-watched that video series for the first time since then that it was like watching an entirely different program. There is a TON of LS going on in there. I’ve never time stamped it, but maybe someday I’ll watch it again w/ pen and paper in hand (and the remote on my knee, LOL), Because I guarantee you there’d be more than a few jaws dropping around here once I shared my report.
Fryingpan, I agree this is a terribly troubling quote from Dave Hunt.
One does not have to desire that his life change in order to have eternal life. This is just a clever way of wording the “you must be willing to turn from your sins” error.
JoyFounder, you said, “Now I understand where he came up with his book title: “Hells Best Kept Secret” > it’s Ray Comfort!”
I like the way your mind works–that sounds like something I’d say.
I must echo John’s words about not judging whether or not one is saved or not. We just never know if they’ve heard, understood and believed the true gospel at some time in the past, and are now apostate.
Because if we can speculate that some folks have never been saved then even Dave Hunt would be worthy of having that accusation hurled at him. I give you an excerpt of the most recent monthly newsletter from The Berean Call, which is a reprint of an article Dave wrote in 2006:
“For many who believe that Christ died for their sins, this event is more mystical than historical. The horrible death on the Cross is something that happened to Christ but has only a theoretical rather than practical connection to them. They have such a faulty understanding of what Christ’s death means that they are not true Christians at all. They have imagined that the death of Christ in their place delivered them from their deserved eternal punishment in hell, so that, like Barabbas, they could live as they pleased. They have never desired what Paul rejoiced in: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal:2:20).”
There’s some seriously backloaded Lordship “Salvation” in that verbiage.
If you search the rest of this very thread you’ll see more examples of what I now call The Confusing Gospel of Dave Hunt and his tendency to promote “commitment” salvation.
Speaking of Dave Hunt: around the time I was saved and for awhile thereafter, he was a frequent phone guest on a Christian station (a good one, at the time) out of St. Louis, within range of where I went to college. Dave’s discernment ministry helped me begin to realize some of the ways I’d been deceived. I will always be thankful to him for that.
That said, I quit following TBC some time ago.
We’re supposed to focus on doctrine here, as we should, so please forgive my boldness in saying this: pentecostals and charismatics, historically speaking, have tended to be emotion-driven to the point of carnality and usually doctrinally immature to the point of despising (literally) anyone who dares to question pentecostal beliefs. Are there exceptions to that? Probably, but every pentecostal I have met over the years has been that way to one degree or another.
Point is (and maybe I should double check this), I’m pretty sure I’ve read that Ray Comfort is a pentecostal — feel free to research that in case I read wrong. But if so, that automatically means there’s going to be even more doctrinal deficiency because pentecostalism is major error, and error always compounds itself with more error.
Just my opinion.
Joy, I agree with you that Ray Comfort is a false teacher. But, I can’t know whether or not he has eternal life. He may have believed the gospel at one point.
What I can say is this:
Does he BELIEVE the false gospel that he teaches?
If yes, he needs to be evangelized. If no, he needs to be ashamed.
Either way, he has no business trying to lead people to Christ, or to help people grow in their Christian walk.
He may be sincere, but that doesn’t matter.
Galatians 1:8-9 does not give an exception for people who sincerely preach another gospel.
I admit to not reading all these wonderful comments so I apologize in advance if what I say has already been covered.
My husband and I took the Way of the Master Training in 2007 because we wanted to learn new ways to witness. We had several question and answer worksheets throughout the day. One in particular devastated me and for several years after, combined with the false gospel preaching @ this church, well let’s say I was a mess > constantly doubting I wasn’t good enough or manifesting enough fruit, etc. to be saved. (I received Jesus Christ as my personal savior @ a 5 day club as a child when I was 5 years old.)
Session 2 in RC’s course was the culprit, sending me into a spiritual tailspin for the next several years, titled: True & False Conversion. There’s 9 questions & answers. Skipping to #4 > “James 2:19 reveals that mere belief-when not accompanied by repentance (Luke 13:3) and placing one’s faith in Christ (Acts 20:21) – is NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION.”
I added the caps because this is heresy!!!!
Then on #5 Mr. Fruit Inspector gives us his five fruits of a true convert > “Fruit of Repentance, Fruit of Thanksgiving, Fruit of Good Works, Fruit of the Spirit, Fruit of Righteousness.”
RC’s final sentence on this page: “We may rejoice over decisions [conversions], but Heaven reserves it’s rejoicing for repentance.”
Okay I’ll say it: Ray Comfort is a false teacher, he is an unsaved heretic who hates God’s Word and His Son Jesus Christ. He is used by Satan by robbing God’s people of joy and assurance. He blasphemes Jesus Christ by calling Him a liar and insufficient to save us. He pits Christian against Christian encouraging them to inspect each other’s fruit. As in the YouTube video ‘Ray Comfort Exposed – False Gospel + False Repentance = Heresy x 2’ he contradicts his own ‘grace to the humble’ with his unloving, vicious, merciless and unrelenting treatment of those with a wounded and contrite heart. Now I understand where he came up with his book title: “Hells Best Kept Secret” > it’s Ray Comfort!
fryingpan,
that’s awesome!!! and of course you have my prayers.
like everything else in life, you will get more comfortable with time. Until then, you have a great support group here.
happy fishing!!!
Fryingpan9 – I understand completely your feelings. Even when we know we are doing it for the purpose of defending the gospel, to save lives. It’s as we warn people not to get on the counterfeit lifeboat, we have people in our own boat hindering us, fighting against us, and giving ‘advice’ that has nothing to do with the Word of God. In some ways, we’re on our own in that what we do, we have to be doing for Him. We want to be careful of course to not wrongly speak against any man, and do our best to keep sound and calm, well reasoned speech. Using His Word. When they revile us, we need to keep speaking with sound speech that cannot be condemned. Some will see and consider. Just don’t worry in well doing. Take the opportunity to share the real gospel with them or ask them what the gospel is.
What the apostle Paul said here I really am always touched by and I’m going to continue to do the same.
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Cor 11:12-15
Fryingpan, I have prayed for you in contending for the truth.
Ray Comfort’s false “gospel” is not good news. It is a works for salvation substitute. I know you have seen some of the previous articles on Ray Comfort here at Expreacherman, including the most recent one that is linked below:
https://expreacherman.com/2015/03/30/no-good-news-from-ray-comfort/
I figured it wouldn’t be too off topic to share this here since Ray Comfort seems to be the catalyst, but I recently send out a blind copied emailed to some like minded free grace friends and associates and thought I’d share my thoughts here with MORE like minded believers:
This is just to let you know I’ve been putting myself “out there” more in recent weeks defending the gospel on social media, mainly by pointing out things like how I believe Ray Comfort* preaches a false gospel and that sort of thing. I’m newer and less experienced at this than I should be and covet your prayers to keep this up and have the courage and conviction that I need to help defend the gospel once for all delivered to the saints.
Just to give you an idea, earlier today I replied to someone who shares Ray Comfort’s Facebook status quite regularly (from what I’ve seen) and the knot I had in my stomach was as if I were about to jump out of an airplane with a parachute made out of anvils.
Pray that I’m constantly remembering that if I face rejection, it’s not me they’re rejecting, but God.
Many thanks!
*Holly, I’ve been sharing your blog about Ray (one of them) which is a great way to get the ice broken, so to speak.
I’ve updated this article on Living Waters and Ray Comfort, with Screen shots that show that Ray Comfort clearly teaches the Calvinist doctrine of ‘FAITH being the gift’ and ‘repentance being gifted’ to us. That is Calvinism, whether he admits it or not. He also teaches turning from ALL sin, forsaking and confessing sin, MAKING Jesus MASTER of our lives, and all sorts of works for salvation which we know is Lordship.
http://redeemingmoments.com/2014/07/11/ray-comfort-whats-wrong-with-his-gospel/
You know what Holly… the big sins/little sins issue really does clear it up for me. I need to always remember this. Cheers!
I suppose some themselves as little sinners and the rest of us are big sinners using grace as a cloak.
Ironically, pride is probably the biggest and baddest of them all.
To think of oneself as a ‘little/minor sinner’ in comparison to all those ‘greasy grace professors’ must be the height of self-righteousness.
“I thank you God that I’m not like that guy over there”. oh dear.
I went to a VB conference about a year or so ago (before I left the club) and it was eye opening to be sure.
Beholdason, the law is written on our hearts, we know right from wrong, although some people deny any wrong doing (like the rich young ruler) and need to be asked if they’ve ever lied, or if think they are perfect, at least it can be established, that nothing perfect will enter heaven, even works of righteousness that are not done in Christ are filthy in His sight (Is 64:6). So like John said, it can be a good thing to use the examples, but the law itself, the Mosaic law, was given to Israel, the Sabbath was never given to Gentiles, Jesus is our rest. They misuse that one frequently.
I’ve heard Ray Comfort tell people to ‘stop sinning’. He makes an excellent living off of his lordship gospel, and because of it, I think he has the corner on ‘hell’s best kept secret’, and that is, to put an inordinate amount of law before, then put some law after, and that way it seems like it will save us by ‘stopping to sin’ or ‘turning from our sin’.
He emphasizes sin, this is true, but his remedy is false, it’s another gospel (as you know) and accursed, and will not save. I know people who work for him and the longer they’re there, their job seems to revolve around calling people ‘false converts’.
I’ve found it’s good enough to relate our own sin, and then people are able to relate back to sin in their own lives. I once told someone that thinking I was good was a terrible sin, and she was shocked, and she said, “You’ve always been very good”. I told her on the surface I might seem that way, but I was able to share that none of us are good, not in His sight, because He is Holy, it is only in the sight of other men we can appear good. We can try, but we fall short, and can never make it, just one mean thought, just one lustfull look, just not doing something good when we know we should.
I think she really ‘saw’ for the first time sin not being the ‘big sins’. I didn’t have to talk about lying, adultery, etc., because in truth, most people don’t think they lie, cheat, steal, or commit adultery. And worse? Comfort starts calling them names to shame them, like this; “so, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, murderous, adulterer at heart”.
I’m not sure that’s about preaching the good news. We are all sinners, and I believe most people know (even they don’t admit it) that they have sinned, and they need to know they are, and what that means. (Separation from God eternally in hell). Otherwise, why would need a Saviour?
Voddie Baucham, he’s just wicked. He think he’s Israel, he states he does not love them because WE (the church) are Israel. And he says THEY hold ‘no eschatalogical significance for him”. He says babies are so depraved, they were made small so they couldn’t murder us in our sleep. He is the patriarchal movement and is very demeaning of women.
I know you probably know all this, a good friend of mine used to really listen to those two, and she’ll readily tell you how messed up they made her, how distraught, how depressed….Praise God she saw them finally for the wolves they were.
Peter Ralston, I hope you checked the ‘notify me of new comments via email’ for sometimes I forget and then I miss when someone responds to a post here. I pray you are doing well, and will come back and fellowship with us.
beholdason, the law is a schoolmaster, pointing us to the need for Christ.
People need to know they are sinners, in need of a Savior. The ten commandments could be used to establish this.
But, people don’t have to do anything to go to hell. That is the default for non-believers.
And, we have chronicled the serious error of Ray Comfort for a long time at ExPreacherMan. See link below:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/12/18/dave-hunts-berean-call-promoting-not-only-calvinism-but-now-the-terrible-lordship-salvation-of-ray-comfort/
Hey all.
I was just given a bag of CD sermons and in the mix were some by Voddie Baucham and Ray Comfort’s ‘Hell’s best kept secret’.
I just read the latter as a PDF online and found the final few paragraphs interesting (in a twisting Scripture way) and was wondering what your view is of Ray Comfort’s gospel presentation using the law.
If you google Hell’s Best Kept Secret and read the first few pages you’ll see what he’s getting at regarding using the law to preach the Good News.
Then as I get through the document I see that he focuses on works (or lack thereof) to attack the modern gospels which seem to produce lawless professors.
Having been to churches which preach the ‘Jesus loves you and wants to bless your socks off’ false gospel, I can agree with Mr Comfort in that respect but then I see his gospel message shoot to the other side of the spectrum with its works focused validation of genuine faith.
I’m struggling to figure out whether his use of law in gospel presentation is wrong, besides the ‘turn from your sins’ and ‘repent’ (wrong definition) for salvation.
Should we use the 10 commandments when sharing the Gospel with ‘Gentiles’?
How should we interpret the verses in Romans regarding using the law properly?
Thanks in advance guys.
Peter, welcome and thanks for your comment.
Please stick around and read and comment as you feel led.
You people on here… whoever you are. I read through many of your comments (not all). As a result, I am so glad. You are my family in Christ and I am excited to come together with you all someday when we celebrate in paradise together. Can’t wait! It is so hard to find true believers in this world. Thank you for the encouragement from your truthful words.
– Peter
I hope maybe you all will consider doing a blog on Ray Comfort soon, stand alone.
Mary – I don’t know why they allow it either. Compromise, too thick with the thieves themselves?
You may want to read my blog today on Berean Call, they have gone way off the deep end.
T.A. McMahon is going to be at a Calvinist church at the end of this month, with a Psychiatrist, a lawyer, and the Calvinist Pastor, along with hyper-calvinist Matt Slick, and another reformed leader/pastor, read here (assuming this is o.k.)
http://redeemingmoments.com/2014/01/15/berean-call-are-you-bereans-any-longer/
thanks guys read all of the books on calvinism. understand it but don’t understand why the independent baptist churches don’t see it as a reason for separation even though they say we don’t believe in it. should they being asking people to leave the church if they believe this way even though they are not preaching against it. is it that pastors lack the courage to do anything about it as they don’t want a church split. i don’t know as i was saying to someone about it the other day if they don’t take care of that leaven and they tolerate it it will eventually cause a split in my opinion. so many are walking out of the baptist churches as they are hearing bits and pieces of it coming thru their speech or sermons. they have elders and speakers who visit the churches don’t know why they allow this. i can only pray we are getting to the end of the age, can we be that lucky? if not we really are going to have to endure tough and lonely times.
To all our readers:
We have written a concise and handy explanation of LS, called “Lordship ‘salvation’ Defined.”
It appears at the top Header of every page for easy reference and linking to your friends who need to understand clearly the problems with LS.
The link is:
https://expreacherman.com/%E2%99%A6-lordship-salvation-defined/
By ExPreacherMan.com Administrators.
Mary, in addition to what Jack said above (with which I agree), I have the following additional points:
1. Calvinists often refer to believers who don’t hold to their errant views as Arminian. Biblical Christianity is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are false systems of salvation by works.
I believe this is why we see interfaith cooperation among mainstream protestant denominations, even though they don’t appear to have much in common. The commonality is that they teach false gospels of salvation by works.
2. Calvinists claim that the incongruities that they themselves have invented are some kind of deep mysteries that only God can comprehend.
One such example is their belief that God decrees our every thought and action, and yet we are somehow responsible for them.
The truth is that God does not decree our every thought and action. He has foreknowledge, but does not decree. Therefore, we are responsible for our own actions.
3. Error begets error. One reason the Southern Baptists are being overrun by Calvinists is that the Southern Baptist Convention teaches Lordship “salvation”, which shares the same theological roots.
Welcome back as well, Mary.
I don’t presume to tell anyone what to do in this matter but to only say what I would do if it were my decision. I agree it’s something that justifies separation, but I’m someone with a very low threshold for false doctrine and someone who suffered under the bondage of is for a good 2 decades so obviously I have an ax to grind.
I agree with others who believe we need to get away from the poison of false doctrine and not go back to those who hold such beliefs for ANYTHING of a spiritual nature. If my Calvinist neighbor needs help changing a spare tire on the side of the road (or wants to help me do the same) of course I am willing to participate. But I wouldn’t want to get into any kind of fellowship with them that would leave me vulnerable to the subtleties of the enemy’s attack. Not at this stage in my walk anyway . . .
Mary,
Welcome back..
Good questions:
Can a true believer in Jesus Christ “get along” or coexist with Calvinists/Calvinism?
In a word, “NO”!
Notice in my explanation below that I use the small “g” instead of the the capital “G” because the god of Calvinism is certainly NOT my God nor the God of the Bible.
Though there are many more Calvinist errors than these, for starters, I shall illustrate their poisonous flower, the Calvinist T.UL.I.P.
We see their lies here: —
T. ** (Total depravity or inability) The god of John Calvin – Calvinism says that man is so “depraved” that he has no ability and thus cannot possibly make any decision to believe in Jesus.
U. ** (Unconditional election) The god of John Calvin – Calvinism says that god unconditionally “elected” or chose some folks to regenerate in order for them to “believe” while leaving the rest of humanity to an eternity in Hell.
L. ** (Limited atonement) The god of John Calvin – Calvinism believes their god sent Christ to die for only a certain “limited, chosen/elect” (elite) group of people, denying Christ’s Atonement for the rest of humanity and likewise denying the scripture which plainly says that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (John 3:16 – and many, many more verses).
I. ** (Irresistible grace) The god of John Calvin – Calvinism says that god’s grace is so irresistible and god is so “sovereign” that those whom he chooses WILL believe. They say god does not give that same choice or free will to anyone else to believe — only those he has “chosen.”
P. ** (Perseverance of the saints) The god of John Calvin – Calvinism says that whoever god “regenerates and causes to believe” must “persevere until the end” to be saved. That means they must do/show good works until the end — or else.
Mary — you can see that “getting along” with the folks who follow and idolize John Calvin and who vociferously promote his lies will do nothing but corrupt true believers. Calvinists simply do not understand God’s Word, His Holy Scriptures, the Bible. That is why they write “new” translations and call them “bibles” (ESV for example) and insert into them new high-sounding ecclesiastical words with new meanings, which we discover are not in the original Bible documents. Such words are “monergism, the three Solas, sovereignty of god, sovereign grace, depravity, etc.”
I pray this helps.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
just wondering if u could help me most pastors are just saying that we can get along with calvinists and agree to disagree i have tried and we don’t divide the word of god in the same way. is calvinism a reason to separate and would u go so far in saying it is another Jesus and another gospel?
Thanks, Holly! I’m grateful that what little fretting I did over realizing I wasn’t reading carefully was totally unnecessary.
Fryingpan, no insult ever, was thrilled that you had an issue with that statement, and I’m learning how to copy over some of the ‘bold’ or ‘italics’ commands, but don’t know how to do everything, but I’ll try to make it clearer, maybe to bold “SHE SAID” and so forth…
I definitely would not want to be construed as thinking like that… and again am so happy you called me on it, (even though it wasn’t me) lol! And if it was, I’d certainly want you to correct me and show me in His Word where I had erred or strayed off into some wrong thinking. Praise God for people who will speak!
Yes, prayers and sound speech that cannot be condemned. I cannot help but thinking of Tom Cucuzza I believe, for I had said something similarly to a friend who thought I was terrible for saying it, and kind of blessed to see Tom say something to the same effect. Basically treating them as the lost, not judging their salvation, but keeping in mind, if they don’t understand the gospel, they may never have. So I try to keep Col 4:5-6 in mind too. Thanks for being bold enough to check to see what I said!
FryingPan, I agree. So many people seem to want to preach “self help” instead of the gospel. And, thank you for reminding us to keep such folks in our prayers.
You know, now that you mention it John, it really seems one huge “hinge pin” in the argument is that so many people don’t seem to understand (or WANT to understand) that they negate the offer of salvation as a gift when they try to “qualify” the terms of receiving the gift. That’s usually where I find that I just can’t penetrate the “barrier of reason” and have to move on (from fellowship with certain people). . . . Keeping them in my prayers of course
Thank you, John.
I may have not been distinguishing between quotes and Holly’s commentary as carefully as I could have. I will reread it carefully.
I hope I didn’t insult anyone’s intelligence . . .
Fryingpan, I don’t presume to speak for Holly, but I think the comment with which you disagree was a quote that Holly attributed to Caryl Matriciana’s site.
I think Holly would disagree with that quote as well. I think she included it in her post to warn others to stay away from this kind of teaching.
I will let others weigh in on your question about the ten commandments. Clear Gospel Campaign has this to say regarding keeping God’s laws:
“The issue is not that it is wrong to obey God’s laws, but that it is wrong to obey them for the purpose of securing eternal life. When one’s motivation to keep God’s laws is to gain, secure or insure eternal life, he is ultimately denying that Christ alone is his savior. When someone seeks to assist in his own salvation, he dishonors God. Obeying the laws of God is a good thing as long as one’s purpose is not to supplant God as one’s Savior!”
Thank you, Holly.
I uh . . . I can’t quite agree 100% with this part of what you wrote:
“Repentance is a full turning to God by faith that is willing to turn from sin, albeit imperfectly.”
Doesn’t that leave room for someone who doesn’t understand the true meaning of repentance (a change of mind about how to get saved) to be confused?
You know I’m not trying to box you in (at least I assume as much). I think I understand what you’re trying to communicate, but could you clarify that a little? I’m concerned that it can be inferred that you’re saying that turning to God AND a willingness to turn from sin is necessarily intrinsic to repentance.
I apologize if I’m over thinking it, but after more than 2 decades of being susceptible to false doctrine and a misunderstanding about repentance and eternal security, I’m perhaps overly sensitive to things that even remotely smack of hinting at adding anything to the gospel above and beyond hearing it, understanding it, and believing it by trusting in Christ alone for one’s salvation.
On a “side” note, and I don’t think this is getting too off track because it DOES involve Ray Comfort, can someone elaborate on the differences between what Ray Comfort teaches about the 10 Commandments vs what is that of free grace thinkers today? For example, the first time I remember ever having a “red flag” go up re Ray Comfort was around 7 years ago when on one of his Way of the Master programs he mentioned “obeying the 10 commandments” and he mentioned “keeping the Sabbath” as one of them. I was not “equipped” at the time to deal with it, but it was hard to not infer that he taught that if someone doesn’t keep the Sabbath, it’s not only a sin, but that they’re not saved. It just made me confused and uncomfortable, but I was ill-equipped to answer it from the Bible and I must confess with everything else I’ve been studying these many years, I’m still a bit uninformed when it comes to the Sabbath. I’m not TOTALLY in the dark of course. But what I’m saying is I’m not prepared to give an answer to someone who might confront me with an understanding of it akin to that of Ray Comfort’s.
Thank you.
A couple of things I wanted to share more about Ray Comfort’s video.
One, I was on Caryl Matriciana’s site, the one with Brenda Nickel berating a man named Eddy regarding his questioning her on promoting Mark Cahill and his book’s definition of repentance which she agreed with. Here is part of what she said:
If repentance isn’t works, then what is it? According to the Bible, which Mark Cahill takes his teachings from, repentance is surrender to God and turning from sin, “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost..& and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess 1:6,9). Repentance is a forsaking of sin to present the body, soul and spirit as a living sacrifice to Christ for the furtherance of His kingdom (Ro 12:1).
We need to get our terms straight. Repentance is a full turning to God by faith that is willing to turn from sin, albeit imperfectly. Lordship salvation insinuates a person can’t know they’re saved until they provide a lifetime of proof through obedience. END QUOTE:
And how Brenda mischaracterizes others who do not believe as she does.
“Free grace” requires no repentance for salvation and in some cases, no concrete information about the gospel for salvation.
(On the contrary Brenda, someone who truly believes that grace is free, is very careful to present the clear gospel)
The reason for bringing it up, was that the advertisement on the side (I took a screen shot) was sadly an icon of Dave Hunt, with an linked advertisement to his site for “Genius” the movie by Ray Comfort….
Secondly, I received a mailer today, for an advertisement for “The Way of the Master for children”…teaching them how to keep and memorize the 10 commandments.
Thanks, John. I just found your comment in my email and I can’t tell you how much it ministered to me in that it’s apropos of a conversation my wife and I were just having. Suffice to say we talked about avoiding the very appearance of evil . . .
I came across the following quote from Ron Shea, which is a warning to each of us to guard against deception:
“We all seek approval and validation. And it is a stark warning to each of us. Each of us is torn by a myriad of emotions. And to us, many of these emotions are invisible and unseen by us . . . because we are in the middle of them. They can taint our view of reality. Whether it is the pain of recognizing that someone we loved is probably in Hell, or the need for validation, or any other emotional motive, Satan stands ready to seduce each of us from the purity of the gospel, one inch at a time.
This Crossless Gospel is not the only heresy we will see in our lifetime. Throughout our lives, each of us will be target by the enemy. And he will seek to sift each of us like wheat in a moment when we are weak. A moment when we deeply need an income to support our family, and a church or teaching job comes available, but at a cost. A moment when our dignity as a theologian has been abased, and we covet the validation of another. A moment when we have been rejected, and covet the love and acceptance of someone we can see and hear and touch.
Stand strong my brethren. The battle is not behind us. It is in front of each of us. And we do not know where the ambush for us has been set.”
Bruce, I ask myself the same question, but I guess the motives don’t matter. For so long I tried to figure out and explain why. I surmised it was because they saw a lot of carnal believers. But the solution is to commend them to His Word of grace, exhort them daily with it, so they will be sanctified and will be built up in it, growing in grace. But their solution is corrupt minds from the simplicity that is in Christ, whether they do it wittingly or unwittingly, they are changing the gospel, and if they are believers, it is the reason why they are not seeing any harvest. They are planting the wrong seed. They are watering with poison.
If they truly think people are unsaved (assuming they are saved and just deceived), then I tell them, there is only one solution. And it is not to take over the position of Junior Accuser of the Brethren. The only solution is to then preach the gospel. And there are two things going on, either they are not saved themselves. Or they no longer believe in the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.
At least those are my thoughts.
Thanks much Holly!
The Gospel is so straightforward, so uncomplicated, so clear. Why do so many people want to mess it up?
Excellent answer Bruce, so good to read sound answers.
We are only His because we have trusted that He is our Savior. Because of what Christ did, I will be with Him in eternity.
Hello again Suez,
Let’s address the initial statements first. The “guys” you are listening to have gotten the Biblical gospel wrong. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, Ephesians 2:8-9. Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (we must believe that he died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, was buried and that he rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures, his resurrection being evidenced by the multitudes (the gospel, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The other things that you mention from the other site—repenting of your sins and following him—are not part of the saving gospel. These are add-ons by those who want to incorporate human works into the salvation message. Grace and works never mix! (Romans 3:24, 4:5-6, 11:6 “And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.”
Now to your second point, so if a person is a true believer in Christ Jesus, i.e., he has placed his complete trust in Christ Jesus alone for his salvation, as described above, then he can never NOT be a believer (put another way, he can never become an unbeliever). Eternal life is eternal, everlasting, never ending. John 10:27-30 and Romans 8:38-39 declare boldly that once we are true believers in Christ Jesus alone, he will never let go of us; our eternal life is secure! Yes, sadly, it is possible for a true believer in Christ to be swayed by erroneous unbiblical teachings, especially if that person is not well-grounded in the Bible. I know a woman who trusted Christ alone for her salvation as a child; later, her father took the family into Mormonism. For many years she thought that the Mormon Church was the true church. Decades later, through reading the Bible on her own, the Lord led her out of Mormonism and back into fellowship in a Bible-believing Christian church. What if she had not come out of the grip of Mormonism; would she still be saved? Yes, because, once she trusted in Christ Jesus alone for her salvation, she could never lose it.
OK, folks I need some help. I am in a discussion with a couple guys on NTEB. One guy says to me::::”””Sue What does it take to be born again, is it not to repent of your sins and Believe with all you heart that Jesus is the Son of God and Follow Him? That would qualify as being saved, I believe.
So say something happens, Let’s say a young man believes in Jesus and was living his life the best he could for Christ. So let’s say that man went to college and the professors taught evolution and that made sense to that young man and He stopped believing, would he still be saved, if he was no longer a believer? I have seen this very thing happen so I’m asking you, what you think?”” So how do I answer him? I need someone smarter than me to answer. To me, Jesus would lead him back if he were truly his at one time. But then he will say, what if he would die this way, would he be saved??? HELP!!!
John, Oddly your second post wasn’t there, or I didn’t see it, I apologize, you had the info, I had just seen the link. I see you are very well-informed 🙂 God bless you all!
To both of you; thanks for the reply. The conversation I had with Ritenbaugh with related research was eye opening. It is amazing how one set of letters can generate so much controversy.
Holly,
VERY interesting.. A couple more “churches” and movements about which to warn our readers.
Odd, because I recall way back in the late 50s and early 60s, before I trusted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I was involved in Conservative politics — and many unsaved (I assume now) fellow Patriots subscribed to Armstrongs “philosophy” for political reasons. Weird!!!
Thanks Holly,
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
There is more than one “Berean” site to avoid, John W. Ritenbaugh is part of the original Worldwide Church of God, which was Herbert Armstrong, and then his son I believer, Garner Ted Armstrong. (my cousins used to attend years ago).
They are legalists into law keeping of course, Sabbath keepers, warn of pagan holidays, and they say they are the only true church. They are now called, Church of the Great God. They also are ‘bibletools.org’ and have their commentary at the bottom of Bible verses. (Forerunner commentary), so warning on all those sites.
I just researched this again; the Pastor’ name is John W. Ritenbaugh. I actually did a little research on the “Church of the Great God” following that troubling exchange and found out they have a rather checkered history especially with its founder.
My typical strategy in these instances is to adopt a tried and true strategy which is Maneuver Warfare; If the obstacle in the path is preventing me from achieving my goal/mission, I have two choices, destroy the target or simply go around it. In these kinds of issues, I choose the latter. You can’t win arguments or gain any truly valuable knowledge from folks who have established pre-suppositional positions largely from 1 generational deep thinkers who have then established rhetorical and “Scriptural” arguments which are forced to conform to those pre-suppostions.
I was introduced to the predestination/preselection/destiny/fatalism positions some 6-7 years ago and have studied Church history extensively including the originator of the argument (Augustine). I am now convinced of several things, not the least of which is Augustine was not trying to teach this position but rather using his definition of Omnisicence in his ongoing debate with Pelagius.
Even the Catholic church of whom Augustine was a member, has been unflinching in its position that Augustine didn’t teach or negate Free Will teachings. I am comfortable with this stand for two reasons; first, the Catholic church elevated him to Sainthood rather than excommunicating him and second, members of the Catholic church had conversations with him over this contentious subject (and it was contentious when he floated it). The same cannot be said of Calvin or Luther (an Augustinian Monk) or anyone who has followed since.
In addition, there isn’t any complete agreement within the “Calvinist” camp about the totality of Calvin’s unabashed rehashing of Augustine’s debates as doctrine. There are 1,2,3,4,5 point Calvinists and those who say those who deny the teachings, are lost to those who try to soften the teaching with an evangelical “love” for the poor confused Christians who deny the teaching.
Of course the Catholic church, which holds a synergism view of predestination and free will says all of us are likely headed for hell for essentially, denying the Catholic church…you get where I’m going with this.
Point being; I studied this without a filter, not having an iron in the fire. I do not feel the necessity to defend former teachings or ideologies and I have absolutely no heroes in the Church – past or present; all men have sinned and all men find themselves led and often, not as much by the word of God as “translations” of men.
Here is a link to the site and I presume, the same Pastor I had spoken to – at length; http://www.theberean.org/
[ed. note: the site mentioned is different than “The Berean Call.” Expreacherman.com does not endorse either site.]
Welcome John!
Thanks for joining us today. I have not heard anyone else report that the website “Berean Call” promotes “sinless perfectionism.” Could it have been another group called “Bereans?” Perhaps some of our readers have more information about the movement which you mention. I know that there are several groups out there who identify themselves as “Bereans.”
I ran across the Bereans some time ago and got into a discussion about “the necessity to remain sin free” with the Pastor, whose name now escapes me. After a lengthy conversation and some intense “badgering” he finally stated that he and his flock (and I assume he was speaking for the whole movement), do-not-sin; not that they are sin less, but that they simply live sin free lives. He further stated that anyone who does not, is either not saved or in danger of being lost. It is astounding that any person can truly believe they never sin. If you believe that, you have apparently chosen to ignore or redefine sin which then suggests your self-reflection is faulty and your confession and opportunity to repent, nonexistent.
This, conversation took place about 6 years ago, by the way.
Suez, Praise God… So many ignore that warning, and don’t “prove all things”…
I got the same the first time I saw him and also shut him off. People were still trying to convince me and over time I thought, “maybe I haven’t judged rightly, I just judged by feeling, not by content”…. Well, it is better to judge by content against God’s Word, so I have found problems that I certainly would not want anyone I love being exposed to, so I would warn anyone about him.
I am just as sure others would wonder, “who is she”? And rightly so. All should test the spirits, and hold up to test any doctrine that they are taking teaching from.
Someone told me to watch him. I watched for about 5 min. I got red flags in my spirit and shut him off. Never watched him since…:-) I didn’t know why, but maybe this is why.
Those are very helpful comments regarding Galatians 1:8. I agree we must separate from anyone who doesn’t abide in the doctrine of Christ, some take to mean separation from the world, I don’t agree as per 1 Cor 5, we can’t go out of the world, and of course, the world, the lost, is who we share the gospel with.
Maybe someone else could clarify if 2 John 1:7-11 speaks about those professing to be believers or ecumenism or being on Glenn Beck’s show, I’m not quite sure, but for me, it means I don’t share a platform or recommend anyone who isn’t preaching the same gospel, and since MacArthur does not, how could I trust anything else he says?
As well as over the years MacArthur vacillates on many things. He used to not be Lordship, now he is the king of Lordship doctrine. He didn’t used to believe in the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, now he has backpedaled on that. He denied the eternal Sonship of Jesus previously, yet now changes his story there. He used to be considered a traditional dispensationalist, now he calls himself a leaky dispensationalist. That is so he can take the Sermon on the Mount and say it’s spoken to the church, and then incorporate some of the warnings to false teachers etc., into the gospel, or his gospel should I say….If you can’t trust their gospel, if they have that wrong, you cannot trust anything they say.
I’d say his teaching is not leaky, but full of holes, so I’d mark and avoid John MacArthur.
FryingPan and Mary,
FryingPan you are not “shaky” but right on target. We have discussed “accursed” in Galatians 8:8-9 frequently.
Here is a quote from a comment by Bruce (ExP co-administrator) in explaining “accursed” to a questioning reader:
Mary, I pray this helps you understand.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Oops, I should have said “…but to say they’re eternally condemned, would be to put them out of the possibility of salvation if UNSAVED and as you correctly point out, as losing salvation which is a Biblical impossibility if saved.”
Fryingpan9,
You hit the nail on its proverbial head with your last post referring to Gal.1:6-9. “Accursed” is correct, some translations do more interpreting than translating with that word. A false gospel is certainly accursed, and someone preaching it, whether a confused believer or unsaved person is certainly accursed while doing so, but to say they’re eternally condemned, would be to put them out of the possibility of salvation if saved and as you correctly point out, as losing salvation which is a Biblical impossibility if saved. Thank you for making that so clear! God Bless you all.
Mary,
Thanks for your question.
Yes, Scripture tells believers to separate from error:
Also beware of Brenda Nickel. I understand that she is anti-Calvinist but she still seems to be attracted to Lordship “salvation” according to the discussion from some of our friends who have corresponded with her. Here is one comment at this link:
Thanks Mary — and maybe others here will see fit to comment on your questions.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Welcome, Mary!
I wanted to help clarify a matter you mentioned.
You wrote: “bible says let him be dammed he who teaches a false gospel.”
I believe the Bible really teaches that their false gospel is damnable and that those who teach a false gospel are “accursed.” It doesn’t mean that someone who teaches a false gospel is necessarily damned because that would allow room for someone who once believed the gospel and got saved and who then later on at some point fell away and began teaching heresy to lose their salvation. Of course we don’t believe that is possible–that one can commit a sin that would forfeit their salvation.
I will defer to Jack and others to help me make my point as I know my understanding of this is “shaky” only because I was trapped in the confusion of LS teaching till earlier this year, so I’m not exactly much of an authority on this issue.
Thanks for visiting this blog and for joining in the discussion.
Mary,
Welcome!! We appreciate your interest and comments.
Good question about commentaries. You certainly diagnosed Matthew Henry and John MacArthur correctly — they are Calvinist. Also one should avoid The Bible Knowledge Commentary because it was written by several “Bible Scholars,” many of whom hold to certain Calvinist teachings; some blatantly misinterpret “repentance” to mean a turning from sins for salvation (which would put them in the Lordship “salvation” camp).
I am not much of a commentary guy thus I am not very familiar with Wm. McDonald — but some discerning friends say it may be one of the better ones — yet we ourselves must continually be Bereans and search the Word and “prove all things” rather than taking them at face value without question.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
i would like some help in anyone directing me to a good bible commentary that is not a calvanists. i have a william macdonald very good. matthew henry and john macarthur are calvanists, can someone direct me to a trustworthy commentary. if we can no longer trust the berean call then we are really down to no more discernment ministry he was the last for me.
so can someone tell me should we separate from these baptist churches that teach calvanism. would we go so far as brenda nickel saying that the god of calvanism is a false god and a false gospel. bible says let him be dammed he who teaches a false gospel. so do we separate from the macarthurs even though they have some things right.
fantastic site keep up the good work in these confusing times we live in.
Well to answer you all, I trust in God, and Jesus Christ to save me and keep me. If I have to trust and keep myself, that is scarey. I could never do it. But because of my love for Christ, and not wanting to willfully hurt him, I trust in him to help me live a Godly life. I fall very short, but I know he is the author and finisher of my faith. So in him do I trust, not of myself. All my righteousness is as filthy rags in his sight. But for the blood of Christ and his mercy, I am in hell~~~! I see both scriptures in the bible about keeping ourselves from, ect, and the others that say, He keeps us. So I guess I can see how people get confused. But my above statements in this post, is how I feel. I was Born again, and few short hours later, went home and poured all my booze into the sink. No one told me to, but I just knew I needed to. Not that we were big drinkers, we weren’t. I was saved in Nov. and had the booze leftover from the last New Years eve. To God be the Glory!!
John – It is good to see you again, and be reminded of your article, had to chuckle, I think that one got me in a bit of trouble, but if one person sees the pernicious leaven slithering into “mainstream Christianity”, that’s a very good thing. 🙂
John, I really love your article linked to above. I wouldn’t be surprised if it spawned a sequel at some point. Too bad that’s even a remote likelihood or at least possible.
I don’t think it can be emphasized too much that a lot of LS REALLY is VERY subtle. The only reason I recognize it even at all is because I have been its target on many occasions (and I’ve invested a lot of hours reading this blog and the Book of Galatians, to give a couple of examples).
John,
Welcome back. We missed you.
That is an excellent summary of scriptural answers for Suez explaining the wrongs of Lordship “salvation.” Clear, concise and irrefutable.
Thanks…
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Suez, you said:
“It is my understanding after we are saved by the grace of God through faith, in the Lord Jesus Christ, and truly Born Again, that we turn from our sin.”
My comment: There are myriad admonitions in the Epistles – written to believers – to encourage, warn, and beseech them to turn from sin. They were written, because turning from sin is not automatic in the life of Christians. Following are some examples:
Galatians 5:16: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”
1 Peter 2:11: “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;”
Romans 12:1-2: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
The belief that someone who is saved WILL (versus should) turn from sin logically extends to looking for evidence of changed behavior for assurance of salvation. This may lead to fruit inspection (of others) or introspection (of ourselves), which are not reliable indicators of salvation.
Lordship “salvation” takes many forms, some of them extremely subtle. The subtle forms often look to different “barometers” for assurance, rather than trusting in God’s word that salvation is offered freely to anyone who will accept it on God’s terms – by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone.
You may find the following article on the subject of Lordship “salvation” to be thought-provoking:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/08/14/you-might-be-a-lordship-salvationist-if/
Suez, I am sorry, you and I must have posted very close together, I did not see your comment when I answered Petra. Jack’s answer is more than sufficient I believe, but I know if you having any more questions, there are number of people here who will direct you to the Word to answer. In His love!
Suez,
Thanks for your serious inquiry. This may help.
Briefly, Lordship Salvation (LS) teaches that salvation comes from man’s works by several means: Repentance (misinterpreted to mean turning from sin), then keeping certain of man’s rules of behavior which have been incorrectly derived and adapted from the Bible but are, if in context, meant for a believer’s fellowship with each other and the Lord — never salvation.
This LS teaching makes salvation and the keeping of salvation a matter of works — “turn or burn,” “fruit inspection by other LSers, confession of sin for salvation and confession to keep it. Actually our salvation is given by Jesus Christ when we believe and sealed with God’s Holy Spirit, whose Seal will never be broken. (Ephesians 1:13)
All of the LS teaching is a lie because the Bible clearly says that Salvation is God’s Gift, not of our works or righteousness.
And then in Ephesians verse 10, He tells us, as BELIEVERS who are created in Christ Jesus, that we SHOULD (not must) walk in good works — not for our salvation but for our fellowship because we are saved .
LS is a message diametrically opposed to the Gospel of God’s Grace. LS insists on works to be and stay saved.
I pray this helps make it clear.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Petra – so great to hear your praise! I praise Him with you.
So many voices out there standing accusing day and night, by misusing Scripture, they usually start off their diatribes with, “You were never saved if….”
My favorite is the Pentecostals who have weekly altar calls, and the backsliders come back down and get saved again…. They frequently cite a portion from Heb 6 saying that they crucify the Son of God again, not thinking I guess about the portion that says “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”…. They must have missed that part, because they get “saved” over and over…
Digging into His Word, spending time with Him hearing His Words, is the best way to be assured of our salvation, because the more we know His Word, the less likely the enemy can successfully twist it with us.
Looking forward to getting to know you. In His love, Holly!
I have never heard of Lordship salvation until a few weeks ago. I’m confused, just what is it? It is my understanding after we are saved by the grace of God through faith, in the Lord Jesus Christ, and truly Born Again, that we turn from our sin. Of coarse we still can sin, but if we truly love God, we don’t want to hurt him. I know if I sin, and I do, he is faithful and just to forgive me and cleanse me from all unrighteousness. It is my understanding as I read his true word, I grow and develop in him. Thus, he sanctifies me by his word. I will never have it all, nor will I be a perfect pot of clay until I see him. I am a work in progress. I am washed, and cleansed, but still a work in progress. I still get cracked. But Jesus repairs my cracks. 🙂 I am saved and justified by his blood, and washed by the blood, and the reading of his word. Am I wrong??? Any good works I do, is only because of him and his grace, working in me…Right???
Petra,
Welcome to ExPreacherMan. We are very happy to have you here and that you read all our posts.
We are also grateful that, though you made the decision to trust Christ as your Savior in a “works salvation environment,” you fully understand that salvation is NOT of works but only by Grace alone through Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Wonderful — we would love to have you return, join in and comment further as you see fit.
If you have not signed up as a subscriber to receive all posts, please do so when you next comment.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I received salvation by Faith in Jesus 15 years ago and have always believed that one is able to chose or reject Jesus and that once a person has received salvation, it could not be lost again. Never knew really why, because both churches we have been members of ( Nazarenes & Salvation Army ) believe that it is necessary to continue in obedience to remain saved. This has never made much sense to me but nobody has been able to show me irrefutable proof from the Word of God that this is true. Because of this I have been a very conflicted Believer to say the least, but God has begun to show me the Truth of His Grace in recent weeks and the fear and anxiety false teachings have laid on me, is beginning to fall off of me, Praise the Lord. I read every Newsletter from you and everything I am reading now in the Word, is through the lens of His Real Grace and the Word is now a joy to read. Thank you so very much for the work you do to call attention to the many false teachings out there. God bless you
Frying Pan and Jack, I agree with you both. We may miss at times with the appearance of evil, but doctrine is so very important, and I just cannot fathom excusing error…
Wow . . . Ed’s answer to Jack is . . . baffling. Baffling as in, “I think my brain would melt by the time I finally saw the point he’s trying to make.” I think instead I’ll just move on and rejoice in knowing that this is one Berean who, when it comes to people professing to stand for God’s Word, will avoid the very appearance of evil.
Holly,
One of Satan’s emissaries could not have written a more slick and slimy email.
There is NO excuse for that lame attempt at justifying error.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Wow-wow-wow Jack
They used Thess 5:21 as a “don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater” type of an answer??? You must do as God leads you (as if there is different revelation then the Bible???
Berean Call answers you
“Regarding Gresham Machen, we certainly know his position as a Calvinist. We would suggest, however, that the point of this citation is missed. Further, some of the resources we offer or have offered are authored by Calvinists such as C.H. Spurgeon, John MacArthur, Jay Adams (addressing psychology), Mike Gendron (former Catholic), and William Webster. In each case, these resources were offered in spite of their profession of Calvinism as we prayerfully believed that the material was valuable and edifying. As Paul exhorted the Church, we are to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good”
So their point is that, as long as they “believe” the material they pick and choose from a false teacher edifies, go ahead and partake with them, and expose your flock to them?
Wow again, I was flabbergasted to read that letter Jack. Shaking my head in sad amazement…SHAME on Ed at Berean Call…
FryingPan and Holly,
Just a couple of quick notes.
Yes, “prove all things” including anything we say here on ExP, or Yankee Arnold or Hank Lindstron or anyone.
FYI some may wonder why I still receive emails from Berean Call. Just for this very reason — to prove the errors that I have charged against TBC. It is not hearsay but fact.
My communication with Berean Call questioning their use of Calvinists was answered with a note which I shared as a PDF file. It is interesting because of the way they justify posting authors with abysmal, erroneous doctrine. TBC has continued to go downhill faster and faster:
http://www.weaverclan.com/Berean%20answer%20-%20Machen.pdf
Thanks to all of you.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Daniel R
I too have enjoyed both Yankee Arnold and Lindstrom, although I have not listened to many yet, it’s a great start to hear Jack say he believes them to be sound, and also the fact of course, to “prove all things”, another warning Jack is good at 🙂
Jack,
I have written Berean Call on FB a couple of times and not received an answer on their page, one brushed me off with an off-handed remark, so I just left them alone now, they won’t hear, so they will bear the responsibility. It really is a shame, I watched Dave’s earlier video and thought he was soft on the error of Calvinism, and later in life, one of his last videos, not so soft on Calvinism or Rick Warren as I had seen earlier with Dave.
But Tom? I don’t know, it’s such a shame. Seems men prefer the approval of man before God, and if they started actually naming names as Romans 16:17-18 tells us too, and if they would AVOID them, (as the same passage instructs), then maybe less people would be led into error. When people have been warned by brethren and theyjust disregard it, I think the blood of the people is on their heads.
Paul thought it important enough to warn day and night with tears for three years, after he had declared ALL the counsel of God. Seems like these ‘ministry’s’ are picking and choosing what error to expose and what error to let slide. They are not “pure from the blood of all men”, but allowing these grievous wolves in, who will not spare the flock….
FryingPan9
About a year ago, I wrote an article on my blog about Ray Comfort going on Joyce Meyer’s t.v. show (of all people). I don’t remember now exactly what he said, but along the lines of her being a great teacher or preacher…
If he is a real teacher or truth, why would he associate with a false teacher like her? Or TBN [added ref. removed]. This is spoken of in Hebrews 12 regarding those who are not sons in case someone is concerned I am cursing. 🙂
Anyhow, I am thankful for men and women who speak up about error, saves us time in finding out…
Ray Comfort on the surface does indeed seem comforting with his nice little accent and his unassuming posture, etc. Very friendly… Like a wolf dressed like a sheep….
FryingPan,
I appreciate your comment and we are so happy that you have shed the shackles of the Liars of Lordship Probation.
We also appreciate your present acute discernment… so often I find the most discerning of believers are those who have come out of the Lie into the Truth of God’s Grace in Jesus.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Wow, Jack
Thanks for that Scripture reference! (Romans 10:3) That’s one of the best ones I’ve seen to help understand the agenda behind the LS movement that I’ve ever seen. As soon as I finish my in-depth study of Galatians I think I’ll take on Romans (unless The Lord leads me to do otherwise).
Holly,
Thanks for this additional info on Ray Comfort. Interesting thing about Comfort, he talks about “white lies” but he is engaging in BLACK lies of a Satanic nature. He is preaching deception. There is no other way to put it.
He and his deceptive compatriot, Kirk Cameron, fit the essence of this verse:
They are sick and need to believe the Gospel of God’s Grace in Jesus Christ alone!!!
One wonders what Tom McMahon, new honcho at Berean Call (TBC), would say about that? It is a shame to even think this — but McMahon may not see that garbage as an inherent danger to God’s Grace. TBC still regularly posts articles or quotes from radical Calvinists (even this past week).
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Holly, I have no idea what people like Ray Comfort are thinking but I can tell you that nonsense like those pulled quotes you shared above are EXACTLY the kind of thing I heard Ray Comfort say on his Way of the Master show somewhere around 6 or 7 years ago when I didn’t know any better and fell right into his trap, becoming intensely confused and worried.
Of course, based on comments from other former victims or LS teaching that I’ve read on this blog, I was “one of the lucky ones.”
It really is stirring up a lot of feelings having read that just now. Not warm fuzzies, let me tell you. I’m REALLY looking forward to reading more comments on this and feel more satisfied than ever that I ditched The Berean Call and cancelled my newsletter subscription recently.
Jack, yesterday I came across this by Ray Comfort from his ‘bible’. I guess he has joined the ranks of MacArthur in having a Bible named after him? As typical they use this passage instead of warning about false teachers, to fruit inspect “professing Christians”.
(From page 1197, 2003 Bridge-Logos Publishers) of THE EVIDENCE BIBLE, regarding Matthew 7:22-23
Ray Comfort says:
“These are perhaps the most frightening verses in the Bible. Vast multitudes of professing Christians fit into the category spoken of here. They call Jesus ‘Lord,’ but they practice lawlessness. They profess faith in Jesus, but have no regard for the divine law. They tell ‘fibs’ or ‘white’ lies, take things that belong to others, have a roaming eye for the opposite sex, etc. They are liars, thieves, and adulterers at heart, who will be cast from the gates of heaven into the jaws of hell.”
I always wonder what they are speaking of, do they not think on themselves? Do they think they are without sin? Is it just having a “regard” for the “divine law” or having enough regard, or perfect regard?
Or is it that they always remember to ask for forgiveness? What are they thinking?…
Cheers Jack,
I will check out the http://www.yankeearnold.com/ website for teaching also. That’s another site I can now refer to for some solid teaching. Im also glad to hear you say that Hank Lindstrom was a great Bible preacher cause there is also heaps of sermons he preached on youtube.
Daniel,
Hank Lindstrom was a great friend of mine and a great preacher. He, like I, graduated from Florida Bible College and received his Doctorate there.
He is known for solid Bible doctrine. I have never heard anything about him from reputable sources to the contrary. He had a Bible College at his church and invited me to speak at a commencement service. I was honored to do so.
Dr. Yankee Arnold who worked for me while he attended Florida Bible College was invited to take over the church and college ministry at Lindstrom’s church, Calvary Community Church a couple of years ago. His sermons stream live on Sundays, I believe — but since you are in Australia, you will have to compensate for the time difference.Link to his web site: http://www.yankeearnold.com/
Do an Internet search for “Dr. Yankee Arnold” and you will find many great YouTube sermons by Yankee. Before I attended Bible College, Yankee was the one primary influence to inspire me and showed me how to witness to my business customers.
Listen to Yankee and if you hear any error, (not likely) let me know — and if it is error, I will question him about it. We talk periodically by phone.
But like all Bible preachers and teachers, ALWAYS compare what we say in scriptural context with God’s Word.
I know nothing about that BibleLine web site.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hi FryingPan,
I had never heard of Dr. Hank Lindstrom before. I googled him and watched little bits of a sermon by him on youtube and scanned through a few articles on this website below which hosts alot of teaching by this preacher.
http://www.biblelineministries.org
Like I said, I did not do an extensive research on this preacher or website but what i did see seems be be very sound. Yourself, fellow posters and moderators here at expreacherman.com may be able to advise further as to wether Dr. Hank Lindstrom and the above website is a recommended source of Bible teaching.
I am hoping to expand my access to free grace teaching, particularly on topical sermons and specific articles that address various topics. So far i have found teaching from Northland Church, Grace Life and Clear Gospel to be excellent but am seeking greater variety and more exhaustive list of topical teaching.
Daniel,
Just to echo the idea that they can indeed be dishonest, I recently watched a video of the late Dr. Hank Lindstrom who, while not directly addressing Calvinists, nevertheless talked about preachers he knew of who personally admitted to withholding the simplicity of the gospel from his “flock” for fear that they’d used it as license to sin. If some who preach false doctrine are wiling to admit to their underhanded ways, imagine how many of them are capable of being dishonest without even realizing it.
Daniel,
That is a wonderful analysis of the trail of tears of the TULIP. It all ties together in one tangled mess.
Calvinist’s “Perseverance” is not the same as Biblical Eternal Security.
You said of Calvinists, “I don’t know if they were ignorant, beating around the bush or being plain dishonest.”
In my conversations with Calvinists I find it could be either one or a combination of any or all three:
Thanks for the excellent thoughts.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Thanks Bruce, Jack and Frying Pan for your clear and informative answers,
I see your point Jack, how that the T the U the L and the P is their false system of theology is all connected to each other and rests upon the whole erroneous and absurd idea that God from eternity past chooses some to be saved and others not.
Basically they are saying because the sinner is (T) totally unable to respond to God that its the unconditional election (U) of God that causes someone to believe on Christ apart from their own will to choose. This false doctrine then goes on to say that because God only chose some people to be saved, Jesus therefore did not die for the whole world but that his atonement was limited (L) to only the world of the elect. Those that were ‘elected’ to salvation would not resist the irresistible grace of God to believe (I) and would persevere in faith and holy living till the very end of their lives (P) because they were elected unconditionally.
I see how the whole thing ties together.
Regarding the P in TULIP, I have spoken to a few Calvinists now about the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints and said to them that it’s not the same as the Biblical doctrine of eternal security because the doctrine of the Perseverence of the saints says that those that are elect will surely continue in faith and holiness till the end of their lives. I said that their P has the emphasis is on the person to persevere in a lifestyle of holiness and faithfulness and requires a focus on works to prove salvation. In contrast, the Biblical doctrine of eternal security has the focus on the perseverance of the Savior to keep the believer secure apart from works. It’s quite different.
They basically said that their doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints is the same as what I was saying eternal security was and made out like I was not speaking accurately of their position.
I don’t know if they were ignorant, beating around the bush or being plain dishonest.
trust4himonly-Faith
I am so sorry, just saw your note from way back when about Metaxas and all of the people who are connected together with each other. It’s pretty amazing who you used to think were diametrically opposed, you can see the common denominator (always start to spell it demoninator, probably a better spelling). See you over on FB.
If Jesus lighteth every man that cometh into the world…and the Spirit of the Almighty gave us life, and that we are made in His image, isn’t there some good in every man just due to those facts?
Cornelius, without knowing God, feared Him and gave many alms to the people, and was a just man of “good report”.
The Gentiles like the Centurion or the woman with the demon-possessed daughter, before believing, were praised for their great faith. (Is that not good?)
Someone who leaves an inheritance to their children’s children is called a good man.
We all have sinned and fallen short of His glory. None of us are good in God’s sight without believing on Him, but that does not mean man is not capable of doing good.
If you being evil earthly father’s know how to give good gifts…
Daniel, one thing Calvinists and others (like some Lutherans who also) accept the idea that because man is “dead in trespasses and sins” he is therefore “like a corpse, unable to respond,” are unable to explain, is how therefore said “corpse” is able to sin. They can’t have it both ways. Oh, they have their explanations, but none of their explanations are backed up by scripture. Neither are they logical.
I would totally discard anything remotely associated with Calvinism, personally. One of the latest excuses I’ve seen for not totally discarding Calvinists like MacArthur and Sproul is that “they know so much about the Bible.” Right . . . so does Satan. Not sure I see their point.
Daniel,
Bruce’s answer is excellent.
Additionally:
The “T” and all the rest of the acronym ULIP must stand together for the doctrinaire Calvinist. It goes back to their catch-phrase, “Sovereignty of God,” invented by Reformed/Calvinist teachers and means to them that God is “sovereign” over all mankind. (BTW neither “sovereign or sovereignty” appear in the KJV Bible). Thus in spite of the “total depravity/inability” of man to make a decision, God, in His “sovereign will” has chosen some (from the foundation of the world) in spite of their “depravity” to have eternal life and consequently leaving all others to go to hell. But Calvinists must then go to the “P” and “Persevere” to the end to be saved. The TULIP is all tied together.
“True” Calvinism, which includes all letters of the TULIP, is a diabolical doctrine because, as Bruce says, man has no choice to believe or refuse to believe, in spite of many, many verses in the Bible plainly reading to the contrary.
A 5 point Calvinist is one who believes all five point definitions of the TULIP. And, not surprisingly, some folks say that they are a 1, 2, 3 or 4 point Calvinist, believing only that number of TULIP points. Even that defies Biblical logic, so often some Calvinists or wannabes alter the meanings of the acronym TULIP..
A Free Grace believer who knows God’s Word, understands Free Grace and is aware of the lie of Calvinism will reject all five false points as being totally un-Biblical.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hi Daniel,
The T of TULIP, to the strict Calvinist, means more negatively than what most people perceive. In a nutshell, it means, to the strict Calvinist, “Total Inability,” or the complete inability of a man or woman to respond to God in ANY way! Calvinists often use the improper example of a cadaver. They say, “Just as a cadaver is completely unresponsive, so a man, dead in his sins, cannot respond to God in any way.” So, salvation must basically be thrust upon the individual (even if it’s against his will), because, to the strict Calvinist, a person has absolutely no ability to respond to the wooing of the Spirit in belief in Christ to be saved, IN SPITE of the many Scriptures which call a person to believe (Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16; John 7:38; John 10:9; John 11:25, et. al.).
Hi Everyone
I see the error of Calvinism. I am not so sure what the problem with the T in TULIP is though. Apparently when Calvinists say that T is for total depravity they don’t mean that man is totally depraved in sin but that we are totally unable to save ourselves. Is that all the T for TULIP means?
Thanks guys,
Thanks for the feedback. I read the links, very good.
Yes, Julie your words of encouragement are very sound and very encouraging! Thank you : )
And what you said Julie, i honestly know its what I just have to do even though there are many things I may not understand (some problematic passages in 1 John that are hard to understand etc and will still aim to try and understand these things, not only for myself but also for the many whom I have already tried to share the gospel with but want to take the side of LS. I also know that I don’t need to understand everything to stand on the clear promises of God) the gospel is very clear. God has given is so many clear statements that salvation is simply by believing and I just need to stand on a very clear scripture (Such as John 3:16) or scriptures (there are so many clear and simple salvation passages) and not be moved no matter what feelings tell me. And that’s what I am doing! The word of God is true and that settles it.
Great to have you with us, Julie.
I too am (as you described) “an introspective person, prone to anxiety/fear, over-analyzing, and have deeply struggled with salvation assurance.”
Struggled (PAST tense of course must be emphasized), though the devil does his dirtiest to trip me up.
I found everything you said quite sound and sensible.
Welcome to Expreacherman.com, Julie!
Thanks for your heart-felt comments to Daniel. I trust that he will find them to be helpful.
Daniel, I see some of my own struggles in what you posted; I, too, am an introspective person, prone to anxiety/fear, over-analyzing, and have deeply struggled with salvation assurance.
Jesus very simply says that those who believe have eternal life. The people in Acts who believed after hearing the Gospel may not have been able to sit down and discern whether their faith was truly 100% perfect or not, but they DID know this… that Jesus died and rose again for their sins.. and they were saved the moment they simply believed in Him, just as Jesus said they would be.
From what you have written you are pretty much doing what you should be doing; making the CHOICE to stand on the clear and simple promises of God, and studying His Word and growing in His grace.
Paul has said to not give the devil an opportunity (Eph 4:26, NASB). In context he was talking about anger, but I think it goes for gaining assurance, too. When the little whisper of “Am I really…?” comes up, you have two choices: you can choose to nurture it and let it grow, or starve it by paying attention to God’s straightforward promises instead.
Anyway, I tend to ramble, but I really hope this is sound and makes sense! I’ve got lots to learn myself. Califgracer and John have given some good links. (Jack and other admins, please feel free to delete my post if it is not sound) I would suggest adding Romans and Galatians to your studies, Daniel; they have helped me grow in the Gospel more and more… and continue to do so!
I’m keeping you in my prayers.
Daniel, check out the following on assurance from Clear Gospel Campaign:
http://www.cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3&i_id=40&s=2
Hi again Daniel,
Dr. Charlie Bing has written extensively on the subject of assurance of the believer. My favorite text on the subject is John 10:27-30. I highly recommend your reading of Dr. Bing’s “GraceNotes” at GraceLife Ministries web site. Several of his articles address the subject of assurance of salvation. Here is one good example:
http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes.asp?id=6
That’s good, anyway, like to steer the conversation back to my last section of the previous post before it went off track. If anyone wants to comment on what I posted that would be great as I think that part of what I said simply got forgotten. It would be great to hear some people feedback on what I said since that was the whole point of my posts. As copied again below:
Anyway, just want to let you guys know I am choosing to stand on the promises of scripture in the simple and clear statements of salvation such as John 3:16, John 5:24 etc. I can’t say that there is no fear in my soul, I even think to myself that ‘maybe I have not believed perfectly or maybe I have an iota of trust in self still because of my, at times anxiety, etc etc” my mind is very analytical and introspective, my worst enemy at times, but as far as I can tell, I am trusting in Christ alone and will hold onto the promises of scripture that say that because I have believed on Christ alone and believed the record that God gave of His Son, I have eternal life which can never end or be taken away.
Hi Daniel,
You are welcome here for, as you say, “more fruitful discussions and things regarding the gospel.”
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hi Jim and others,
I understand that your intention is not to ‘come down on me or anything’ and know that your intention is to be to a guidance and blessing to me. Even if I don’t always agree with everything you may say, it’s good to know that your intention is only good and it’s great to have people around that have this intention to be a blessing.
Anyway, looking at the editorial note above, I think the editors probably don’t want any further discussion on the subject and I personally am happy to move onto more fruitful discussions. Hoping I am still welcome here to post and discuss things regarding the gospel. God Bless
Daniel
Thank you Jim for letting me know, I thought it was the other way around, appreciate you informing me. Since I am here in town, we hear from time to time things, also with his associations and so, I know more than I wanted to 🙂 but it makes much more sense he doesn’t believe in pre-trib. Thanks again.
Holly,
I believe that Anderson teaches against the pre-trib rapture. He likens the pre-trib rapture as that of a fairy tale.
Daniel,
Be wary of those who claim that the KJV itself is inspired. It is actually a translation into English of the original inspired texts. If I come across a person that has one or two things that seem sound but a multitude of problems then I stay clear. Anderson’s theological errors are numerous and some are very troublesome. That is even before you consider any of his hate speech.
Also, please don’t feel like we are coming down on you or anything. I realize that much of the Christian walk and process of sanctification takes time. I’d just hate to see you tripped up by someone like Anderson. I do believe you are learning some discernment. Just keep leaning on the Bible itself and it’s truth and not so much on men. Validate what men say through scripture always including those of us here who frequent this site. If what were are saying is worthwhile then it will be proved worthy by God’s Word.
[Editorial note: thanks to the several contributors who have given strong informed warnings about Pastor Anderson, his strange “doctrines,” his hate-speech, etc. The administrators ask that there be no further promotion of his problematic views.]
Daniel, we are to prove all things, test the spirits, search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. It’s funny, I see sound Bible verse passages that are being passed around by Hebrew Roots Movements (Torah keepers) and I see good sound Christian music being passed around by “prophetic seers”, like Satan, they do not mind using truth to deceive, or the Word of God to mislead.
Steven Anderson may seem to get the pre-trib rapture right, he may seem to get the gospel of grace right, but all he preaches is no repentance gospel, (change of mind) vs. teaching the correct definition of repentance, based on his own hyper/ultra dispensational position. This sets up the true gospel of grace to be maligned by his hate filled quotes and unsound speech.
He teaches KJVO which means that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God. He might teach pre-trib, and might call himself Baptist, but plenty of what he teaches needs marked and avoided. His wife is not seemly in speech at all for a Christian woman, her page full of mockery and hate. He curses at times, and says many foolish things.
I hope you will forgive my boldness, but if you listen to someone you know is in error, and hates others, and you do not mark and avoid them yourself, then you set yourself up to be deceived.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John 1:9-11
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Romans 16:17-18
Just to confirm also, I had a quick listen the other night to a sermon Steven Anderson preached on Rev 22. Anderson did not say that someone who commits the sin in Rev 22:18-19 won’t come to faith but that’s how I understood what he said. He did say that it’s talking about people that tamper with scripture (as with say the NIV translators) and said they sealed their fate to hell. I understand Anderson has some errors and I can’t tell you what they are, he can also be harsh and over the top and unloving in his speech at times but regarding salvation he is very sound. I also think his teaching on end times is the best I have heard but that’s just my opinion. I won’t boycott him but will listen to more of Cuccuzza and I think he is all round very sound. When I showed my wife Anderson’s sermons she says he is abrupt and arrogant. When she heard Cuccuzza she though he was good to listen to. Anyway, just want to let you guys know I am choosing to stand on the promises of scripture in the simple and clear statements of salvation such as John 3:16, John 5:24 etc. I can’t say that there is no fear in my soul, I even think to myself that ‘maybe I have not believed perfectly or maybe I have an iota of trust in self still because of my, at times anxiety, etc etc” my mind is very analytical and introspective, my worst enemy at times, but as far as I can tell, I am trusting in Christ alone and will hold onto the promises of scripture that say that because I have believed on Christ alone and believed the record that God gave of His Son, I have eternal life which can never end or be taken away.
Thanks Jim, John, Jack and Holly for your responses also for those who put up a prayer,
I have decided not to even give this any more concern. I am secure for the very fact of the many promises in scripture, such as in John 3:16 and a great many others. If God has said that if you believe on Christ then you are saved then Rev 22 does not nullify what God has said.
Without going into great detail, I understand that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was done only in the generation of people that lived when Jesus walked the earth and it was done by people that opposed Him, not by people that had come to believe on Christ alone apart from works for everlasting life. Likewise, reprobates “resist the truth” ( II Timothy 3:8).
I don’t believe the warning in Rev 22:18-19 is something easy to do. I don’t understand it perfectly but I believe it must be talking about intentionally, maliciously tampering with scripture. I don’t know if the warning is limited to the book of Rev or the whole Bible. Different people have different beliefs on that. In any case, after giving this alot of thought, I actually can’t even think of a time that I actually substituted the word ‘Torah’ for ‘law’ but think that I “may have done it” but thinking about how I used to be, I actually don’t even think I even did that. Even so, when I looked in the Hebrew NT (I can read a little Hebrew from when I was Barmitzvah’d and learning as a boy) I looked up a few passages in Romans where the word ‘law’ is used and the word in that Hebrew translations is actually the word Torah, so it seems to be a good choice of words anyway if one was going to translate the word ‘law’ for a Jewish audience.
In any case, I don’t think translating words is what Rev 22 is talking about (unless you are talking about tampering with the Word which I personally believe the translators of many new Bibles such as the NIV ARE guilty of). I don’t think the passage is talking about paraphrasing when in conversation (either through text or speech) nor is it talking about quoting half a verse, dropping a word by a slip of the toungue or even making up scriptures jokingly or to make a point (preachers often quote a scripture purposely with a wrong word before reading it correctly to make a point).
I personally do believe that as with reprobates, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and taking the mark of the beast, committing this sin in Rev 22:18-19 is a sin that seals the fate of someone so much so that they can’t be saved and WON’T come to a point of faith in Christ. Thats pretty much what Anderson teaches, as do many others. In any case, I also realise that there are many people that believe that Rev 22:18-19 is only concerned with rewards not salvation. That said, because of the worry it caused, I don’t want to try and do any translation from one language to the next without at least putting brackets and italics, which is what I probably would have done if I even did it at all in the first place.
However, Anderson, as a KJVer that believes the KJV is inspired and preserved and infallible he may take his interpretation a little too far. Listening to him at times I have wondered if the KJV is inspiried and perfect but at the moment still believe it is not perfect as a translation, not inspired, but uses perfect manuscripts.
Holly,
Thanks for the good advice for Daniel. The more distance he can put between himself and that preacher, the better.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Daniel, I’m also thinking you might be helped by looking up the two words for adding and taking away, both by force is included, but go look for yourself. I think it’s possible you’re listening to some legalism, a KJVO’er who teaches you that the KJV is the preserved Word of God vs. the original languages, is going to be teaching you an awful lot more things that are skewed. Praying you’ll get away from some of this. If you are in Phoenix, you might consider going to see Fred Chay, he teaches on Sunday at the chapel building 9:30 am, at Scottsdale Bible. You can listen first online if you want. God bless…
Daniel,
Btw, I just came across a message by Pastor Anderson that you had mentioned before. In it he says some things that are quite simply not true. Especially concerning Rev 22 and how he thinks that certain people have no more chance for salvation. He is wrong. This kind of thinking and teaching will not help you with your doubts.
Jim F
Hi Daniel,
Don’t worry, most of us here enjoy relevant theological ideas and questions.
I have no problem if you need to ask questions. From what I know of Jack and Bruce, they do not either. You are right in that it can take time to properly build the foundation of scriptural knowledge and principles that will help you keep your feelings and doubts in check when they do arise. That kind of thing can happen for all believers. Even those of us who have strong assurance can have moments of doubt at times for various reasons. It is just that you eventually train yourself with the Word. It looks to me that you are doing just that. John 6:37 is a great verse.
I basically see those referenced in that passage in Rev 22 as those unbelievers that specifically taught error concerning God’s Word. They never became believers, NOT because they didn’t have the chance to believe the gospel but because they CHOSE not to.
Think of the testimony of the apostle Paul. Look at I Cor 15:1 through verse 11 and take special notice of verse 9. Also notice Gal 1:13-16 Paul even violently persecuted the church of God while part of the Jewish religion. He wasn’t teaching the truth of God’s Word. Yet, he was later saved. Gal 1:23 says
We should remember that there is no sin that an unbeliever can commit, short of something that causes their own physical death, that can cancel their ability to ever believe the gospel.
Gal 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
This should be great encouragement to us in that if we take the gospel to the lost then we can know that it can be believed and the people can indeed be saved. There is no sub-class group of unbelievers that are unable to be saved. Granted, the circumstances surrounding Paul’s conversion experience are not to be expected as a norm, but it is the same God that saves us by His grace through faith.
When I was in college we would take trips to prisons and witness to the inmates and hold church services. I was required of us male students to go once a twice before graduating. Some even made extension ministries out of it and formed groups that regularly went to hold services for converts in some of these places. I’ll never forget going one time and looking some of these guys in the face and sharing the gospel. Some were Muslim, part of cults that I had not heard of etc, or just plain hardened criminals but I knew I had a message that could help should they have chosen to believe it. Some there already had believed and were serving their time taking opportunities to grow in the Word and share the gospel with others from within.
Hi Jim
Thanks for your response. As far as I can tell in understanding what you wrote, you are agreeing that reprobates resist the truth and don’t believe the Gospel. That’s what I have come to believe and that’s what I am holding on to in order to not allow accusing thoughts to pull me down into doubt. That settles that.
Regarding your response to my query on Rev 22:18-19, not that does not really answer my question. I do not believe that a believer can lose salvation. NOT FOR ANY REASON. When I think that I did what I was talking about I did it as a person still believing in Lordship Salvation. It’s not that I think Rev 22:18-19 can make a believer lose salvation, it’s that I AM CONCERNED (it’s just a thought that pops into my head and causes doubt at times, not all the time but still messes with assurance) that it would mean that a person that has done that sin CANNOT be saved because they already committed that sin as an unbeliever.
Please note, I have tried just accepting quick little answers from people who say ‘just accept the Gospel’ but it does not get rid of the occasional doubts. It never did for me when I had concerns about the Blasphemy of the Spirit, it worried me for YEARS until I understood what it meant and I can say with assurance that I am not worried at all about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If I can’t ask the question here but am expected to simply accept quick answers and not talk about it, it won’t help in the long run for me. Also note, as far as I can tell, I have trusted in Christ alone, even rejoiced when I understood the errors of LS and had a measure of assurance until later when I heard teaching on reprobation and Rev 22:18-19 that I started to get worrying thoughts. I don’t know about what you say, but I do believe that saved people can get doubts and at times lack assurance because of an introspective type of mind (which I also have). I don’t think that means they have never trusted Christ but would mean they are simply getting thoughts of doubt. If I can’t talk about it then it won’t go away by itself so please bear with me in asking the questions.
To be honest, I am just wanting to simplify this as much as possible. I have told myself that the end to the whole question on ALL these concerns, including REV 22:18-19, is that a person who comes to Christ and believes on Him alone COULD NOT BE A REPROBATE nor have committed REV 22:18-19 for the simple fact that God’s Word says in John 3:16 “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” and in John 6:37 Jesus says “him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”
From what I understand of just those two passages alone, Jesus says if you believe on Him, your are saved. If you come to Him, He won’t cast you out, meaning you are eternally secure and also meaning that if you want to come to Him, He won’t turn you away, He will receive you.
From what I can see, simply standing on these two scriptures alone (plus the other hundreds of promises in God’s word) should be enough for me to tell myself, I may not understand Rev 22 (and believe me, there are MANY interpretations of this verse even amongst free grace believers) but whether or not I can come to understand it or not I can hold onto the promise of God for salvation. Jesus said if you believe in Him, you saved – Period. He says if you come to Him, He won’t cast you out – Period. I think that’s the only way out of doubt for me and I think it is sound Biblically, that I just gotta believe the simple, clear statements and promises of God and not worry about getting all confused with the stuff that is not so clear. Would you agree?
Daniel, I am praying for you.
There are no caveats, “weasel words” or “small print” to God’s promise of salvation to anyone who will simply believe in Jesus Christ as his Savior.
God cannot lie. He is not trying to trick people. He is not some used car salesman (no offense to any used car salesmen).
God wants everyone to be saved, and he wants all believers to have assurance.
Satan wants no one to be saved, and he wants to rob believers of their assurance.
Check out the following from Clear Gospel Campaign:
http://www.cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3&i_id=42&s=2
Daniel,
I think you are the right track with: “John 3:16 says “WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.I am a WHOSOEVER that believes in Christ…”
Assurance of salvation is as good as the trustworthiness of Christ (God) and His ability to do what He has promised. If you believe in Christ as your savior then what can anyone, including yourself, do to take it away? Then answer is nothing. No one and no thing can undo your standing in Christ.
With regards to reprobation, I look at it two ways. One is the passage that you mentioned in Romans. FryingPan9 and I addressed this as far as God allows people to choose to accept or reject Him. The second type is related to Calvinism’s teaching on unconditional election where they suppose that God chooses some people to be the elect (meaning that only these will believe and be saved, and that therefore the rest are by default chosen to have no ability to do anything but be reprobate. Some refer to this a double predestination or “reprobation”. To be sure you will want to stay awy from folks who promote this type of teaching.
For me I understand that it is possible for believers to be carnal but not possible for them to become unsaved again. Those who are reprobate and are known as truth suppressors as in Romans 1 are those who continue to reject the gospel. They never have believed in the first place.
Revelation 22:18-19 is not something that can take a believer and make them lose their salvation. Look at Rev 3:5 an I John 5:3. Based on these types of verses I say that those not in the book of life were never believers. Are you going to believe the gospel and trust Christ alone for salvation or will you reject it? That is the question everyone needs to answer.
Let me know if that has help answer your questions better.
Praying for you,
Jim F
Hi guys,
Thanks for your answers. I probably should have made it clearer in my question. I don’t concern myself about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit anymore, I sorted that out a while ago but mentioned it here and grouped it together because they all seem unforgivable by scripture. The things that are stopping me from having 100% assurance are the idea of reprobation and the warning in Rev 22:18-19. I am wanting to go soul winning but won’t until I have 100% assurance once and for all.
Let me repeat, the main thing that has been messing with my assurance is the warning in Rev 22:18-19 and to a lesser degree, reprobation.
Regarding the lesser concern, reprobation. The scripture interprets in several verses but it seems not to be limited to being handed over to doing things that they WANT to do but also carries with it the idea that they are REJECTED and can’t be saved as seen by the scriptures below:
Jeremiah 6:30
Reprobate silver shall men call THEM, BECAUSE THE LORD hath rejected them.
II Timothy 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Jim, didn’t quite understand what you said about the calvinistic teaching on reprobation. I am not really familiar with that teaching anyway but some other teaching on reprobation which has been in my mind.
Regarding your comment on what reprobation is, you said:
“As for reprobates, I believe that God allows people to make their own choices. This includes the choice whether or not to believe the gospel if it is presented to them no matter what sin they are committing or for how long they have done so.”
Just trying to make sense of your point here. From my understanding, you are saying that reprobation concerns someone who rejects the Gospel. Therefore anyone who believes on Christ could NEVER be a reprobate. Is this what you are saying? Sorry, if I am trying to be overly specific here but when I was worried about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (which I am not worried about anymore) it took me several years to get it out of my mind and I just want to get free from all doubt about my salvation once and for all and sick of the awful feeling that comes along with the thoughts that if I died I still am not completely sure if I would go to Heaven or not. Sorry, I also doubt myself alot in these matters and sometimes just need to see if I am seeing things clearly or not.
From what it says in II Timothy 3:8, people who are “reprobate concerning the faith” are also people who “resist the truth”. In Romans chapter 1 it also talks about people who God has given over to a reprobate mind to do THINGS that basically should not be done. Basically from a salvation standpoint, as far as I can see, a reprobate has resisted the truth of the Gospel so a believer has nothing to worry about. Would you agree with that?
Regarding the warning in Revelation 22:18-19. This really is my main concern. I have been worried about this for about a year and its still in my head. Maybe because I listen to some preachers that believe that the KJV Bible is perfectly preserved without any error at all. The reason I have been concerned about this is cause i am fairly sure I have substituted words. For example: In passages where the word ‘Law’ is used when witnessing to Jewish people, i have used the word ‘Torah’. I cant rememeber, but I think I may have even did this in writing when quoting direct Bible verses and took the word law out and substituted the word Torah. This concerns me this is not just talk about the Bible, but written Bible quotes. Also, cause technically this is both adding and taking away. I also have been concerned somewhat with the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 cause I have jokingly made up pretend scriptures before. I know this probably sounds silly but i just know how serious God takes His word and the warning in Rev 22 is pretty serious. I have checked out what various people say about Rev 22 and some say it concerns rewards, others say it concerns going to Hell cause in the KJV its says that persons wont be in the book of life. Either way, it’s a concern I want to drop once and for all and for one in my life come to the point of total assurance.
I have told myself that maybe the way out of this is just to stand on a solid scripture. For example. John 3:16 says “WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”.
I am a WHOSOEVER that believes in Christ so maybe that should settle the matter once and for all as simply as that?
Hi Daniel,
JimF and FryingPan have given you good concise solid answers! Thanks to them! The only thing that I might add is that yes, Matthew 12:31 was referring historically to the men who were accusing Jesus of possessing a demonic spirit. If one wanted to make a modern-day analogy, those today who consistently and repeatedly spurn the wooing of the Spirit and reject God’s gracious offer to all of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, right up to and through the point of death, are in effect, “blaspheming the Spirit,” and, tragically, no, there is then no hope for those persons.
Daniel,
What Jim F says rings totally true and thorough with me. I’m not sure where the idea of “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit [is and am convinced that this] can’t be done except when Christ walked the earth” comes from. I’ve always understood the idea of God giving men (people; unbelievers) over to a reprobate/debased mind as God basically giving them what they WANT. (See Romans 1:28 and 2 Thess. 2:11.)
Only God knows who will and will not ultimately believe the gospel and be saved. If someone truly in their heart wants nothing to do with God and His only plan of salvation, God is just in giving them the desire of their hearts, even if it’s not in their best interest.
A few years ago it was very trendy for haters of God to take the so-called “Blasphemy Challenge.” It’s as sick, annoying and heartbreaking as you’d imagine. But I personally have a hard time thinking that’s the “unpardonable sin,” –that stating something along the lines of “Yes, I renounce Christianity and want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and consign my soul to hell,” is necessarily the unpardonable sin. It’s POSSIBLE some of those misguided souls who partook of that travesty could have a change of heart and seek forgiveness and salvation, albeit unlikely. Only God knows when someone’s heart is hardened past the point of no return.
To my knowledge and understanding there’s only one unforgivable/unpardonable sin, and that’s to reject the atoning work of Christ and the free gift of salvation. I hope I’m not stating the obvious.
If someone needs to correct or elaborate on what I’ve said, I’m sure they will.
I hope this is helpful.
Daniel,
The only thing now that is unpardonable is dying without the Savior. This is because sin is unpardonable without the applied blood of Christ. As for reporbates, I believe that God allows people to make their own choices. This includes the choice whether or not to believe the gospel if it is presented to them no matter what sin they are committing or for how long they have done so. I would reject the calvinist’s view of reprobation that would say that God predetermines for certain people to be reprobates thereby taking away any chance for them to be saved no matter how many times they hear the gospel.
Hope that helps.
Jim F
Hi people, quick question,
The Bible talks about ‘reprobate’ people, which from my understanding, is someone that has been rejected and can’t be saved because they have come to a point of hardness, rejected the truth so much so that God gives them over to a mind that can’t see the truth. There are also passages of scriptures that refer to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is an unforgivable sin and also the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 which also seem to be an unforgivable sin. At times I have worried about this but not overly so. Even so, it comes up in my mind sometimes and still messes with my assurance of salvation. Would you agree that to have committed any of these sins, whether the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Revelation 22:18-19 or one who is a reprobate, a person who is in such a category cannot come to a point of accepting Christ alone and understanding the free grace of the Gospel (which necessitates an understanding of the eternal security of the believer). Would you agree that?
To make things a little clearer, I have come to understand what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is and am convinced that this can’t be done except when Christ walked the earth, it’s the other two categories that I need to get clear about.
Hello Bruce
Thank you, and Jack, for your courtesy and patience.
God bless
Sue
x
I have enjoyed reading all of the above ideas. I also agree with Jack.
Move on to another subject. I am looking forward for the next subject with
excitement.
God bless,
John H. Gregory
Thank you for those statements. Now this discussion is over please.
Additional collective response from administrators:
“The Expreacherman.com administrators believe that scripture is clear that Jesus Christ shed His blood and died on the cross to completely atone for all of the sins of mankind. We believe that the teaching that Christ in some way experienced “spiritual death” while on the cross is based on conjecture, and not supported by scripture.”
For clarity
The Perfect Humanity of Christ Incarnate
A. He had a human body
Though Christ’s conception was supernatural, He was born with a human body that grew and developed Luke2:52. He called Himself a man John 8:40
B. He Had a Human Soul and Spirit.
The perfect humanity of our Lord included a perfect immaterial nature as well as a material one.
It was not that the human nature provided Christ’s body while the Divine nature consisted of a soul and spirit.
The humanity was complete and included both material and immaterial aspects. Matt26:38; Luke23:46
p. 286.
Appoliarianism 4th Century.
Appolinarius, the younger, died about 390, sought to avoid undue separation of the natures of Christ. He taught that Christ had a human body and a human soul; but that He had the divine Logos instead of a human spirit (this assumes a trichotomous view of man). This Logos dominated the passive human body and soul. This was an error affecting the humanity of man.
Condemned in 680
P290.
Nestorianism divided Christ into two persons … the humanity had the form of Godhead bestowed upon it, and the Deity took the form of a servant, the result being the appearance of Jesus of Nazereth. In this view the two natures were separated resulting in two persons.
Condemned in 431
P290.
Orthodoxy claims Christ as being one Person, perfect humanity, full Deity.
“A study of errors should help clarify the truth and make us more careful how we express it. Semantics are very important in the statements of theology”. – C Ryrie.
p.291.
Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie
“The ExP administrators believe that scripture is clear that Jesus Christ shed His blood and died on the cross to completely atone for all of the sins of mankind. We believe that the teaching that Christ in some way experienced “spiritual death” while on the cross is based on conjecture, and not supported by scripture.”
Hello friends,
I’m sorry that I haven’t had the opportunity to weigh in on the main discussion due to work and family commitments. I will just say that I think that the teachings of Robert Dean are problematic and not in line with Scripture; John laid out some strong Bible passages in response to Dean’s teachings. One verse that I would personally specifically point to is Hebrews 9:22 “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Also, Colossians 1:20 reads, “And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.” Notice in both of the texts, Christ’s death on the cross is the focal point of our redemption from sins, not some near-death separation.
I will second Jim and Jack’s call to a cessation of the discussion at hand.
Jim and all,
I agree with your assessments and especially your statement:
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Sue and Pearl,
I agree with John and Jim F… and …
I think it is time we ceased this discussion as it seems to be proving divisive.
Thanks for your thoughts and comments.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I have to wonder if there are some grave misunderstandings here. This assertion is going way out there.
My edition of Strong’s says this under 2288 (Greek):
“(3) Death is the opposite of life, it never denotes nonexistence. (4) As spiritual life is conscious existence in communion with God, so spiritual death is conscious existence in separation from God. (5) Death, in whichever of the above-mentioned senses it is used, is (5a) always, in Scripture, viewed as the penal consequence of sin, and (5b) since sinners alone are subject to death (Rom 5:12), (5c) it was as the Bearer of sin that the Lord Jesus submitted thereto on the cross (1 Pet 2:24). (5d) And while the physical death of the Lord Jesus was of the essence of His sacrifice, it was not the whole. (5c) The darkness symbolized, and His cry expressed, the fact that He was left alone in the universe. He was forsaken (Mt 27:45-46).
If we’re strictly speaking of physical death, why does Hebrews 2:9 say that Christ tasted death for every man when, from the beginning of time, all men have died physically themselves and will continue to die (excepting those redeemed who will be caught up in the rapture)? Going by Jesus’ being forsaken on the cross, and by Strong’s definition of spiritual death, isn’t this the same as what Sue is saying (as well as Dave Hunt)?
I agree John,
Also, 1 Peter 3:18 says he was put to death in the flesh.. not in the flesh and in the spirit.
Also, the comparison is to the lambs that were killed in the OT times. They did not die spiritually – They were animals. It was the sacrifice including death which meant shedding of blood that paid the price of God’s penalty. In the grandest sense Jesus Christ was that sacrifice for all of mankind. A once and for all perfect sacrifice. He had to give his life, that is exactly why he had to be born and take on human flesh in the first place. So that He could live a sinless life and die the perfect sacrifice. At no point did that include spiritual death. There is not Greek or Bible verse to support that. For any discussions on the Greek I’ll defer to Jack or Bruce on that. It may also be good to drop this topic. I think John and I have been clear. Any further proving of our position may need to be done in silent study of God’s Word on an individual basis.
Jim F
I do not believe that Christ died a “spiritual death” on the cross.
Following are the reasons why:
1. Jesus is fully God. As such, it is impossible for Him to die spiritually.
Luke 5:20-23:
[20] And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
[21] And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
[22] But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
[23] Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?
2. Jesus did not have to die spiritually in order to die physically. Why? Because He had the power to give up His life and take it back again.
John 10:17-18:
“[17] Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
[18] No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
3. The scriptures repeatedly give reference to our justification by His physical death.
Colossians 1:20-22:
“[20] And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
[21] And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
[22] In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight”
Romans 5:9-10:
“[9] Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
[10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
4. The Gospel makes no mention of His “spiritual death.” Nor am I aware of any other scripture that says that He died spiritually.
5. Our sins were imputed to Him, not imparted to Him.
Hebrews 4:15:
“[15] For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
6. He did not suffer twice for our sins.
1 Peter 3:18:
“[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit”
Sue,
There is no spiritual death on the cross for judgment. Yes Christ is the God/Man. The idea is that he had to, as the spotless lamb, be slain, shedding his blood in the process of death in order to satisfy God’s wrath for sin. That is it. We do not have to get into things like Jesus had to somehow die spiritually just like Adam did and be born again basically. The reason being in that the big difference between Jesus and Adam is that Jesus was sinless himself, even when taking upon himself the sin of the world. Otherwise could it not be said that God at one point became a sinner? He would cease to God. …Which is not possible.
Jim F
I have understood Jesus Christ’s work on the cross as Sue set forth above, and I fail to see any error here.
Hello All
One needs to remember that it was Jesus the MAN who suffered and shed His own human blood in the Atonement. It was Jesus the human substitute that had the sin of the world laid upon Him, and in that judgment, His Holy Father was UNABLE to look upon the humanity of Christ and they were separated “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me’ was the cry from Christ’s humanity.
As God the Son, in His Divinity, He and The Father are inexorably and eternally together. All the objections thus far have failed to acknowledge that vital, Biblical fact.
The KJ translators made it easy for us to understand the context of ‘spirit’. Without the Greek context, it is difficult to know if it is the Holy Spirit or mans spirit. Take a look at these verses beginning at the start of Jesus’ life.
Luke 2:40; Mark 2:8; Mark 8:12; Matt27:50; Luke 23:46.
Notice we are helped by the translators use of a lower case ‘s’ and clarified as HIS spirit.
For example notice how the Holy Spirit is marked by a capital ‘S’ and THE definite article when used in. Mark 1:10 and John1:32.
To be a substitute for mankind, Jesus the man HAD to be exactly as Adam and his descendants were with a triune human nature consisting of body, mind and spirit (lower case ‘s’), made in the image of our Triune God. Had Jesus not had a human spirit, He wouldn’t be able to be like us in all ways, and yet not sin. That would invalidate His ability to die for the human race in our place. I am willing to ‘wink’ at many things so as not to throw the baby out with the bath-water. However, bringing The Gospel into doubt I will not accept.
Without a human spirit – that, ‘Jesus’ would be ‘another Jesus of another spirit and another gospel’. THE Gospel depends on the fact that Jesus was like us in ALL ways, having the same temptations yet choosing not to sin.
The Greek makes it plain that there were TWO deaths (plural) on the cross, one spiritual for judgment and the other physical for the Atonement i.e. the shedding of blood for sin. Death means ‘separation’ it doesn’t meaning ‘ceasing to exist’.
Respectfully, in His Name, Sue
{“The ExP administrators believe that scripture is clear that Jesus Christ shed His blood and died on the cross to completely atone for all of the sins of mankind. We believe that the teaching that Christ in some way experienced “spiritual death” while on the cross is based on conjecture, and not supported by scripture.”}
HollyGarcia – hello, yes, the use of the word ‘hell’ isn’t wrong but can be misleading if one does not understand the doctrine of hell and the differences between Sheol, Hades, the pit, the grave, Hell, Gehenna and the Lake of Fire which was, in time past, prepared for Satan and host. Their time will come, but the Lake of Fire is yet to be used; it is empty until first occupied by the Anti-christ and the False Prophet.
When folk speak of ‘hell’, they all to often mean the ‘Lake of Fire’, which consists of ‘dark’ fire and total, eternal separation from God and man. Jesus did not go to hell/lake of fire, for eternal separation at any time. He was spiritually dead (separated from the Father) for the three hours of darkness to receive our deserved judgment. After which, He dismissed His spirit to His Father. Luke 23:46 So His spiritual ‘death’ was not permanent. I wondered about that, but time with The Lord in His Word has made sense of it now, that the separation was only temporary.
Sue
John,
In a word, “Yes” I believe that the Apostles Creed may contribute to the “spiritual death” religious theory. The history of the creed indicates it was probably originally written by the Council of Milan in 390 A.D. Apparently, almost every denomination has a slightly different version of the Apostles’ Creed and each is so ecumenical that Creeds could be swapped from one denomination to another.
Aside from the obvious, a large factor in the error of the creed — there are no Bible verses used to define and explain their declarative statements and no definition of very important words. Thus each version can be interpreted to mean just about anything a church desires.
Jim F, I agree with John. Thanks for your explanation — very informative and understandable.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I was thinking of those I know who are confused, many operate from fear. Others you can see pride and legalism. Question: It dawned on me, since they were using the KJV, and the prophecy in Ps 16 said, For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption, do you think because hell was the word used for Sheol that is possibly where they get the doctrine?
What a great find Jim…. had no idea Calvin believed the same way as Hunt in that regard, how ironic.
How completely true that we try to understand things from men’s perspective or teachings, vs. digging in His Word, praying, asking for help, building a solid foundation in our studies. Or even asking others who are sound for counsel and direction in His Word, but I like to leave that to last. I don’t want really think of men beyond what is written. Interesting that you found that, just kind of sunk in….
John,
Thanks for the Biblical reminder, Acts 5:41. We are in this together with the Lord.. and He wins!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Thanks John,
I guess for me it doesn’t surprise that a person can’t get the method of salvation right if they can’t even understand the nature of the atonement in the first place.
Jim F
Jim, thanks for your very comprehensive answer! This teaching seems to be as pervasive as “works for salvation.”
John,
I believe that Martin Luther totally taught that Jesus died spiritually and more. Observe some of the following quotes from Luther and this should be warning enough for people to stay away from his error.
“…in His tender innocent heart He had to feel God’s wrath and judgment against sin, to taste for us eternal death and damnation, and in a word to suffer everything which a condemned sinner has merited and must suffer eternally. … Look at Christ, who for thy sake has gone to hell and been abandoned by God as one damned forever.”
Another person said this quoting Luther and Calvin:
“He made satisfaction for sin by enduring the penalty which was due for it to mean. But this penalty was eternal death or the pains of hell. Could anybody say that Christ endured this? Luther said so, ‘…in His tender innocent heart He had to feel God’s wrath and judgment against sin, to taste for us eternal death and damnation, and in a word to suffer everything which a condemned sinner has merited and must suffer eternally.’ And ‘Look at Christ, who for thy sake has gone to hell and been abandoned by God as one damned forever.’ This is his interpretation of ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ Calvin with all his constitutional caution is almost equally emphatic. He makes much of the descent into hell saying, ‘…that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent at the bar of God; that we might know that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of our redemption, but that there was another greater and more excellent price — namely, that He endured in His soul the dreadful torments of a condemned and lost man.’ “
This guy also went on to say these outrageous things:“Remember, also, if you are to ostracize those who believe and teach this doctrine, you will have to also exclude men of such caliber as Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Owens, Billy Graham and Paul Billheimer. This is not some teaching that has just emerged in one of the popular movements of our day, it has been spoken of throughout the history of the church.”
“Let us realize what we are saying; Jesus went into hell as a spiritually dead man and suffered the torments of that God-forsaken realm.”
Beware of all of this kind of thinking that has been passed down right along with the rest of the errors in “church history”.
Jim F
Without delving into archives and such, I can tell you that I wrote off all of those church and “apostles’ creeds” and the like well over a decade ago for the main reason that, based on my reading and understanding of them, one cannot find the gospel in them.
Jack, being hated by the “works for salvation” crowd is a blessing.
Acts 5:41: “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.”
Jack and Jim, do you think the Apostles’ Creed helps give rise to the error of Christ’s spiritual death? A Lutheran friend of mine told me that he was taught that Jesus descended into hell after the crucifixion. Following is the text:
Lutheran Service Book, Lutheran Worship
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Daniel,
Just like Lordship salvation has been around for a while, so has the idea that Jesus somehow died spiritually. Here is a quote from Calvin:
“Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.16.10.”
This line of thinking seems to run through Reformed theology and is still taught by guys like Packer, MacArthur, and Piper in different ways. The big mistake here in the reformed view of penal substitution is that it tends to get away from the significance and importance of Christ’s blood and focus also on their idea that somehow Christ also needed to suffer an eternal type punishment relating to separation from God. We should all make sure to be clear that the blood of Christ paid the price of our redemption. It was in that sacrifice that Christ was penalized by death as the perfect lamb for the sins of the whole world past present and future. Going beyond that is a step toward heresy and grave error. Some people have even left Christianity in a sense in favor of agnosticism and other things due to not being able to reconcile these issues.
Just like with the Bible versions issue, these theological problems arise with mans’ rationale and attempt to understand things that are spiritually discerned. Far too many people are following the “theology” of unsaved men of the past that sounded intelligent and credible enough to be believed. Likewise, people with agendas other than pure Biblical motives have hijacked the Word of God and made it say things that were not intended or communicated originally.
John,
Interesting info on erroneous Baptist beliefs from 1925. Not too far removed from Spurgeon’s era of the 1890’s, we see where Baptist beliefs were hugely influenced by Spurgeon’s turn from sin, hellfire and damnation “salvation” preaching.
From a “Victorian Web site” promoting Spurgeon, authored by an East Texas Baptist University professor (Robert H. Ellison,), we see these revealing facts why Baptists love Spurgeon and why they espouse his LS doctrine:
Lordship “salvation” and like messages (Chan, Washer, Piper, MacArthur, Keller, et al), then and now, tragically attract large followings by fear and intimidation, not by the Grace message of the love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Savior.
It is no wonder ExP is so hated world wide by the LS, works “salvation” folks. The Truth hurts.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Daniel, the Southern Baptist Convention is one of the groups whose official doctrine has been based on a false gospel of works – Calvinist to the core – for quite some time. Following is an excerpt from the 1925 version of the Baptist Faith and Message:
VIII. Repentance and Faith
We believe that repentance and faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, danger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and relying on him alone as the only and all-sufficient Saviour.
XI. Perseverance
All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
About 15 or so years ago I used to think the only people in danger of being guilty of heaping teachers upon themselves to “tickle their ears” were the flaky, warm and fuzzy new age types who didn’t seem to take doctrine or sin very seriously and who had an annoying “Aw shucks” attitude regarding things like Bible exegesis, evangelism, prophecy, etc..
Since coming to this blog in February I of course now realize it also applies to those people who, because of their pride, refuse to believe on the name of the Lord Jesus (John 3:18) and can’t help but pervert the gospel by adding something to it to be “saved.” Satan really never stops wandering about seeking whom he may devour. The whole “divide and conquer” thing really applies here it seems.
Great stuff posted here in the past 24 hours. I look forward to rereading it all very carefully,
John, thank you for that example of “Yet another “bible” to avoid with your comment,
In addition to the errors of NIV, check out the following “translation” of Luke 13:3 [Ed. by Admin] from the NLT:
“Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God.”
. . . Wow, That is SO bad.
Daniel, right you are! It should have said Luke 13:3.
Daniel,
Regarding the LS or “turn from sin” (TFS) message “before Billy Graham,” it goes a long way back.
I trusted Christ as my Savior Christmas 1964 and recall hearing Billy Graham’s TFS/LS message before I was saved and I laughed at it. Other preachers saw the success of that lie and emulated him. After I trusted Christ I saw the terrible damage such a message could do.
Then I, like so many, was urged by well meaning friends to read and study Spurgeon (1834-1892). He was an early version of Billy Graham, without the showmanship. I never could “get into” his sermons but realized what he was preaching I did not believe.
Then we see John Calvin (1509-1564) and his “perseverance of the saints” LS message, Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) preached the LS message that you could lose (or never be sure of) your salvation (LS) — and further back the Roman Catholic church from its inception as such — preaching an LS works message.
So we see that since and before Billy Graham, Satan has used many people and religions to spread his, sometimes blatant, often subtle false “works for salvation” message.
Even further back in the Apostle Paul’s day he warned the flock of those who would “preach another gospel” i.e. a message of works. (2 Cor. 11:4 and Galatians 1:6-9) And specifically in Galatians 1:8-9 Paul warns about those teachers, “let him be accursed.”
Even so, such teachers still multiply because their followers listen to man “tickle their ears” without checking God’s Word to verify what is preached.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Well said Jim. Also, very interesting John about how only 11% of people reading an online survey at a popular Christian magazine voted ‘no’ to the statement that “repentance from sins” was required for salvation. Very concerning but honestly, in the last year i have had many conversations with church goers and the fact that about 90% of evangelicals believe that, does not surprise me in the slightest. Lordship salvation is the norm in most churches today. Has it always been this way? I mean, before Billy Graham got popular was the evangelical community generally LS?
Regarding that verse from the NLT, absolutely appalling. I looked it up but couldn’t see that in Luke 3:13. The verse you quoted there was actually Luke 13:3. Haha, its easy to make typo’s but I found it. The Amplified in that verse is also dreadful:
Luke 13:3
3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent ([a]change your mind for the better and heartily amend your ways, with abhorrence of your past sins), you will all likewise perish and be lost [b]eternally.
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Daniel, all
The ESV is another that changes repent to “change of mind” or “regret” at times but in verses dealing with salvation they leave it as repent. Regardless, anyone including God can repent. Also, some try to get around this but saying that a change of mind needs to lead to a change of action. However they are usually viewing this in terms of living or works.
In conversion, repentance (change of mind) is indeed a thinking again of one’s current belief and a change to hold a different belief. For example, I hold the view that faith plus works save me. I see in the Bible where is says otherwise and I think again – that is change my mind, and believe in Christ alone to save me. That is repentance/faith. The same thing would be true if I were an atheist, Mormon, Hindu, agnostic, whatever, but a change of mind about my view is irrelevant if the opposite side of that is not placing my faith in the only object that will save. That object is Christ.
Daniel, I think that denominations and ministries use Bible translations in a haphazard fashion because they do not recognize how subtle changes can really distort the clarity of the message.
I think the Jonah 3:10 comparison that you provided was a very good example.
I cannot remember the publication, but a couple of years back I saw an online survey at a popular Christian magazine, that asked whether “repentance from sins” was required for salvation. Only 11% said “no”!
In addition to the errors of NIV, check out the following “translation” of Luke 3:13 from the NLT:
“Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God.”
Ok, Regarding the verses that the NIV and NKJV tamper with the word of God and take out the word REPENT in its various forms, here are just the verse addresses. I have left a few of the verses in full however, I think readers would learn a lot of from seeing for themselves just what was taken out.
Using the list of the 46 verses (from a website I found) that says that the NIV and NKJV take out the word REPENT in some form (whether that be repent, repentance, repented etc) in comparison to KJV. I decided to double check EACH VERSE in the list myself. Today, using an online linear Bible I did just that. The NIV takes removes the various uses on the word REPENT out in ALL 46 VERSES. Thee NKJV takes the word out in all but four of the 46 verses as listed below. Of the four verses that the NKJV did leave the word repent (in some form eg repentance) in the verse, its very interesting to see which ones they left. It’s hard not to include that both these translations did not have an agenda in strengthening the false doctrine heresy of ‘repent of your sins to be saved’ when they chose to leave out the word repentance in its various forms. According to the webpage I found this info at, these are the 46 verses that the word repent in some form has been removed in the NIV, there may be more! So, in conclusion, unless there are more verses that have been tampered with, there are 46 verses the NIV removes the use of the word repent in its various forms and 42 verses in the NKJV! The pastor whose webpage this was that I gleaned the info from said that in the NIV and NKJV, God NEVER repents from cover to cover! In the KJV Bible, God repents more than anyone! Just looking at the verses below and reading even a few of the verses in the KJV Bible, its so clear that God repents many times, I didn’t count it myself but will take this pastors word for it that, according to him, out of these 46 tampered verses, God repents 36 out of the 46 times. This alone proves that you can repent of something other than sin. Other verses they decided to tamper with include taking out Judas repenting in Matthew 27:3. Judas Iscariot repented of his sin but that does not save anyone. He was unsaved because he did not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (see John 6:64). The other verses that they messed with are also highly suspect and I can only conclude they had an agenda.
Gen 6:6
Gen 6:7
Exo 13:17
Exo 32:12
Exo 32:14
Num 23:19 (still in NKJV)
Deu 32:36
Jdg 2:18
Jdg 21:6
Jdg 21:15
1Sa 15:11
1Sa 15:29
1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
2Sa 24:16
1Ch 21:15
Psa 90:13
Psa 106:45
Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Psa 135:14
Jer 4:28
Jer 15:6
Jer 18:10
Jer 20:16
Jer 26:3
Jer 26:13
Jer 26:19
Jer 42:10
Eze 24:14
Hos 11:8
Hos 13:14
Joe 2:13
Joe 2:14
Amo 7:3
Amo 7:6
Jon 3:9
Jon 3:10
Jon 4:2
Zec 8:14
Mat 9:13 (Still in NKJV)
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Mar 2:17 (Still in NKJV)
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
2Co 7:8
Heb 7:21
Heb 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. (Heb 12:17 – still in NKJV)
Dear Sue,
I thank John and JimF for their Biblical understanding of Jesus’ death on the cross and then highlighting Dean’s error. I believe theirs is the Biblical position and I agree with them.
Hence – the reason we do not post links to Dean’s web site and prefer not to promote his teaching.
You might wish to correspond with Dean and see if he will correct his teaching. Maybe he has never thought it through. You should quote John’s comment and scriptural references which I believe to be accurate and in the context of the discussion.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Expected Imminently,
You said: “Physical death is only a result of spiritual death.”
Were the people in Paradise spiritually dead? Are church age believers who have passed away spiritually dead? My only point in asking this is that it seems that physical death can exist without the presence of spiritual death.
I have been to Dean’s site. In addition to teaching that Jesus died a spiritual death, Dean says that Jesus atoned for our sins through this spiritual death, before dying physically.
This teaching does not comport with my reading of scripture, particularly the following:
Hebrews 9:14: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
My comment: As I once heard Tom Cucuzza say, “Jesus couldn’t have just been whacked over the head.” If Jesus experienced a spiritual death that paid for our sins, why did He need to die physically? If His spiritual death atoned for our sins, why did He need to shed His blood?
Hebrews 9:16-17: “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
My comment: The “testator” is Christ. Spiritual death did not make Him that. Physical death did.
Hebrews 10:10: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
My comment: It does not say we were sanctified through the spiritual death of Christ, but through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.
All,
I don’t believe Jesus died Spiritually because I don’t believe He became an actual sinner. Becoming sin for us who knew no sin – is different. He became the sinless sacrifice and body our sin in His own body on the tree thereby satisfying God’s demand for the penalty of sin – that is a blood sacrifice or a perfect lamb. Jesus is that perfect lamb because he was fully God and fully man. I don’t buy into the thinking or rationale of Dean or Hunt on this issue. There is too much extra-biblical reasoning for my liking. I also truthfully don’t believe this is really a debatable issue of Jesus supposedly dying spiritually.
Jim F
Dear All
My own understanding that Jesus died spiritually is based on Genesis and the fall. God warned them not to eat of the tree, and if they did, they would die at that moment. It was Adam’s human spirit that died, the moment he tasted the fruit; he didn’t die physically for a long time after and God doesn’t lie. God said ‘where are you’. God knew exactly where Adam was and what he had done. It’s like any father saying to his child ‘where are you?’ when he is no longer in his presence. Likewise Adam was now spiritually separated from God. He knew he was no longer clothed in the righteousness of God, he was naked. ‘Death’, spiritually or physically never means ‘cease to exist’ as Conditionalists and Annihilationism falsely claim. Death simply means ‘separation’; as the spirit from the body at the end of life; and the spirit from God as a result of sin. Jesus was our substitute.
Jesus, the last Adam, cried out for God when He experienced the same spiritual separation from God as He paid the price for Adam’s spiritual death when the unrighteousness of the whole world was placed upon Him. Physical death is only a result of spiritual death. Jesus cried ‘It is finished’ referring to the cost of separation from God with the death of his human spirit while He was still physically alive. It was essential that Jesus was 100% man, as we are, separated spiritually from God, otherwise He would not be qualified to die for the first Adam and his descendants.
Jesus did not go to ‘hell’. He went to Sheol which consists of two compartments Hades and Paradise or Abraham’s bosom. Lazarus and the rich man is a true story, not a parable that clearly shows this. In Paradise were the spirits of all the patriachs. In Hades were the spirits of the flood victims. It was to these he announced His victory over death and sin. When He rose from the dead, he emptied Paradise and all are now in Heaven awaiting their resurrection after the 2nd coming.
I haven’t used Scriptures as I don’t feel comfortable about seeming to teach men. I haven’t written to argue but to state what I know is Biblically accurate. Dr Robert Dean has taught thoroughly on this issue. The teaching in the Bible about Jesus dying spiritually is not in the remotest supporting the heresy of Copeland and co.
Dear Jack doesn’t want a link to Dean Ministries. I respect his wishes but hope and pray y’all make a visit to Robert Dean, with Scripture in hand, and hope you all realise I am not trying to be divisive as I am only replying to comments.
Good point, jimfloyd12.
FryingPan9,
This is part of Hunt’s error in my view. He differentiated his view from Copeland but I believe it is still error.
“Tom: Or, some would say that He had laid aside His divinity.
Dave: You cannot do that. The Bible says He laid aside His glory . He did not manifest His glory , and He said to the Father in John 17:5, “Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” But He could not lay aside His divinity. Now it is beyond my comprehension, I cannot understand it, but He must have tasted spiritual death. That’s the point this person is making, and we’re not talking about dying spiritually as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, people like that would say that Jesus ended up in hell.”
Hunt was teaching that Christ died spiritually. He deduces this from Heb 2:9.
Jim F
hollygarcia,
You wrote, “but Hunt was definitely saying that Jesus suffered in the lake of fire.”
See, now based on the printed version that I quoted earlier (Berean Call website, Dave says, “That Christ endured the pains of the Lake of Fire does not mean that He suffered in the Lake of Fire.”) I thought Dave was pointedly clarifying that he was NOT saying he believed that Jesus suffered IN the lake of fire.
But you seem to be pointing to the audio anyway so I want to keep that in mind and not imply that I have a bone of contention with you.
Is it safe to say at this point you’re ONLY referring to the audio of Dave’s answer and not what’s printed on TBC’s web site? That would help clarify the issue an narrow it down a bit.
I did finally click on the right thing to hear the MP3 of the radio program but I’ll have to listen carefully a couple more times if necessary as I was admittedly a bit distracted when listening.
Hi Bruce – I do know about the teaching and it’s foundations (although not Pentecostal, learned the hard way through the years about a lot of different terms and names I’d never heard). Thanks! I think was a little vague the way I asked it. My question was actually was meant to imply “what do you think about THIS teaching” (regarding Dave Hunt) did anyone know that Dave Hunt taught/believed this way? I was pretty surprised.
Hi Holly,
Re. your question about Christ in the lake of fire, I believe that this false teaching originated with E. W. Kenyon, founder of the modern Word of Faith, a.k.a, Word-Faith movement, of which Kenneth Copeland is probably its most vociferous modern spokesman. According to Kenyon’s false teaching (I believe that it is blasphemous), Christ had to suffer the flames of hell and had to himself somehow be born again through the experience in order to atone for his own sins as well as the sins of the world—terrible teaching! None of this horrendous teaching lines up with Scripture. The lake of fire, a place of outer darkness and torment, will be populated at the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth known as the Great Millennial Kingdom, a kingdom that is yet future. Revelation 20 details how Satan, all of the fallen angels, the unsaved dead of all time (judged and condemned at the Great White Throne judgment for unbelievers), death and hades, will all be cast into the lake of fire forever. I believe that Jesus’ spirit went to be in Abraham’s bosom for the three days between his death and resurrection. Luke 16 speaks about this abode of the dead which existed prior to the resurrection; it shows a divide between hades, the abode of the unsaved dead spirits awaiting final judgment at the Great White Throne one day, and Abraham’s bosom, the latter place being the abode of saved dead who were awaiting Christ’s resurrection when they would be taken to heaven. Since the resurrection of Christ, the saved, upon death, go to heaven; Abraham’s bosom is empty today.
FryingPan9,
What I was mostly objecting to was his explanation in the audio clip. Maybe I’ll have time to listen to it again later and elaborate.
Jim F
Thank you Jim and Jack, the verses provided he seemed to almost daisy chain together, and I don’t know when that was done, but I had never heard that except coming from (as his concerned listener said) the Kenneth Copeland and also the Joyce Meyers, etc. I had to listen because I was so curious how he was going to put it together, and was really surprised he believed in this way.
The verses he used regarding “tasting death” he then went into Lazarus and that it couldn’t be a purely physical death, and that it had to be the punishment of eternal separation because He was infinite, truly, it was garbled to me, maybe if I listened again, but Hunt was definitely saying that Jesus suffered in the lake of fire.
In the 3rd paragraph of Dave Hunt’s answer per hollygarcia’s 1st (of 2) links above to the Berean Call website, Dave says, “That Christ endured the pains of the Lake of Fire does not mean that He suffered in the Lake of Fire.”
I don’t see how this is “total error.” Could you elaborate? (I’d copy and paste the whole thing here as it’s not that long but I’d rather err on the side of caution in order to avoid violating the posting rules here.) As for the audio clip, I was unable to get it to play, or was clicking on the wrong things, so I’m unable to tell if I’m equally baffled by it.
I think Hunt’s main point was that he was explaining the difference between what he wrote about what Jesus suffered versus what Kenneth Copeland teaches.
That said, it does seem unnecessary to try to explain so much in terms of what Hunt wrote. Why not just take the Bible’s word for it and accept that what Jesus did on the cross was sufficient to pay for the sins of mankind?
Daniel,
Steve Anderson has some false teacher qualities and, as Holly mentioned, I don’t believe he is qualified for any type of ministry. I don’t really have to go into to it too much because she has already brought out some concerns with him. Besides, there are much better sources out there.
Try checking out Charlie Bing’s dissertation on lordship salvation. You can read it online for free here:
http://www.gracelife.org/resources/dissertation.asp
Jim F
Holly and Jack,
It seems Hunt was using Isa 53 and Heb 2:9 and extrapolating from there. It strikes me as total error.
Christ did not suffer the second death because he didn’t die spiritually. The shedding of the blood was the purchase price for our redemption.
His explanation in the audio clip is mind boggling.
Jim F
Holly,
I don’t recall any Biblical evidence that “Christ experienced the suffering of the Lake of Fire for every person who would ever be born.”
Christ did suffer death for every person who would be born but I find no Biblical reference that he “experienced the suffering of the Lake of Fire..”
I did not find any explanation in either link explaining of “lake of fire.” Did Hunt give Biblical verses that proved his assumption?
In Jesus eternally, Jack
A couple of Steven Anderson’s “preaching” comments…
“The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals.”[7][24]
A few days after the listing, Pastor Anderson stated “I do hate homosexuals and if hating homosexuals makes our church a hate group then that’s what we are.”
I realize wikipedia is not very reliable at times, but the sources of the sermons are there, and I’ve actually gone to his wife’s blog and been mortified by her own speech. (I try to go to the horse’s mouth when “proving all things”).
I couldn’t listen anymore to either of them, remind me very much of Paul Washer on steroids. (forgive the humor)
On Steven Anderson, anyone who calls for the “death of faggots” or says “he would not judge anyone for killing President Obama” among praying imprecatory prayers regarding his death. Saying he does not love him (in contrast to loving our enemies)… I listened to a partial sermon that someone posted to me the other day about his totally unsound speech “p-ss-eth against the wall”.
Let’s just say, he is not above reproach and should not be an elder in any church. A broken clock is right twice a day, and Satan uses the Word of God too, albeit he twists it, so I could give you all sorts of examples, but Arminians stand against Calvinism too, so?
I’d mark and avoid him myself as per Rom 16:17-18, he is not sound.
Jack or Bruce, or anyone that would like to answer, (and you can delete this link from Berean call if you like), but what do you feel about this teaching? It is brief, but there is also a followup recording of it I’ll include the link too also for your input.
Here, Dave Hunt says, “It is foundational to the gospel that Christ experienced the suffering of the Lake of Fire for every person who would ever be born. ”
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2782
Here is the follow-up link, (go down to where it says 5004c)
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/how-could-jesus-suffer-eternal-death
Yes, Steve Anderson, The one in Phoenix He does say some harsh things at times. I would not group him in with the WBC people, they are horrible awful people not to mention Calvinists to the uttermost extreme.
Hi Daniel, I think I wouldn’t worry about getting your wife to the same conclusion you are at, but just remembering the method we all got there, and these things have been written for a purpose, so we might believe and know (John 20:31, I John 5:13).
As for books, I do highly recommend Secure Forever, I downloaded it to my kindle awhile ago and highlighted quite a lot. I think I also recommended to you, two books, which you can also find free, both by H.A. Ironside, “Full Assurance” and “The Eternal Security of the Believer”. Both you can download for free, pdf, and if you want, most can be highlighted, copied, made into a doc or docx file and uploaded to your kindle.
If you want to listen to some sermons, try also Fred Chay online. Just google Fred Chay sermons, the classes are good.
Steve Anderson? The one in Phoenix? If so, he is more than a bit extreme, he has hate in his heart like the Westboro Baptists. I’ll add more if you clarify that he is the one you mean.
Daniel,
Just the verse addresses will suffice. Please revise your last comment to reflect verse addresses only for the sake of brevity.
It is certainly clear that some newer translations or paraphrases (NIV) of the Bible have dramatically changed important words from their meaning in the KJV Bible.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Just a note to all, not sure if i made this clear, the 46 repent verses taken out of the NIV and NKJV were not removed verses but verses where they took the word repent out in its various forms. Just thought I make that clear in case people thought I was saying they removed the whole verse.
Hi Pearl,
I do read some of them but not all. At the moment I have started my new teaching job, im a first year graduate and while i love the job, it’s hard going. Im not much of a reader but I could definitely read more of this blog. I shall download and read Tom Cucuzza’s book “Secure Forever”. I do listen to Tom sometimes too, he is a fantastic preacher, awesome.
Just a question Jack and Bruce, I know you removed the link to the webpage, that’s ok, I respect your judgement to remove anything you feel is not quite sound. Is it ok if i post just the 46 KJV repent verses that were taken out of the NKJV and NIV for people to see or would that not be allowed? Remember, it’s just the Bible verses, not the other stuff on the page. I respect your decision either way though I think it would be interesting for people to see what repent verses were taken out of the modern Bibles. It’s definitely done on purpose in my opinion as once you see what verses they are and how they ‘fix’ them, you can see that its done with an agenda to bolster their ‘repent of your sins to be saved’ heresy.
[ed. note, yes, you may give the 46 verses without the link]
Fascinating! I never noticed that in Jonah, but so glad you did!
Hey, Daniel, I’m curious: do you follow the other posts at ExP? I ask because just the other day, someone (Sue, I think) recommended Tom Cucuzza’s book “Secure Forever” which may be found in the upper-right column of this page. I think everybody but me has read and raved over its excellent defense of the permanance of salvation. I finally downloaded it to my kindle just the other day and look forward to reading it myself. John read it in one night!
I hope you are keeping up with the other posts, because other discussions often happen due to others’ excellent questions, in addition to this one, and we don’t want you missing out on any of them.
Sorry for posting twice Jack and Bruce, delete the other one as it had typos and this one is easier to read….
Thanks again brothers and sisters,
Sorry for my delayed response. Thanks for the offer Holly for a facebook Bible study for my wife but she is more wanting face to face fellowship and rarely does online stuff. She does read a little and is her preferred way of learning. Any good books to recommend to her? Just a note if you are going to recommend any books, where my wife is deceived is that she thinks a person can lose salvation, not because of sin, but because of apostasy and renouncing Christ. Even so, to say that a person can lose salvation FOR ANY REASON is to call God a liar and not believe the record that God gave of His Son according to 1 John 5:9-11. ES is a necessary part of believing the very Gospel itself!
My wife is also deceived in that she thinks that it does not matter if a person believes in losing salvation or even if a person adds Baptism, TFS or whatever into the mix, she thinks that as long as they ‘believe in Jesus’ in some form, then they are saved. (though she understands these are not salvation requirements and understands no baptism or TFS is necessary).
My wife has reluctantly said we can listen to 30 minutes of a sermon every week or so. Listening to sermons is also my preferred way of learning as I also do lots of driving and like to listen to some solid preaching regularly. I am not a big reader. I shall try and put her onto this blog however, starting with the responses to my previous post which i just emailed her today to read when she gets the time.
Regarding the errors of the NIV, over the last several months listening to Steve Anderson (and I know that you don’t approve of him here and while i see a few things I think he is mistaken on and is a bit extreme about, his preaching of the Gospel and exposing of LS, in my opinion is more clear than I have EVER heard it) I have heard enough exposing of the errors of the NKJV and NIV that I KNOW they have seriously twisted the words of scripture. I’m not sure of the exact meaning of the warning in Rev 22 but lets just say i would not want to be standing in the peoples shoes who were involved in making the NIV and NKJV and pretty much most of, if not all the modern translations.
Since this NIV preaching church is the ONLY church I can find in my area that is not LS, I will go with my KJV and read along with my KJV.
A further note on the errors of the NKJV and NIV, this webpage below (now I understand Jack if you remove the link, it’s up to you, if you do remove it glean what truth you can from it for the benefit of all) outlines the 46 verses where the word REPENT in some form (whether that be repent, repentance, repented etc) has been removed from the NIV and NKJV (compared to KJV).
http:// [removed by administrators; site found in the past to have problematic stances]
The thing that this webpage shows, apart from showing all 46 verses where the NIV and NKJV strategically removed the word ‘repent’ (yes, it is intentional!) is that 36 out of the 46 verses is that God was the one doing the repenting! This proves that you can repent of something other than sin! There is nothing wrong with the word repent, it’s a Biblical word, the problem is, these new translations have tampered with the Word of God which makes it hard for people to understand what the word repent means in context to salvation.
My favorite repent verse in the Bible is Jonah 3:10.
Jonah 3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Note that this verse calls turning from your evil way/ turning from your sins – WORKS! Turning from your sins is WORKS according to Jonah 3:10. And it says ‘God repented’ and NO He did not TFS sin because God has no sin and it’s blasphemy to say otherwise!
AND NOTE THIS: When I checked this verse with other versions of the Bible, they all took the word ‘repented’ out, not just the NIV and NKJV. Those that took the word repented out Includes: the Amplified, CEV, ESV, Good News and the NASB! They all tampered with God’s word and took the word ‘repented’ out! And that’s not an exhaustive check!
I don’t really trust anything other than the KJV.
Dave initially I believe was a bit soft on Calvinism as many are, and many who even take Spurgeon’s daily emails didn’t even know some of the things he pronounced.
I remember him saying later (after the video and his James White debate, the first one) that he didn’t really understand Calvinism, he just knew it didn’t line up with the Word. But later he began to be stronger about it, even with Rick Warren who he had previously also been soft on, wanting to I believe think he was a brother in error, he went to “talk to him”, but in one of his later talks I saw recently, he came out very strongly against Rick Warren’s teachings, not anything like his prior posts.
I know teachers all over for the sake of not losing their position are very soft in their stance on TULIP. I wish it weren’t the case, but I see it all the time, even those teaching against the precepts of Calvinism, one series I saw, they continually joked and teased with them as brothers. So then if this so, then they haven’t corrupted the gospel, they aren’t preaching another gospel, then why are they bothering to correct the doctrine, if it’s no big deal?
I understand about being gentle to all men, but to suggest that these are all brethren, especially the teachers, really bothers me… What kind of gospel do they preach? It’s not the one I see in the Word, how can you believe? You can’t, unless He regenerates you first. How can you know you’re saved? You can’t. Not until you persevere until the end, can you be sure you were the elect… What a heyday Satan must have with that….
And such piousness, and finger pointing. The lost would come to know the Lord why/how? Through their Lordship teachings? Their legalism? Their finishing in the flesh? Not possible…
FryingPan,
This is probably the article that I wrote about Dave Hunt which Bruce mentioned:
http://www.expreacherman.com/2012/12/18/dave-hunts-berean-call-promoting-not-only-calvinism-but-now-the-terrible-lordship-salvation-of-ray-comfort/
It is a shame the formerly great Berean Call ministry has fallen and degraded so far from its original strong stand against error. Today TBC continues to promote Lordship Salvation teachers, Calvinists and others who should be shunned.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hello Bruce,
Since discovering the expreacherman blog I’ve been able to look back on Dave Hunt with a bit more insight. For example, Dave’s full name is David Charles Haddon Hunt. Maybe you’re beginning to see my point. His name was originally going to incorporate even MORE of Spurgeon’s name, but one of his parent’s (I forget which) protested. (I learned this from a Youtube video of one of Dave’s lectures about Calvinism that I watched a few months ago.) Looking back on my memory of reading “What Love is This” and what I’ve read about Calvinism here at this blog it’s sort of hard to not wonder if perhaps Dave was even a bit SOFT on Calvinism. What I mean is that after reading Dave’s book my main attitude was, “Yeah-that’s bad theology. I am discarding it.” But after reading this blog my attitude is more like, “No, it’s worse than bad theology–it’s DEADLY theology.”
Dave’s critiques of Islam, Roman Catholicism and Atheistic Evolution are also quite outstanding.
Hello FryingPan9,
Thanks for alerting us to the passing of Dave Hunt. His writings exposing cults, especially Mormonism, are legendary. And I found his expose’ of Calvinism, “What Love is This?,” to be particularly enlightening and helpful. Sadly, in recent years, his web site has drifted into some questionable territory biblically, as Jack’s article has detailed. Apparently, Hunt has not had much involvement with his site for years, so recent pronouncements there most likely have come from others.
Thanks Holly,
No problem — I pray you would do the same for me.. 😎
We appreciate your wise comments here at ExP.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Frying pan, you said something about struggling with wanting to find it yourself in the Bible, and you should.
I started with John and Romans again, underlying every incident of what believe was, or receive, etc. and highlighted it. If you even read those verses to yourself, there are so many regarding this, I think your assurance will grow.
Macarthur and others are continually re-defining words, some great new find, that usually generates a book for his following. Slave was one of them. (I agree with Pearl – rubbish)
As for associating with bad company, we know it corrupts good morals. Now there are those who believe a certain way, but are always looking in His Word for the truth and they will be taught it, but then most of them are there to argue, insinuate, and draw you back into their way of thinking.
Don’t go looking for trouble, I’ve seen a few fall, not having the answers, but wanting to go out and contend. We need to be in the strong meat of His Word, study the truth, be prepared, and He will give you the answers when you need to speak to them. Some truly don’t know, but others, are well-versed in it, and will try to pull you to their way of thinking.
One thing I use kind of as a guide for myself, is that the Word of God accomplishes something. But when someone is using it to bully, prod, or act as if they have special insight to the original languages, Lord it over you, it is not the same as the way the truth, the Word of God settles as we see in Isaiah 55:10-11, and it brings forth bud, either giving food to the eater, or seed to the sower. Not returning void. (of course paraphrased).
In the same way it should settle on us, we should also trust the Word of God, it’s power, and lay it out and let it work for others. They may not seem as if they hear, but as you become better versed in God’s Word in each of these areas, you’ll be surprised who it reaches.
Sometimes on FB, I think what I have said has fallen on deaf ears, even wondering if I have been distracted by the enemy, and the Lord seems to show me sometimes, a person will come that I don’t even know and say they say the verses, my manner of conduct, the lack of sarcasm, rudeness, even hateful attitudes some of the opponents use, so Tit 2:7-8 comes to mind for me.
With the church thing, I sure understand the struggle, a very good Bible teacher I had, the last place I’d been able to find solid teaching, was getting busier and busier, and then someone bought her a Macarthur Bible. As much as I had appreciated her teaching, she went from contending against Calvinism (lightly) to becoming a “2 pointer” then so on, and the last time I spoke to her, and we discussed some of the verses that address those points, she didn’t really seem to hear, and I struggled in tears about what I knew I was going to have to do. I not only loved her as a friend, but had so appreciated the depths of the studies, with no opinion of men, but digging into His Word.
The night I decided was my final night, she announced was her final night. We have a new Bible study and the teacher is a humble man, who prepares a thorough study and stands against reformed theology, praise God…
If you leave your church, a letter spelling out your concerns with the Word of God, might be a good idea, for all those who ask, you could have it ready, this way it won’t be a contending session but if they want to know, they will see the truth in writing and maybe even start looking themselves Lord willing.
Jack, sorry, you were right, I was going off of memory on Rev 1:5, NKJV said first born from the dead. I do prefer KJV, and so I don’t think we differ on that, and I do think it’s the best of the translations, but I do so appreciate now having the original languages at our fingertips too.
I usually check the differences in the parallel option. So appreciate you 🙂
Clarification required: I choose my battles (and, the battle is the Lord’s!). I pray for Him to make clear to me His doors of opportunity, that He would set on my path a ready and receptive person, possibly dangling at the end of their rope, and that I would have the sensitivity, wisdom and boldness to meet them in their need.
Truth be told, not many opportunities have arisen beyond this blog.
Pearl, I think I was speaking in more general terms, similar to what you said about, “Determining the truth for each and every encounter requires strenuous counsel for which I’m not qualified.” I’m certainly not interested in doing any fruit inspecting.
I suppose it’s fair to say that I can see myself separating from those in the LS camp and if pressed on the issue saying something like, “I’m sorry, but I can’t be around this anymore for this reason or another.” But I’m not so sure I’m yet able to effectively plead with others to follow suit. And it’s appearing to be the case that little if any of that is my job anyway.
Does that make sense?
Do you mean to say that you’re tempted to give these people the benefit of the doubt as to their eternal standing, that they are saved “even though…”?
If this is what you’re saying, then I can relate. Of the Christians I know, all are perfectly sincere in their convictions. They’re hard working, honest people wanting the same thing for their families that I want for mine. We love America, cherish our freedoms, and share much of the same concerns. Genuinely nice, likeable people! But as to their eternal standing, if they insist that a person must repent of their sins to be saved, or they’re a hardcore Calvinist, or they believe one can lose their salvation, then, based on their beliefs, I must conclude that they currently adhere to and communicate a false gospel (God protect the lost from these people!).
However, there’s no question that a person can become saved and then incorporated into a body teaching any of these things, as I did, and simply be misled. Determining the truth for each and every encounter requires strenuous counsel for which I’m not qualified.
At the end of the day, I don’t imagine that I know who is saved and who isn’t based entirely on their spiel. That would fall under the job description of “fruit inspector”. But I do know God works in amazing ways, and He knows His own, though I don’t believe it’s my duty to set them straight. I’m a big believer that “timing is everything”.
Now, if you were saying something else, then “whoops”!
Thank you, Pearl.
One of the problems I was having is that I can’t figure out how to search my email for email alerts from this website telling me there’s been a new comment. And even when I can find one of the emails, sometimes the threads are SO long that it just becomes a bunch of busy work. So I appreciate your encouragement that the “worry” over being redundant is often if not always “much ado about nothing” anyway.
I obviously need to read the same things over and over and over anyway so why should I assume nobody else does either?
A bit off topic, (sort of) but this thread started with mentioning Dave Hunt. Does everyone here know that he passed away on April 5? I didn’t know that till last night . . .
For one thing, FryingPan, don’t hesitate to post any questions for fear of being redundant. When I first came aboard back in 2011, I was posting all over the place with questions and observations. I have no doubt that much of what I contributed had already been discussed, but that was before my time. While I did read a lot of the archived posts, many of the discussions I did not (there are only so many hours in a day!). You never know how your questions/observations might help the silent bystander, as well as yourself.
This is the most consistent, sound, active resource on the web today, blessed by a body of like minds. Take advantage of it while you can.
Thank you, Sue.
I probably should have been a bit more specific in my past couple of postings, but based on Pearl’s and John’s recent feedback it seemed implicit that my particular struggle is not on my grasp of Free Grace vs Lordship “Salvation” but more having to do w/ the dangers and frustration associated with continual contact w/ the purveyors of a false gospel.
Pearl nailed it on the head (at least based on my limited experience so far) that an LSer who’s not at the end of their rope won’t likely be willing to listen. Even when they seem willing to listen, if you “really press in” you see they’re not really ready for meaningful change (or should I say, “metaneo”).
And before John recommended I indeed separate from those pushing heresy, it did occur to me that if I don’t do that sooner than later (if not immediately) it’s indeed only a matter of time before major confusion once again sets in and I’m robbed of assurance of my salvation, and the other things John listed.
I just want to be clear here though-My wife and I are TOTALLY secure in our salvation. We TOTALLY embrace the Free Grace Gospel and are relying on nothing but salvation through faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone. But there’s been an admitted “break down” of this conviction when it comes to applying it to others around us. I’m not sure if that makes sense and I’ve been struggling really hard to make my point.
I also want to be clear here that so far all of the folks I’ve been talking to have been very patient, courteous, and willing to hear me out. I’ve yet to encounter a really contentious spirit. I think that’s one reason I’ve been letting this go on for weeks turning into months now. But I did acknowledge there’s still a bit of stubbornness and resistance, albeit couched in very friendly terms. The enemy is subtle . . .
But to make a long story (relatively) short, I think the main wedge that Satan’s trying to drive between me and those around me is in trying to convince me that I’m only giving LIP SERVICE to the Free Grace message but that I don’t “really” believe in it. That’s why I say I feel I’m struggling with double-mindedness.
Weeks ago my wife and I did agree that sooner than later, if we can’t effect change we’re going to have to separate from those with LS leanings simply because we know it’s going to basically drive me crazy to be around it indefinitely. And I must admit I am struggling w/ justifying trying to be a force for change in this areas when I only got my theological head screwed back on regarding the true gospel as recently as early February.
I think part of my struggle is discerning what’s really a “pride” issue (me thinking I’m going to save the day) vs. a “duty” issue of trying to rescue others from error before giving up on them. If I felt I was dealing with totally deaf ears, so to speak, I’m smart enough to know to move on.
And I do understand I have to flee from those teaching bad doctrine, so John’s exhortation is not only biblical, but at this point it’s looking more and more timely. As John seemed to be saying, separation from these people is where my TRUE duty lies.
I think this would be a lot easier if it weren’t for the fact that my wife and I have been going to our church for almost 7 years now–that’s where the whole “courage of my convictions” comes in. I struggle with knowing whether or not I’m going to be able to say what needs to be said. But over the past 12 hours or so it occurred to me that I don’t HAVE to give a long winded dissertation if I leave my current church. I’m a big boy and if I simply feel it’s time to move on I know from watching others leave this church that it’s really that simple. Anything I add as “parting words” with the intent to reach those who will listen is, I suppose, gravy.
Hello Frying Pan 9
I hope this helps and not confuse.
Having a grasp on what faith truly means was an important factor for me. LS claim there is ‘saving faith’ and ‘ordinary faith’. MacArthur has redefined the traditional meaning of ‘pistis’ faith/believe to support LS. Faith is trust in any object or thing; nothing different at all. When we sit on a chair, we have faith it will do what it is meant to do and support our weight against gravity.
I learned through Dr Robert Dean, and I don’t know where else it is taught on the web. I am fairly sure it will be in most of ‘our’ text books. I bought ‘Lordship Salvation’ recently from FGA, glancing through, the author does deal with this issue.
I cannot stress enough how important it has been to me to properly grasp why JM is totally wrong according to Greek scholars. He only uses the ‘root’ meaning of ‘pith’ that can mean ‘obey’, but he ignores the all important context and usage. He is only supported by the ‘lesser’ dictionaries such as Vine’s; even so, they are concerned only with specific verses, not the theological explanation.
Yes, I realise that sounds complicated, all I want to stress is how important it has been in my understanding for Free Grace versus L.S.
The original definition of Faith ‘pistis’ is Knowledge, Assent, Assurance, Trust. We are given information of The Free Grace Gospel; that supplies our understanding with Knowledge. That results in saying ‘yes’ – Assent; it also includes Assurance of Eternal Salvation. So we Trust in the object of our faith who is Jesus to do for us what He offers if we but believe/faith in Him. That shows the depth of meaning that MacArthur rubbishes.
Sue
Thank you, John (and Pearl),
Keep praying I have wisdom, discernment, a continually growing understanding, and that I’ll have the ability to act on the courage of my convictions.
I know I’m still double minded. But I know I won’t be indefinitely because I know the problem is there and am determined to overcome with God’s help and w/ the resources He makes available, such of the most obvious–His Word, but also with online resources like this blog.
I should have said in my last post that one of the things that characterizes this double-mindedness is that I struggle with “needing” to believe something because I arrived at it through a prayerful study of God’s Word as opposed to having “stumbled upon it on the internet.” I know that sounds really backhanded but I think you get what I’m saying. I’m not defending it of course–I’m identifying it and trying to deal with it.
I’ll leave it at that for now. Feel free to admonish me as much as is necessary. I know I need it.
Fryingpan, you said: “I’m not sure at this point if I need to continue trying to be a force for the truth in my “flesh and blood” Christian inner circles (that is, my church, other local fellowships, vs “virtual” inner circles like this blog) or if I need to separate from those pushing heresy and false teaching.”
I am SURE you should separate from those pushing heresy and false teaching! You are willingly exposing yourself to POISON by listening to them. Once you know someone is teaching lies, don’t go to that source for ANYTHING.
Beware of those who try to “explain away” LS teaching. Beware of those that defend known purveyors of lies (such as Charles Spurgeon).
I agree with Pearl. Backdoor LS is the most insidious and pervasive. Beware of those who denounce LS or Calvinism, but are willing to tolerate corruption of the Gospel message. Tolerance of error is the first step to defending, accepting, embracing and teaching error.
Satan wants to keep you confused. According to “The Gospel” booklet, his goals include:
1. To plant seeds of doubt and despair in order to rob you of the joy and assurance of your eternal life.
2. To lead you astray in order to keep you from growing in the knowledge of the truth.
3. To keep you from sharing your faith in Christ with others.
.
Holly,
Good advice for Daniel.
But we differ on Revelation 1:5 —
The word “begotten” in that verse uses a different Greek word than, for instance, John 3:16, but the meaning is Greek: prototokos, “pro-tot-ok’-os;” from Greek 4413 (protos) and the alternate of Greek 5088 (tikto); first-born (usually as noun, literal or figurative) :- firstbegotten (-born). Strongs.
But you and I do agree on the basics of the doctrine of God’s Grace. 😎
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Daniel and all:
Addendum to my note about NIV errors. Be very careful where you get your information.
I just looked at a web page after searching (as I suggested) and found a wonderful list of errors delineating NIV vs KJV. The page did not identify the organization sponsoring the list. I finally chopped the URL until it landed on the home page. The sponsor is The Churches of Christ — the loose conglomerate of churches who believe in and advertise on the web site, baptismal regeneration and then condemn anyone who believes once-saved-always-saved.
Just beware – the enemy is everywhere!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I sometimes use NKJV, but they stick fairly well to the original language of the KJV. Rev 1:5 was firstfruits I believe, but I too prefer the KJV.
For your wife Daniel, if you want, we have a women’s fellowship and a Bible study online on Facebook, if you would like to know more let me know.
I surely relate to her loneliness too, but more than I, so does the Lord, He is acquainted with all our sorrows.
It’s really grievous to me to see all the error, but we were told it would be this way in the end, and we cannot compromise His truth, because it’s only the truth that will set people free. I understand she wants to be with and fellowship in person with other believers, but tell her how fortunate she is to have you, her husband to stand for the truth.
I am a widow and I wish I saw more men in my area stand for the truth, but when we desire His will, we will know what doctrine is His. Doctrine is so important, and Paul told Timothy to take heed to it, saving himself and his hearers. I could have been spared much grief had some of the pastors I’ve known taken heed to the doctrine of Christ, and also not partook of evil deeds of others who were not abiding in His doctrine (2 John 1:9-11)
FryingPan,
I think backdoor LS is the most insidious and pervasive. I’m almost tempted to post the links to the contrasting articles I made reference to above by Brenda Nickel (but I won’t – one would need either Jack, John, JimF or Bruce to go through it line by line to decimate its countless lies); one of them is a textbook example of how most people understand salvation. I honestly don’t know how to talk to people like that, and find them quite dangerous.
My advice? I’d stop debating these people and spend my time further learning and getting firmly established in the faith, then reach out and witness to those who have never heard.
Unless an LSer of either type is at their ropes’ end, I don’t believe they’ll be willing to listen.
Daniel,
Just a warning about a church using the NIV. (you can be thankful that Pastor rejects LS)
A must read is this article here at ExP by our friend Dr. Tom Cucuzza, Why I use the King James Version:
http://www.expreacherman.com/2011/10/28/why-i-use-the-king-james-version/
I suggest you and your wife search the Internet for “NIV errors.” Some reviews will be good, others more nit-picking than informative. I understand that the TNIV (the newest NIV) has deleted most, if not all, gender specific references throughout. Very important, we can presume they are trying to be “politically correct” by appealing to the new modern “feminist activist” generation!
Important: The precious word, “begotten” has been removed completely from the NIV — and substituted with “one and only son…” or some such phrases. The word “begotten” in referencing Jesus Christ, means “only BORN one.” Jesus was actually, physically born of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit — Jesus is not just God’s “one and only son.” (John 3:16)
Why? Because every believer in Jesus is a son of God by faith and the new birth:
Compare all Bible references given in church with your KJV and make notes of the differences — to see if the change in the NIV “translation” is significant.
These are just specific references to Jesus the Savior where “begotten” has been removed:
There are many more verses of significance in which words and meanings have been changed.
Be Bereans and search the Scriptures. We continue to pray for both of you in your adventure and journey with the Lord.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I’m running into pretty much exactly what Daniel and jimfloyd12 have been talking about in recent comments here. That is to say, I find it easy to find fellow believers in my area who are quick to agree that 5-point Calvinism is wrong. But when it comes to Lordship “Salvation” one or more of the following always seems to be the case:
1) They’ve never heard of LS until I mention it and try to explain it to them.
2) They seem to TOTALLY agree with and embrace the Free Grace belief that we’re saved by faith alone by faith alone in Christ alone but . . . upon further inspection they still embrace things like believing a “true believer” will have evidence of their salvation (fruit inspecting), that a pattern of sin after conversion means one isn’t really saved or never really got saved in the first place (Lordship Probation and/or Arminianism)
3) They seem unable and/or unwilling to embrace the idea that to NOT accept salvation as a free gift (works salvation) is a matter of spiritual life or death.
4) They seem unable and/or unwilling to agree with the fact that every time the word “repent” appears in their Bible it’s a result of a poor translation of the original Greek “metaneo” (change of mind vs the English “turn from sin/sorrow for sin”, etc.) and therefore still hang onto the belief that “turning from sin” is conditional for salvation.
I could go on but that’s enough for now. Probably more than enough.
Let me add that for those of you not familiar with me, I’m still pretty new at being enlightened about Free Grace and LS. I’ve only come to discover, identify with and learn from this blog since around early February of this year. That being the case, the following still applies to my walk:
A) I believe I’m under serious attack because Satan doesn’t want another believer sounding the alarm about heresy (for obvious reasons).
B) I’m still struggling with being double minded. I know that’s not good, but I’m convinced I need to share that here so people can continue to pray for folks like me who are not so much on the fence, but not SOUNDLY grounded in Free Grace theology the way Jack, Bruce, John, and Pearl are (to give some examples).
C) I’m not sure at this point if I need to continue trying to be a force for the truth in my “flesh and blood” Christian inner circles (that is, my church, other local fellowships, vs “virtual” inner circles like this blog) or if I need to separate from those pushing heresy and false teaching.
D) See point B–If I’m double minded I’m going to continue having a hard time sorting out point C . . .
I realize I shouldn’t continue to be so confused after being exposed to the truth about LS for so many weeks now but I’d rather risk getting an admonition here than listen to my pride that tells me to just keep it to myself and protect my “feelings.”
Sorry this is so long but we all know how important this subject is for those still struggling to sort out things like where to go to church, how to deal with a reluctant loved one, etc. I wish I could be more coherent but I feel like I still have so much to say so I’ll just leave it at this for now . . .
Hi, Daniel,
I haven’t said hello to you before, but my husband Chuck and I are regular readers over here in Texas. As Jack suggested, we too are praying for you and your wife as you make this adjustment in your desire to find a fellowship of believers where the pastor is faithful to the true free grace gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ spelled out so clearly in scripture. The two of us are new to the scripturally correct Free Grace persuasion, too, though we know that we were already saved when we fell under teaching that was calvinistic and therefore eventually strongly LS. It was really when we came under intense fruit inspection by LS family members who were embracing Richard Stearns’ A Hole in Our Gospel book (it’s hard to even type out that name phrase, it’s so reprehensible), and attempting to make us accountable to them for what they view as an absence of social gospel oriented fruit in our lives, that I went searching for information and came across this wonderful website and community of believers, and thus, finally The Truth. I was pretty anxious regarding how to tell my husband about the error of what we had embraced for so long, and spent a good time praying about it in preparation. Thankfully he listened with an open heart and mind, desiring only God’s Truth for the two of us, and by the second evening of talking and reading (mostly he just jumped right on expreacherman.com and started reading as I had — as Pearl has suggested, that was the fool-proof way God got through to the two of us!), Chuck was quickly and completely convinced with me that the true gospel of scripture is that salvation is offered by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Maybe it was that truly depressing experience of being judged and condemned by people who we thought loved us that helped us to recognize the error and then the truth so quickly. We just both know that we now appreciate Jesus’ sacrifice more than ever, we appreciate God the Father’s sacrifice more than ever, and we are SO very thankful for God’s gracious leading in bringing us to this site and to the clear teaching of Jack, Bruce, John and others. We will continue to pray for you and your wife, Daniel.
Kim
A perfect example of this type would be Brenda Nickle from Caryl Mastrisciana’s ministry, who wrote an anti-Calvinist/LS article some time ago, and yet rudely blasted our friend Eddy in a later post for questioning their obvious turn-from-sin message as portrayed in one of their glowing reviews of some adored author. To this day it makes me spittin’ mad.
Jack, I think I agree with. What I want Daniel and others to understand is that there are many pastors out there that “claim” not to be Calvinist or Lordship and even may not be is some senses but still support the Lordship type error of turn from sins. Some of these men will even preach against Lordship salvation but usually what they are preaching against is just their view of the rigid 5 point calvinist reformed upfront in your face LS. I have found that the change your direction fruit inspector types can be more subtle and you really have to pin them down with questions to find what they really believe at times. They also tend to get very offended with being labeled as LS even if their TFS view basically makes them that. It is because they have been deceived.
Yes, those are good choices. I would also add Ron Shea’s gospel booklet which was instrumental in helping me to discern confusing language from the pure gospel truth. As soon as we truly understand and accept what the gospel is, then marking them which distort it (and thereby make it of none effect) becomes easier, and amazingly, all too frequent.
.http://cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3
But just keeping up (daily) with this blog’s posts and discussions has taught me more in just one year – and kept me grounded – than I have experienced in my entire Christian walk.
Pearl – Daniel,
Thanks to our friend John’s research, here are two ExP comments which may be good “starting points”:
http://www.expreacherman.com/2012/08/17/a-distressed-young-man-francis-chan-and-lordship-salvation/#comment-13786
http://www.expreacherman.com/2012/08/14/you-might-be-a-lordship-salvationist-if/#comment-14017
Thanks John!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Jim F,
That is a good analysis of Daniel’s statements — but I have one point of disagreement with what you said. You stated:
In my studies, the message of “turn from sins or change of direction fruit inspector types” is absolutely Lordship “salvation” and/or Calvinist. Even a cursory examination shows these beliefs actually define LS/Calvinism.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
All I know about “Not a Fan” has come from ExP contributors. I’ve long been of the opinion that if something or someone gains wide popularity in the Christian community, then it most likely ought to be avoided.
I want to re-emphasize, Daniel, that your wife take the time to educate herself by reading this blog. While she has yielded to your wanting to stay with the NIV church, her soul may very well become stagnant by its lukewarm teaching. Please encourage her to do so. Perhaps Jack or John could suggest some posts which would make good starting points(?). My prayer is that she’ll find ExP to be her haven as well.
Just saw your response Bruce, thanks, yes. My wife is not too happy but I think if we really get involved I am sure my wife and I will meet people and grow in her faith there. Like it was said, the music is secondary. As lacking as I think this church is, finding a pastor that is free grace and won’t allow LS is as rare as hen’s teeth so I am still grateful.
Just a note, I met a guy up here about 6 weeks ago. His church was, a very large church, was doing the ‘not a fan’ discipleship program. That was the first time I heard of it and honestly and from what he was telling me about it at the time, it rang alarm bells off for me and I had concerns about this program. The pastor at Kawana told me that many churches are doing the program up here. It seems to be the new Lordship Salvation program that all the churches are jumping on board to. I take it that Not a Fan is big in the US, Canada, England and the commonwealth countries too?
Thanks, Daniel, for sharing your journey with us. Praise God that you have found a church in which the pastor is Free Grace and LS is disallowed. I’m sure that you and your wife will be a blessing to many people there.
Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord, thank you all for posting your amazing encouragement and support, each one of you, thanks.
After not only giving thought to the pastor at Kawana’s responses to my questions and initially thinking this church to be borderline acceptable, I cannot escape the fact that this is a compromised church. I found out that the church is also doing a full home group study in which all people involved in a home group Bible study will be taking part in the program ‘not a fan’. At the church yesterday, the sermons was also based on the ‘not a fan’ program and they also showed a video from the program yesterday. Looking into what this ‘Not a fan’ discipleship program is about, it’s hardcore lordship salvation. The pastor obviously has not discernment, he even promotes a local Pentecostal church’s ministry in his church bulletin as having a great youth program and was in the bulletin so his members would pray for that ministry have more access to youth in the community. I don’t think I know of any Pente churches that teach ES, they all as far as i know teach you can lose salvation. Anyway, just looking at the not a fan video and the bold text in the trailer video “there is no believing without following, no salvation without surrender” need I look any further? I also read some info regrading a review on Not a Fan and it had some pretty bad LS quotes from the book, completely on the LS salvation side. The quote from the video says it all anyway. Any pastor that tells me that even though he understands that someone does not need to TFS to be saved but said that he would still state it in his gospel presentation anyway, feed his entire flock a hardcore lordship discipleship diet program such as ‘not a fan’ and promotion of heretical churches is not acceptable.
I told my wife this tonight. She took it pretty well, fortunately, while she still thinks I am deceived, she also believes in allowing the man to be the spiritual head of the home. So, as less than ideal, we shall go to the previous church where I know that the pastor is a sound free grace believer and not allowing LS to be taught. I guess we can really get involved there and try to be a blessing to others and maybe help build up the church there.
Daniel,
I can identify with some of the things you are going through. My wife and I have yet to find a church that we can attend on a regular basis. We do have one that is acceptable doctrinally but it is a bit far for us to go every Sunday let alone every service. I’m looking for a place to actually be involved not just attend once in a while. For me the Pastor needs to understand and preach the straight forward clear free grace gospel. Many do not do this because it is usually either straight up Lordship salvation or it is the turn from sins, change of direction fruit inspector types. The later is common but is not necessarily Lordship or Calvinist. Remember that some Pastor’s will not harp on doctrine because they want to be inclusive or at least appear inclusive. In the last church I attended I finally got to the point where I was able to get from the Pastor that he held the turn from sin view of repentance. He said there had to be a deep conviction of sin and desire (willingness) to turn to God. He is one that would disagree with MacArthur on some points about Lordship salvation but would be in the TFS camp. He also would not make too much of an issue of those in the church who taught the Arminian version of the idea that you can lose your salvation though he doesn’t believe that himself. Some Pastor’s may mention it once in a while in a message but don’t seek to agressively root out error. They take the approach of being content with a large “Tent” so to speak and let the people decide to alter their views themselves in time as they see fit. They’d much rather do that than risk offending them and have them leave the church.
My wife is less particular about me when it comes to doctrinal issues like LS and TFS. She understands what she believes but she looks more to things like potential for friends, worship that is not dull or fake, people that are caring and genuine etc. These are not bad things to look for but I think it sometimes is just part of the picture of the difference between men and women. There is nothing wrong with either. Husbands and wives just need to acknowledges each others gifts and strengths and use them to work together for a good solution realizing that the husband has a God given obligation to be the spiritual leader of the home.
I like Jack’s idea of go to a church and taking notes and working through your beliefs. Take time with each other. Some things that are worthwhile take some time to figure out. It will ultimately be best for you to decide on the church that has the best doctrine. What good is exciting music or friendly people if their gospel is false?
As far as your 4 points of belief:
1. I am KJV only
(Just make sure you don’t get to extreme with this. The KJV is good and safe but many have made it a point of contention that it need not be. Afterall, we still need to go back to the original languages at time if there is a dispute over an interpretation.)
2. I believe that people that have never believed in eternal security are unsaved; she finds that belief offensive and extreme.
(It depends how you look at this. For example a child may put his faith in Christ alone to save him upon hearing the gospel. Does he need to understand eternal security before he can believe the gospel – I don’t think every child does in depth. Most children can barely fathom the concept of eternity. It is kind of one of those things that can get established as you grow. Now it is best to explain to children that salvation is eternal but I don’t think all children that were ever saved had a vast understanding of eternal security before coming to faith. This can be different though for an older person such as what John described above.)
3. She says that because I believe that a person needs to believe in Christ alone to be saved. —- she says that they SHOULD believe in Christ alone but that the person that still believes in Christ PLUS _________(fill in the blank) is still saved and that its just very judgmental for me to outrightly say that such a person is not saved unless they have believed in Christ alone at SOME POINT IN THEIR LIFE.
(There really is no room for Christ plus. This one is not negotiable because the Bible makes it clear that salvation is through faith in Christ alone.)
4. I am excluding most churches as heretics because they preach Lordship Salvation in some form or another.
(It is easy to lump people in certain categories but it comes down to clear Bible doctrine. You want a place that take a clear stand for the whole truth of God’s Word and makes the gospel clear.)
I also like the idea that you attend a study group or small group. Try to find a group who will be willing to be Bereans and not just rehash popular books and trends.
Daniel,
Pearl has some great advice – her family is likewise unable to find a church in her area.
I have a suggestion:
If each of you feel comfortable doing so — you and your wife each write a brief testimony of how you came to make the decision to trust or believe in Jesus Christ alone as your personal Savior. Every believer who reads ExP will be interested.
I was talking with my wife, Shirley, at lunch today.. We discussed how amazing it is that we see the Lord working to have His fellowship of believers (here at ExP) praying for your family in far off (to us) Sunshine Coast of Australia with folks praying for you and your wife from all over the world, in England, Texas, California, the Carolinas, several in Florida and from many more places across the globe. Both of you should be encouraged!!
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Daniel,
I’m so sorry you and your wife are having a hard time. I can identify with her loneliness, but it’s not reason enough to settle for a church which is unclear, speaking from both sides. They are either confused or deceitful, and I wouldn’t want either being the shepherd of my family.
I have to say that I am really impressed by your conviction and boldness to undergo repeated interviews with these pastors, even to the point of becoming the subject of one of their sermons (what’s this about needing confidence in soul-winning?)! You obviously made an impression.
Stand firm, Daniel.
As for your wife, I invite her to take advantage of this lonely time to read from this blog, learn why LS is truly a life or death issue (spiritually speaking). LS is merely the contemporary term, but adding works to faith is an ancient heresy. It’s a counterfeit religion and the dominating force today (remember the mustard seed parable!). I invite her to ask hard questions, and, hopefully, come to realize you’re not deceived, and join you in earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3).
I am praying for you both.
Dear Daniel,
An idea for you and your wife:
You might agree to attend the Kawana church, make notes on the sermon and some time after the services, with prayer for wisdom (James 1:5), agree to calmly discuss your notes and the content of the sermon, using your Bibles to see what was included and what may have made the sermon clearer. Agree with your wife that together, you will be Bereans!!
This is not designed to criticize the pastor but to analyze the content of his message.
I notice that they have “Home Groups” which meet on different days all over your area, Caloundra, Currimundi, Warana, Little Mountain and Buddina.
As a long shot: The web site says these groups meet “with different passions and focuses.” You might talk to the leaders of those groups and see if you can find one whose “passion and focus” is the Gospel of God’s Grace, eternal security and concern for the lost. Make sure they teach from the Bible and not books written by folks who do not believe in Eternal Security and free Grace.
An important verse for both of you is:
We are praying for both of you and your studies.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Daniel, I will attempt to answer your questions from above. I believe John 3:16 can be used to answer all of your questions except the first.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
1. KJV only – I believe KJV is the preferred English translation, for a lot of reasons. However, there are believers who do not use the KJV exclusively. Someone can believe John 3:16 without being KJV only.
2. Belief in eternal security – eternal security and Grace go hand-in-hand. No-one can believe John 3:16 if they don’t believe that eternal life is eternal. If someone thinks he can lose eternal life through sin, then he thinks he can maintain eternal life through not sinning (works). Ultimately, this is a disbelief in Jesus and a belief in works for salvation.
3. Belief in Christ alone – one cannot add belief in Christ to a list of other confidences to become saved. “Whosoever believeth in Him” means Christ and Christ alone.
4. Lordship salvation – is heresy. John 3:16 does not say “whosoever believeth in Him, plus promises to serve Him, or is willing to turn from his sins.” Any church teaching LS, in even its seemingly mildest forms, is teaching a false gospel of salvation by works. LS substitutes belief in God’s gift of salvation through the person and work of Jesus Christ for belief in a trade of future good works for salvation. The Calvinist tenet of “perseverance of the saints” is the same thing as LS, just manifested in a different way.
Sorry, I shall just add one more thing. The Kawana Life pastor told me that he believes in eternal security when I asked him the question but also told me that there are quite a few in his congregation that don’t believe in ES. I asked him if he EXPLICITLY teaches about ES.
He said: No, we don’t teach ‘doctrines’ here, we just preach from the Bible and make sense of it as we read.
Sheesh, I would have trouble not finding fault with such a sloppy church, thats just my opinion anyway. My wife also does not like ‘doctrine’ but just wants to hear about love and Christian living (which actually is doctrine) all the time.
Thanks Bruce for checking out the Kawana Life church. I had a conversation with the pastor there today and I have my doubts about wether this church is ok or not.
Its come to the point where its essential that my wife and I find a church; and soon. After checking out Kawana Life this morning and telling my wife that I don’t think it is an acceptable church, my wife started crying profusely and becoming very negative. She said she is feeling very lonely since moving interstate. My wife has been here for a about 3 months now and apart from my wife’s family, she has not made any friends here. All her friends (and mine too) are 2000km (about 1250 miles) south of here. She also told me that she thinks that I am “deceived by the devil” with these ‘extreme beliefs’ that I have regarding salvation and that the devil is using this “deception” i have to keep me out of church.
Honestly, God knows I want to find a good Bible believing church but where are they? The ONLY church I have found where the leadership is free grace is that NIV preaching church I posted about a couple of months ago. My wife said she ‘hates’ that church because out of the 4 times we went there, 2 times there was no Bible preaching (they had special guests come instead) and the other 2 times, in the sermons there was hardly any Bible used. The small amount of scripture used she said found to be irrelevant anyway, as the topics were on calculating the dates of Jesus’ first coming through Daniel chapter 9 (which I thought was an ok but i dont think he did a very good job of explaining it) and the other sermon was on how we can know that the Bible is trustworthy (however most of his words were not based on Bible verses but on discussing errors in the divinci code, science etc). So anyway, out of four visits it was pretty average and she feel she wont grow there, she thought it was BORING. My wife also really dislikes (tho she used the word ‘hates) that church because the worship time of song was dull and lifeless, she did not feel there were many people that she would make friends with and she says that even though the pastor said nothing wrong, there is not much right about it either. I have to agree, its a pretty average church and they use the NIV but at least the pastor is a solid free grace believer and I know we are not going to hear lordship salvation out of the pulpit. So anyway, my wife is making waves, becoming very emotional and blaming me for not having any friends since I am not allowing us to go to just any old church.
By the way, my wife prefers to go to a Pentecostal church. (I will not go to a Pente church since the last time we went, they preached about losing salvation and used Hebrews as a proof text, besides, there is too much false doctrine and hype in Pente churches and I consider the Pente movement a false form of Christianity). She likes these Pente churches because she thinks she generally “feels” the move of the Spirit and feels close to God the times she has been in a Pentacostal church. Fortunately she personally does not speak in tongues (though she still believes its for today along with the ALLL the gifts of the Holy Spirit and 5 fold ministries) but she thinks the whole tongues thing is a lot of hype in most Pente churches. Fortunately, she has accepted that we will NEVER attend a Pente church as out home church. She is willing to go to a Baptist or other denomination other than Pente.
Anyway, I feel this Kawana Life church is either unacceptable or possibly borderline acceptable. Let me tell you why based on what the pastor said. Your feedback will be very useful when discussing this with my wife as things are very emotional and tense between my wife and I because of our differences in understandings of the Faith. Note also:
My wife thinks I am “deceived by the devil”, being unreasonable and “extreme”. The reasons she says I am “deceived” are because:
1. I am KJV only
2. I believe that people that have never believed in eternal security are unsaved; she finds that belief offensive and extreme.
3. She says that because I believe that a person needs to believe in Christ alone to be saved. —- she says that they SHOULD believe in Christ alone but that the person that still believes in Christ PLUS _________(fill in the blank) is still saved and that its just very judgmental for me to outrightly say that such a person is not saved unless they have believed in Christ alone at SOME POINT IN THEIR LIFE.
4. I am exlcuding most churches as heretics because they preach Lordship Salvation in some form or another.
Extreme? Deceived by the devil? Please guys tell me if I am out of line as my wife is eager to read your responses and this may soothe the tension hopefully. Sorry this is long but things are breaking down between my wife and I and I need your feedback and am hoping this will assist my wife to see that I am not as extreme as she thinks.
Ok, the reason I think that Kawana Life church is either unacceptable or possibly borderline acceptable based on what the pastor said. The following is basically what he said in my conversation with him:
(Please note: I am not quoting him word for word but this is basically the conversation)
1. Upon asking him what a person must do to be saved he said something to the effect of ‘repentance of sin and faith in Jesus’. (Note this was in a phone call about a month ago. In that conversation I told him what I believed and explained the error of LS, he had never heard the term LS before. My wife pressured me to give the church a go since I said I had the feeling he was not a hardcore LS preacher based on what he told me on the phone.
2. Upon asking him today, “What if a person is a fornicator, understands they are a sinner and the punishment for sin is Hell. They understand that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and rose again and paid for all their sin. This particular sinner person puts all their trust in Jesus Christ as their only hope for Heaven BUT, they are not willing to turn from their sin of fornication, they know its wrong but don’t feel bad about it and have every intention to keen on fornicating. IS THIS PERSON SAVED?”
Thats basically what I said to him.
His answer: I dont know, I dont judge anyone, thats up to God.
My response: Yeah, but they put all their trust in Jesus to save them.
His response: Ok, if they put all their trust in Jesus then they are saved. Its by grace thru faith alone. However,I wont judge if anyone is saved or not, thats up to God. If they are fornicating I will continue to work with them and counsel them.
The problem is, he already knows what I believe cause I told him about free grace and LS on the phone. Im not sure if he just told us what we wanted to hear.
3. I also asked him today:
Me: You said that faith alone is enough for salvation and that they dont have to actually TFS to be saved (after much probing). When you preach the gospel to people, do you still add in the bit about turning from sin?
Him: Yes, I tell them they need to trust in Jesus and TFS.
He did however, also in the same conversation at some point; state that trusting in Jesus is all that is required for the initial salvation; and that TFS is secondary and comes afterwards as part of discipleship (not in his immediate response to my question though).
4. Upon explaining to him the error of LS in the phone call I had with him a month ago, he made the comment today:
Him: I still would consider myself on the Lordship side of things cause I say that people need to make Jesus Lord of their life
Me: But do you say that people need to make Jesus Lord of their life in order to be saved?
Him: No, not to be saved but they still need to make Jesus Lord of their lives if they want to be followers of Jesus
Me: Yes, true, but you know Jesus is the Lord, He was Lord before I was born….. da da da da da…. conversation continues.
My wife is saying that because he says (after much probing) that as long as someone trusts in Christ and even if they are a fornicator, have not turned from sin etc that he is sound. I beg to differ. She thinks because I say this is not a sound preacher I am extreme and judgmental. I mean he did eventually say its faith alone but I had to sqeeze it out of him. Would you consider this a sound church or at least an acceptable church to attend? Your answers will be not only helpful for my wife but also to me as i want to believe this church is ok for the sake of my marriage but I feel its a grabled compromised church. Please, your feedback is most welcome.
God Bless
Daniel
ps. I am sorry for such a long post but I think you can see the urgency.
Hi Daniel,
I listened to a sermon at Kawana. It seemed fine. Nothing negative to report. The web site was scant on declarations of theology; not much there to go by. Keep checking things out, pray and use discernment.
I will just add one thing before people comment, first thanks all for the feedback. I will say that as I have checked many websites and their doctrinal statements and then spoke with many pastors now on the phone things can be very subtle. Sometimes doctrinal statements clearly say that a person needs to repent of sin to be saved etc in that case i generally have not bothered to call the pastor and put them in the list of a NO GO. Often however, doctrinal statements, if they actually have one, are vague and state a few scriptural truths. Often they might even say that a person is saved by grace through faith but when you ring up and probe them, they then say yes all you need is faith and salvation is all by believing but then in the next breath they say but you need to repent of sin, need to live a holy life, you need to feel sorry for your sins or be at least willing to turn from them or they may say that if you have truly been saved and really a child of God then you WILL be living a holy life etc etc etc… I’ve also spoken with friends and I am seeing a common theme. Most people GIVE LIP SERVICE to the truth that salvation is by grace thru faith but when the rubber hits the road, you gotta TFS, be willing to TFS be sorry for your sins or otherwise you can lose you salvation because of how you live or not continuing in the faith. Only thing is they won’t admit that it is works salvation. I even spoke with one pastor that refused to tell me what his church teaches about salvation until I told him what I thought. He then said ‘I agree with that’. I asked him if he believed in eternal security and he said he did but upon further probing this pastor said that he knows he is eternally secure because he KNOWS that he will never forsake the faith ever and also said that if a person has ‘had an encounter’ with Jesus, if a person is ‘in relationship’ with Jesus then he cannot go unchanged and and live in sin. Some of these pastors are VERY subtle, others not so but it’s clear they only give lip service to salvation by faith alone. A few good probing questions reveals what they really believe.
sorry Jack, just read your message now. Yes, I thought you would say that but just wanted to confirm. I won’t be joining them.
My wife and i did go to another church this morning as seen here:
http://www.kawanalife.com/
I woke up early and said to my wife we should do church in the morning but that I had to conclude that Sonshine Baptist was no free grace church so we chose to check out Kawanlife as seen above. I had a talk with the pastor but he also is a bit wishy washy. My wife thinks he is sound but I am not so sure, very subtle but I will wait till you have time to respond to this post before letting you know what the pastor from Kawana life said.
I am still considering making contact with sonshine baptist for the purpose of being a silent partner in soul winning and then when I have the confidence going out and doing it by myself or with anyone I can find that’s willing and a free grace believer.
Daniel,
Here is a verse you might ponder as you see the pastor working both sides of the fence:
He may not know it but he is preaching two messages — Grace and works can not be compatible.
Speaking of a remnant of believers by Grace:
I admire your desire to go soulwinning door to door.. but Scripture tells us to separate from false teaching — not join them.
Better to be right than compromise. Sounds like the church (or at least the Pastor) is in the toilet and needs to be cleaned.
Get some good scriptural Gospel tracts or print out our tract Eternal Life For you: https://expreacherman.com/eternal-life-for-you/
Take those printed copies with your Bible and visit a few homes, telling them you have some Good News for them.. Explain the Gospel and be sure, when they understand, ask them to trust Jesus Christ alone as their Savior. If they don’t understand go over the Gospel again. This is merely a synopsis — get Dr. Stanford’s book, Handbook of Personal Evangelism PDF and study the “how” of soulwinning. Here:
https://expreacherman.com/share-your-faith/
http://www.freegraceresources.org/persevanghndbk.pdf
You will be comfortable witnessing after you do it a few times.. Never be discouraged!! The Lord is with you.
We will continue to pray for you. Maybe others will have some suggestions.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Thanks for feedback guys. Jack if you click on this link:
http://www.sonshinebaptist.com.au
and then click on sermons then go to the third page i think you will find the sermon, however, you probably don’t need to, check this out:
At the very end of the sermons the pastor said said, I quote:
“Do you remember a time when you were saved, ARE YOU TRULY BORN AGAIN? Do you remember a time when you heard the gospel and you were convicted in your heart and you knew you needed to do something, and that something was repent and believe, be baptised and be added to the church, thats what God said. Im just not sure, I just cant remember…. LISTEN! If you are unsure you are better off making it so sure today that you leave here with no doubts, no doubts. And again Im not trying to cause you to doubt, Im trying to get you to think, have you truly been converted? Are there works that show forth your salvation? Great, show me, Ive got some toilets to clean… Do works meet for repentance, maybe your a Christian here today and some things need repenting of, good day to do it”. Then the sermon ends.
I think tout of the pastor’s mouth, son shine baptist as a lordship salvationist church. Would you consider this a possible church?
Can anyone think of the verse that says “clean the toilets and thou shalt be saved” ???? Now I’m not saying he believes that but he does seem to believe that if there are no works then there is no genuine salvation. I remember when I spoke with him the second time on the phone, he said that if someone was living like the devil he would doubt their salvation. I basically said to him, well what if there were living ungodly, ok question what they believe but if you ask them why they believe they are going to heaven and they tell you that they are trusting in Christ and that they understand they are a sinner, that Jesus died, was buried and rose again and paid for all their sin and that by believing they have ETERNAL LIFE and that they can never lose it, then they are saved PERIOD. He on the phone agreed with me that it depends on what a person is trusting in and if they are trusting in Christ they are saved but then he says a comment like that in his sermon? I don’t get it, how can he swing from one side to the other? He even told me on the phone that a person can’t turn from sin until they are saved. I see a quote from the sermon that seems to say he is lordship and then he has said other things that sound ok. I don’t know ANY churches that go door to door soul-winning in this area apart from this church. Maybe I could go and just be with them while they go out and preach the Gospel and see how they do it to build up the confidence so I can then go by myself or would that be unacceptable?
Jim, thank you for taking the time to listen to this sermon and give your feedback.
Daniel, I agree with Jim. If you were the young man who sounded confused, then that means you can spot the leaven.
Daniel,
The link did work for me and I listened to about 80% of the sermon. Now all I can give is my honest take on what I heard. There were many things that would lead me to conclude that you would be frustrated them because I know I would be. Let me explain:
The preacher’s basic false conclusion is that repentance is a change of mind which leads to a change of direction – that is in essence a change of lifestyle. Then once he establishes this subtly false idea he goes on to insert this each time he comes to the idea or word repent. Many fundamental baptist preachers do this and it frustrates me every time I hear it.
Many times he added in things like change of direction and change of action. At one point he even said something to the effect that you know they are saved by what they do.
At 31:15 he starts listing things certain people may never have done such as soul winning – then uses it as cause to wonder are you really saved if you have not.
In one place he was talking about God needing to first open the heart so we can implant the gospel. My response to that is: What do you think God primarily works through other than His Word?!?
Another alarming thing he mentioned was that he advocated confronting congregations by saying “Have you changed in your life?” The implication being that you may have cause to go back and question if your salvation and previous conversion experience was genuine.
That kind of fruit inspection squelches grace and can lead to fear and other things that paralyze believers into constantly doubting their salvation. He even mentioned at one point the common misconception of checking yourselves to see if you be in the faith. Any preacher using that verse in 2 Cor that way is probably not to keen on free grace. The thing is that people can be saved in churches like this one but some will miss out because the gospel and way to received salvation is muddied and if they do get saved by faith they stand a good chance of being greatly frustrated in their ongoing walk by all of the fruit inspection and guilt trips.
The pastor came across like many well meaning Pastors I know but I would be at odds with them continually and I would not be comfortable in their churches. I would always feel a need to correct the error.
I don’t say any of this to turn you off from your church hunt or to try to make up your mind for you. I am praying for wisdom for you and that you continue to grow in your faith. The pastor mentioned that the young man on the phone sounded confused. Well if he meant you, you have very good discernment in my estimation and God bless you.
Jim F
Daniel, If I can’t tell whether or not a church teaches salvation by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, I stay away. Anyone who is clear on Grace should be able to explain it clearly. If repentance, when used in a salvation context, ever has “from sin” attached, it is very likely that either the writer/speaker is confused, or that his readers/listeners will be confused.
I would try to line up a pastor’s view on repentance with the following:
1. From Northland Bible Baptist Church:
“Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man may have and to accept God’s way of salvation. Repentance does not in any sense include a demand for a change of conduct before or after salvation. Matthew 21:32, Acts 20:21, 2 Corinthians 7:8-10, Eph 2:8-9, Rom 4:5, Rom 5:8, John 3:16-18, Gal 3:10-12, Acts 16:25-31, Rom 11:29.
One of the counterfeits Satan is using today is the misuse of the word “repent”. To insist upon repentance that in any sense includes a demand for a change of conduct either toward God or man is to add an element of works or human merit to faith. Penance is payment for sin. Penitence is sorrow for sin. Works add something of self in turning from sin. But repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Nowhere does Scripture use the phrase “repent of sin” to be saved.”
2. From Expreacherman.com:
” Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance is absolutely essential in salvation and the Greek the word repent means a change of mind — from any idea of religion that man may have, to an acceptance of God’s way of salvation in Jesus Christ alone. Repentance does not in any sense include a demand for a change of conduct or “turning from sin” to gain or keep, before or after salvation as that would entail a works salvation message. Acts 20:21; II Corinthians 7:8-10; Matthew. 21:32.
3. From Clear Gospel Campaign:
“The Bible never teaches that one must repent of their sins to be saved.
Whenever sin is the object of repentance, the consequence of repentance is never eternal salvation.
Whenever eternal salvation is the consequence of repentance, the object of repentance is never sin.
In every passage on repentance relating to eternal salvation, the object of repentance is, in some way or another, the person of Jesus Christ, his eternal divinity, his atoning death, His resurrection, or the freeness of the eternal salvation he provides.”
Daniel,
I was able to visit the church home page, your link failed me..
I could not find a Statement of Faith or Beliefs, so it is difficult to know what the church believes without sifting through all the sermons. I could not find any church affiliation listed or mentioned in their church History or that of the Pastors. Likewise, I could not find a sermon titled “Repentance, Is it Necessary” but my eyes often fail me. Maybe others here can help.
You might call the Pastor and ask him for a link to their Statement of Faith and post it here. However that does not mean they will always follow it.
We are still praying that you and your wife will find a good solid free Grace Bible preaching church. I applaud you for wanting a church with a door-to-door witnessing program. That is a great way to learn how to share your faith. You may make some errors along the way (I certainly did the first few times) but never give up!! The Lord will honor your efforts for Him and you and your wife will grow in Grace and knowledge.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Just a quick note, in the sermon he seems to confuse the issue by talking about believers repenting from sin. I am all for believers, saved people TFS. I need to TFS everyday but thats not salvation. My concern is if he is distorting the gospel message. To me it seems like he is but only borderline and am thinking it may still be an option for a church. Check the website, and the sermon and your feedback would be very much taken on board.
I am honestly really keen for a good KJV solid preaching church but where are they? I also am super keen to go soul winning door to door but apart from the JW and Mormons I think only the independent fundamental baptist churches do that and I am a bit hesitant about going door to door by myself. Anyway, love to hear what u guys think on this church.
Hi friends,
My wife and I have been trying to find a good church in our new area. Its a small city on the south east coast of Queensland Australia and I have checked websites and spoke to many pastors of Churches to only find lordship salvation almost everywhere except that church that uses the NIV. My wife really does not like that church so we are still looking for a church. I spoke to one pastor on the phone from a independent fundamental baptist church in late January and kind of got the feeling he was leaning on the lordship side of things. Since then we went to the NIV church but as stated, my wife does not like it and I also feel its luke warm and not heard any good solid preaching. I am keen on a good KJV bible preaching church that goes soul winning door to door so I gave the independent fundamental baptist church pastor another call to clarify just what he believes on repentance, since that was the topic that caused me to wonder if he was a bit on the lordship side. When talking with him, on one side I felt he was on the lordship salvation side and at other times it seemed to be saying that it comes back to what someone is trusting.
My wife agreed to come and check this independent fundamental baptist church out and we were going to go tomorrow evening at the 6pm service (its sat night right now here in Australia). I just checked the website again to see if i get any evidence that this church is on the lordship salvation side. When checking through the sermon list I saw a sermon titled “Repentance, Is it Necessary”. Great, this is the sermon I need to listen to I thought. As I listened the pastor mentioned a young man that called him up asking about his church and questions regarding repentance. I just laughed as I knew by the way the pastor was talking, that he was referring to me and he has come up with this sermon and preached it to his church based on my phone call with him.
In the sermon at times it feels he is mildly on the lordship side and at other times it feels he is just saying that the lost need to repent by coming to Christ which is what I say. The link is below, love to hear what you guys think and if you would consider this church acceptable or not. Cheers, Daniel.
http://www.sonshinebaptist.com.au/wp/?page_id=6&sermon_id=150
[Link to specific sermon did not work – below is a link to church home page – Admin.]
http://www.sonshinebaptist.com.au/
Fryingpan, I’m glad you found it worth your while.
John, I just finished reading chapter 10 of J.O. Hosler’s book you recommended. Stupendously awesome stuff. So well worth my time . . .
Oh, definitely John. Especially your article “You Might be a . . . ” LOVE that one. Before you made your comment I’d already sent him a link to Dr. Cucuzza’s brief video explaining the Gospel (where he uses his wallet to make his point).
When I say my friend expressed an interest in these things it’s more along the lines of he’s “willing to view and/or read” whatever I send him. I said I’d pretty much do it “one thing at a time” so I don’t overwhelm him. He’s way younger than I but tells me even though he’s admittedly “not as well versed” as I (apparently) am re things like Calvinism and LS, he’s “pretty much in total agreement with me” and is leery and suspicious of views on salvation which he agrees add “conditions” for salvation other than belief and saving faith alone.
I’d actually planned on sending him “Free Grace stuff” exclusively but when I was reading Dave’s article on eternal security I thought, “Wow, this is really good. I’ll send him this too,” until of course I got to that next to last paragraph and thought, “On second thought . . . “
Fryingpan, if you would like to send your friend something clear on the gospel, including sections on eternal security and assurance, why not send him the following:
1. “The Permanence of Salvation”, by Tom Cucuzza:
Click to access cucuzza-the-permanence-of-salvation.pdf
2. “The Gospel” booklet, by Ron Shea:
http://www.cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3
3. “You Might be a Lordship Salvationist If…”, by me:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/08/14/you-might-be-a-lordship-salvationist-if/
Fryingpan, sorry for the lingo. The Hunt article alludes to “commitment salvation”, which is a contradiction in terms, because it depicts someone trying to make a trade for salvation (by making a commitment – which is a work) instead of receiving salvation as a gift. I was not saved until a couple of years ago, when I realized that I had believed a false gospel of “turn from your sins” and “commit your life to Christ” for salvation.
Clear Gospel Campaign explains it like this:
“The gospel is often contradicted by works-oriented invitations such as requiring an unbeliever to ‘make a personal commitment to Jesus Christ,’ which is, in its essence, a requirement of a promise of future works in exchange for salvation. The gospel is not how we must ‘commit our life to Christ.’ The gospel is that Christ committed His life to us at Calvary. The requirement that the unbeliever ‘commit his life to Jesus’ is NOT ‘basically the same thing in different words.’ It is 180 degrees opposite of the message of salvation. It is heresy, it is a false gospel, and it is high time that the true church of Jesus Christ stopped tolerating such false gospels as ‘just a different expression of the gospel.'”
Thanks, John. That’s pretty much exactly what I was thinking, but more in an instinctive way because I’m not yet “adept” at Free Grace lingo (for lack of a better way of putting it–by no means do I mean to define it down or denigrate anything w/ that admittedly lazy term).
What an eye-opener. To be fair, Dave and Tom have from the very start (so far as I can remember) always told their readers/listeners to check everything THEY say against scripture as well as those mentioned in their books, articles and commentaries.
But this all is helping me understand a lot more about things I’ve heard Dave (and others of course) on this particular “take” on the discussion of eternal security.
And all of this this is important for another reason because a few hours ago I was about to send a link to said article to a friend of mine in my weekly neighborhood fellowship who today expressed an interest in hearing me out on the topics of Calvinism and Lordship Salvation, but now I realize to do so would only confuse him and complicate (temporarily at least) the matter.
. . . and I doubt I’d have even caught “Lordship LS” is you hadn’t corrected yourself.
Frying Pan, there is a great book by J.O. Hosler called “The Baptismal Regeneration/Believer’s Baptism Debate.” Chapter 10 of that book scripturally debunks “backdoor LS.” Please find link, below:
Click to access chap10.pdf
Frying Pan, I read the whole article. The author speaks out of both sides of his mouth. In addition to the quote that you gave above is the following:
“We must give the comfort and assurance of Scripture to those who are saved; but at the same time we must not give false and unbiblical comfort to those who merely say they are saved but deny with their lives what they profess with their lips.”
This could be construed to encompass just about anyone and lead to endless introspection.
This errant form of teaching is “backdoor Lordship Salvation.”
Thank you, Jack.
Oh, I can totally confirm it’s from the real TBC website all right . . . I’ve been visiting that web site on a fairly regular basis for well over a decade now.
Before I post the quote from the article and its respective link I’ll say here that I came upon them today while doing a search on the Berean Call website to see what they had to say about certain people and topics and out of curiosity put in the words “Free Grace” in the search and the article to which I’m referring was one of the top 3 things or so that popped up in my search result.
It’s an article written by Dave in 1989 entitled “Eternal Security.”
Here’s the quote I want to share (it’s the penultimate paragraph in the article); I’ve “enclosed it” with a bunch of asterisks to make it easy to see where my comments end and Dave’s begin, etc.:
*********************
Do we then, on the basis of “once saved, always saved,” encourage Christians to “sin that grace may abound”? With Paul we say, “God forbid!” We offer no comfort or assurance to those living in sin. We don’t say, you’re okay because you once made a “decision for Christ.” Instead, we warn: “If you are not willing right now to live fully for Christ as Lord of your life, how can you say that you were really sincere when you supposedly committed yourself to Him at some time in the past?” And to all, we declare with Paul, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor:13:5).
***********************
Okay, before I go on, here’s a link to the entire article:
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/eternal-security
Based on what I’ve been learning in the past days (and weeks), I am having a very hard time distinguishing between Dave’s hypothetical warning to one “living in sin” (“If you are not willing right now to live fully for Christ as Lord of your life, how can you say that you were really sincere when you supposedly committed yourself to Him at some time in the past?” ) and basic Lordship Salvation doctrine.
“Obviously” the “live fully for Christ as Lord of your life” is the crux of the matter here.
Rather than blather on as I could, I’ll leave it at that and let you all respond as you see fit.
Thanks again so much. I’m getting SO much out of my participation in this blog.
FryingPan,
To follow up: if you wish, you may send the link via an email through our personal email form, (right sidebar). and I will review the web site.
Thanks again,
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
FryingPan,
Thanks for your consideration in asking. Post the quote and then the link only if the link is verifiable as The Berean Call. We can discuss the quote or text. You are right — we do not want untested web sites to be advertised here at ExP.
Most opinion reports that the latest error by Berean Call lies at the feet of McMahon who has taken over TBC. Dave is now ill and incapacitated now but was pretty clear a decade or so ago. It might be an interesting discussion.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hey all . . . I just read something that leads me to believe that The Berean Call and/or Dave Hunt have actually preached (or in one instance at least preached) a “form of” Lordship Salvation well over 2 decades ago.
I’d copy and paste my evidence here but I’d rather err on the side of caution and not share or post a direct quote w/out Jack or one this blog’s administrators first giving me a “green light” to do so . . . (I know many links get deleted so I figure I’d better know what I’m doing before pasting something lifted off another web site as well.)
Many thanks to you all . . .
Okay . . . I just read Daniel’s comments (1/23/13) about HIS experience and involvement with Way of The Master ministries and that DID make me sick to my stomach! Those are some really helpful details! And I never knew Ray taught that lie that if you’re not out winning converts you’re not saved. I know the “Boston Movement” of the Church of Christ has taught that heresy for DECADES. (My pastor and his wife, when they first got saved over 2 decades ago were caught up in that cult-like system for a while and I’ve seen at least one good friend be a casualty of it as well when he was with the New York Church of Christ.)
Now, lest I get off topic I’ll see if I can go 6 hours or more w/ out posting . . .
Thanks again, everyone. I just read John and Bruce’s earlier comments (made on and around 1/1/13) in this thread about bad translations of Luke 13:3. Wow. I’m so glad my eyes have been opened to this simple but VERY important truth. It sort of makes me annoyed however, when I hear people say how they don’t like the KJV because of all the “thees and thous” or whatever they all seem to say . . . Now I know a lot more about why it’s not just a matter of preference!
The deceit seems to know no bounds . . .
At about the time I posted my last couple of comments it did occur to me that I haven’t really been allowing the Holy Spirit to teach me when reading my Bible for QUITE some time. Of course, this wasn’t intentional, but I had to figure it out. I certainly did get my spiritual insights directly from God when I first got saved–it’s how I knew I had found the truth and was saved in the first place. (I’ve primarily read KJV, NIV and NKJV for the past 21 years or so.) But I realized after about the first 4 to 6 months after my conversion experience, a lot of my reading of the Bible, esp. New Testament epistles and letters, was characterized by a lot of confusion and lack of understanding. The truths just didn’t leap off the page like they did when I read the Gospels.
I think that’s a big reason why I got sidetracked by bad doctrine because while I no doubt was getting some good teaching, I was not simply letting the Holy Spirit be my guide and was instead getting sidetracked and was vulnerable to bad doctrine as well. So it’s certainly no surprise that I’ve been in need of much exhortation to stick to the “real thing” (even my pastor, when he answered my email I shared here, admonished me for putting too much stock in the ideas of men and suggested I get my counseling from God and His Word.)
Dear Fryingan 9,
I so feel what you have been going through and concur with the steering that the above commenters have given to you in this thread.
As Jim F said:
“Take a break from videos and check out the real thing – which you will find in God’s word”. To be sure, that advice gets a big “amen” from me.
That really could be step number one for you to be removed from any fog of confusion and come to a conclusion of what you really believe.
For me this blog has proven to be a guide post that continuously points to the freedom of [from] the law.
As it is the new testament, “who the son sets free, is free indeed”.
If you have ever watched the “Simpsons” primetime cartoon, the neighbour Ned Flanders and his family are almost robotic in their kindness etc. as christians. There is an episode where Ned “snaps” and just can’t take it anymore, that is trying to be perfect. No one should have that level of pressure put on them by others or by themself. If you try, a feeling of condemnation will be ever present and ultimately depression, anxiety, sorrow and on and on. OR for those who try to fullfill a perfect existence, pride and self righteousness. That is not freedom.
God bless you.
FryingPan9,
I will be praying for you as well. It has been an encouragement to hear how you are working toward freeing yourself of “LS fog”. It truly is liberating to step clear of the LS storm clouds and look into the light of God’s Word with fresh eyes. I trust that you will find people here to help with your questions whether it be regulars such as myself or Jack and Bruce who oversee this site. I have recently started my own blog and you are welcome to comment there as well.
Continue to focus on the truth of God’s Word and take things one step at a time. Take a break from videos and check out the real thing – which you will find in God’s Word. If you do this long enough then you will know the truth and spotting a fake will become much easier. There is also much safety in a strong group of discerning believers.
Jim F
I’m with you, FryingPan, in expressing many thanks to the discerning eyes, ears and exceptional articulators, past and present, of this rare place defending God’s precious Truth with simple clarity. It’ll be a joy to grow alongside you and others in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Dear Pearl and John: Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU both! I appreciate the patience and kindness evident here.
I will reread all you’ve written as well as all scriptures and links noted and provided, etc.
I’m prone to over think things (no, REALLY??) so this is all to be expected (in light of how well I know myself–maybe I need to know JESUS a lot better and stop focusing on myself so much). I used to drive an old English prof of mine many moons ago CRAZY by how much I struggled to understand poetry (certain poems at least, such as many by Emily Dickinson) because of staring at things too closely (so to speak) instead of allowing simple logic and instinct have their “hand” in it. Obviously we’re talking spiritual discernment here and some clear differences come into play, but I’m sure you know what I’m saying.
I’ve read Romans 11:6 many times in recent weeks and still for some reason struggle to have the light bulb really go on, so to speak. I look forward to finally “getting it” regarding some of these issues that have been too long relegated to the, “I’m not sure I understand this” bin.
I’m very encouraged by others on this blog who’ve shared how once they shed the LS “fog” they were finally able to understand Scripture a lot better. That will be a real treat. I’ve already felt that the light this blog has shed is the best thing to happen to me spiritually since I first got saved and experienced the “glow of the conversion experience.”
Frying Pan, I prayed for you on the way home from work. Specifically, that you will be able to cast away all vestiges of LS teaching.
Regarding the passages to which you referred, following are my attempts to explain them, as well as what I consider to be links to good articles on each.
1 Corinthians 6:
[8] Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
I interpret this to mean that anyone who has not been forgiven of his sins does not have eternal life and will not go to heaven. A Christian (someone who has received eternal life by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) is no longer guilty of his sins before God. Jesus took away the believer’s guilt and gave the believer His righteousness.
Every single one of us has committed sins covered by these verses, both before AND after becoming believers (see Matthew 5 for what constitutes some of these sins in God’s eyes). But, as believers, we are in Christ and are justified (see 1 Corinthians 6:11).
A good article on this topic is linked below:
Click to access GFJ%202009%2004%20Inheriting%20The%20Kingdom%2000%20Rokser%20D.pdf
Matthew 7:
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
[24] Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
This addresses people who are trying to work their way into heaven. They acknowledge Jesus as Lord. They never knew Him as Savior. I believe this includes people who mix faith with works (i.e., Lordship “salvationists” who believed that Christ was necessary, but not sufficient).
Notice that Jesus never says “No, you didn’t do the things you claim to have done.” That is because one’s works are not relevant to whether or not he is granted eternal life.
The Apostle Paul summed it up succinctly, as follows:
Romans 11:6: And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
A good article on this topic is linked below:
http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes.asp?id=52
FryingPan…three little words: “repent of sins” to be saved, which, when you stop to think about it, amounts to a life-long work. Believing the gospel (such as what we hear and see in Tom Cucuzza’s video presentation posted last week) is not enough. It’s just too easy and cheap for them, and they can’t stand the existence of backsliders or carnal Christians. They love to toss around the phrase “so-called Christians” or merely emphasize the term with finger quotes as they wink or roll their eyes (i.e. “Christians“).
JimF left a more detailed response shortly after the vid was posted, together with his writing a post at his own blog on Comfort and others promoting a false, works-based gospel, which you will that find Jack links to in his blogroll.
https://expreacherman.com/2012/12/18/dave-hunts-berean-call-promoting-not-only-calvinism-but-now-the-terrible-lordship-salvation-of-ray-comfort/#comment-15872
I (finally) just watched the “Genius” video. Wow, there must really be something wrong with me because I didn’t get sick to my stomach like I thought I would. Instead I found myself left with more of a, “I really need a better understanding of this whole thing” sort of reaction.
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways . . . I guess I’m struggling with being double-minded. I appreciate everyone’s heart for ministering to the confused among us . . .
All that said please know that I’m still leaning HEAVILY towards a Free Grace perspective and stand by my misgivings about LS being illogical, but I also realize I have a lot of “unlearning” to do because SO much of what Ray preaches “just sounds so ‘right'”.
I suppose a big part of my problem is I’ve either never learned (or have since forgotten) the Free Grace “view” on scripture passages such as 1 Cor. 6:8-10″ and the issue of “false converts” and who exactly Jesus had in mind when he taught the principles in Matthew 7:21-24 . . .
Thanks for being patient with me . . . No one can accuse me on not being transparent, I suppose.
fryingpan9 wrote: “Now that I’ve read more on this blog I see that the whole “a believer can turn his back on his salvation” thing comes from Chuck Smith.”
Yes, he has held and taught that view for decades. Unfortunately.
Thanks very much, Pearl. I’ll answer your question but first I also want to say hello to JTowner . . .
I really identified w/ your last comments and could have REALLY been served well by this blog and comments/questions like yours back in say, July of last year when I seemed to be at my most confused thanks to LS et al.
Pearl, I know it’s not much of an answer but I have to say, “sort of.” I’d have to go back and check to see how many I originally blind copied in my original email but off hand I’d say at least 7 people were sent the email. One replied he was too busy to offer anything thoughtful but my pastor and associate pastor weighed in and were helpful, but they both operate from a pretty distinct Chuck Smith/CC perspective and neither of them offered up the term “Lordship Salvation.” So you can sort of get my point.
Now that I’ve read more on this blog I see that the whole “a believer can turn his back on his salvation” thing comes from Chuck Smith. I’ve heard my pastor spout that as well. At least now I know where he got it from.
Obviously I would have been better served if either my pastor or associate pastor said something along the lines of, “What you’re dealing with is clearly the false teaching of Lordship Salvation.” Here are some scriptures to help understand why it’s neither biblical nor logical . . . ” The good news is that I’m apparently learning what I need to learn here thanks to you fine folks and this blog.
Fryingpan9 said,
That’s why I no longer give any body, book, or blog the time of day if they replace the simple, gracious gospel with their confusing, high-falutin’, rebellious, stiff-necked, un-gracious, warped message of grace mixed with fear-inducing works (which is no grace at all).
Just curious, did you receive the help you were looking for? What kind of response did you get to your email?
JTowner, welcome!
Standing for the true gospel may indeed leave you “friendless” (as RebeccaAarup shared so eloquently last night at the most recent post), but in so doing, you’ll find that you walk with a lighter step and experience more peace than those you left behind (only they’ll never admit it!).
https://expreacherman.com/2013/02/26/calvinists-lordship-salvationists-set-up-a-straw-man-argument-against-free-grace-teachers-it-is-called-decisional-regeneration/#comment-17088
JTowner,
Thanks for dropping by again.
We would seriously recommend you depart from your friends who recommend Paul Washer, David Platt, John Piper, John MacArthur, etc or any other of the Calvinist-Lordship “Salvationists.” Those teachers are theological poison – depart from them.
CalifGracer wrote a comment which thoroughly explains your question on Hebrews. There are many other comments throughout ExPreacherMan which also address the issue (a false issue created by those who insist on works to gain or keep salvation).
To help you be secure in your ETERNAL salvation, here is his Comment:
http://www.expreacherman.com/2011/01/05/grace-under-fire-the-fallout-of-lordship-faith-teaching/#comment-12808
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
hi everyone,
I really appreciate your blog. I found it because friends recommended paul Washer to me. My only question is based on Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-31. How can I reassure myself and others when the LS teachers use these verses to question our security?
Thanks for your help.
Thank you, John.
One thing that has occurred to me since finding this site and learning more about putting these things into perspective is the following thought: “It’s hard to focus on Christ (and what He did for me by dying on the cross for my sins) when someone manages to make you focus on your own efforts to ‘live up to’ one’s calling as a Christian.” In other words, it’s a lot clearer to me now that a side effect of falling for the LS line (if not the main result) is to focus on self rather than God. And when followed to its logical conclusion, focus on one’s “failures” is just the flip side of pride.
As for Richard Rives (whom I mentioned above) the main thing that bothered me about him is that he just comes off as really cold and bordering on being mean spirited. Not to mention smug.
After watching a couple of his videos online the main thing I found myself thinking was, “If this guy’s right, Heaven’s going to have a VERY low population.” I mean, I understand the gate is indeed narrow, but LS theology seems to preach a message that the narrow gate applies to those who consider themselves Christian, not just the world that blatantly rejects Jesus and the only salvation that comes through faith in him.
Fryingpan 9, I also think this prayer is encouraging:
Ephesians 3:
[14] For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[15] Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
[16] That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
[17] That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
[18] May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
[19] And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
[20] Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
[21] Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Fryingpan 9, I find it helpful to focus on the truth whenever I am confronted with lies. Satan loves to mess with us. We need the full armour of God.
Ephesians 6:
[10] Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
[11] Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
[12] For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
[13] Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
[14] Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
[15] And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
[16] Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
[17] And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Verse 12 is key – we are wrestling against spiritual wickedness in high places.
—Attention All: Please pray for the Graceline Free Grace Conference this Saturday, March 2!
If you are in or near the Phoenix area be sure to attend!
Here’s the link for more information:
http://www.graceline.net/
Because this thread mainly deals with Lordship Salvation, I thought I’d share an email I blind copied to several friends and staff at my church almost a year ago. It gives some insight into the confusion caused by this false doctrine. I’ve obviously come a long way since last March but by no means should that imply that I couldn’t stand to hear any an all input on this topic regardless of how “condescending” it might sound, as I believe I’m in a phase of my walk where I really could use some reinforcement to undo the damage that’s been done already, for lack of a better way of putting it . . .
Here’s the email (edited for brevity):
I’d like help me working out an issue that’s been causing me some distraction and trouble in my heart of late.
I will celebrate being a born again Christian for 20 years in the next couple of months. I’ve come to notice over my 20-year walk with the Lord that I tend to struggle with really grasping the true meaning of the gospel. What I basically mean is that I was a big worrier by nature (more so than most, in my humble opinion) before getting saved. A comparison between the amount I worry now to before getting saved is, to be sure, characterized by major contrast and change for the better. I rejoice in that greatly and often pray for wisdom to remember the things from which I have been delivered.
However, for some reason I seem to be quite vulnerable to attacks on my understanding of eternal security. For example, the “church at large” has in it its fair share of legalists, accusers of the brethren, works salvation peddlers, heretics, etc.
Sometimes I stumble upon these people and watch their Youtube videos or whatever and rather than just thinking, “Hmm, I’m not sure I agree with that,” I basically get into a funk. I find myself having a hard time disagreeing w/ what my “gut” tells me is heresy, and then I start second guessing most if not all of what I’ve always (or at least for several years or more) accepted on faith as the Truth. To name names, Ray Comfort and Richard Rives are two of the people I’m talking about.
So what I’m asking you to do is share w/ me your thoughts and Scripture references that you think will show me the light. I promise not to get upset if you even say something to the effect of “Oh foolish Gallatians, who hath bewitched you?” I may deserve it. We’re supposed to have joy in the Holy Spirit and I’ve been letting this issue rob me of my joy. It’s healthy to work one’s salvation out w/ fear and trembling, but I could use a little help and encouragement.
Thanks, and God Bless.
(I apologize if this is too long.)
John G,
With respect to the four testimonies of eye witnesses to Christ’s last words from the cross “it is finished”, at the moment he died, the curtain that separated everyone from the Ark of the Covenant was “rent in two” “from top to bottom”. I see this as a sign that the way into the “holy of holies”, veiled through the law was laid bear.
I agree that it was on Pentecost that the Spirit was poured out, but that does not nullify the completion of the law the moment Christ died.
As it states in Matthew 27:50 (a gospel) “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised”, indicating that something had transpired at that moment. As it is written “he led captive a host of captives”. As well, when I read the “Sermon on the Mount”, I see Christ “fleshing out” and “enlightening” the meaning of the scriptures. I therefore do not equate the Sermon with the law.
Understood. Will edit and revise.
Thank you
Carol,
Your participation at Expreacherman.com is appreciated; however, the editors agree that your comments today were much too long and involved to be posted in entirety (15 pages when printed out). Please feel free to comment, but we request that you keep comments concise, two to three short paragraphs is about right, emphasizing two or possibly three salient points. If you would like to edit your comments down to about one page, they will be reviewed for re-posting.
Note to all commenters: Please review the comment rules on the Expreacherman.com home page header. Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Matt for Grace and Truth,
Just a quick comment on Matt for Grace and Truth’s post from February 19, which I just had a chance to read through. Very, very well put. Excellent summation on getting the point of the gospel across and sifting to the boiled down product on delineating between salvation and our walk with Christ henceforth.
John G,
Sorry I have not gotten back to comment further, but I’ll have to wait until I have more time. You have given me food for thought and I want to take the time to think about it. I think the points made are far too important to rattle off a quick response.
Carol
John G,
Quick secondary comment which have to be elaborated on later. I am not legalistic, as you might grab onto by my point of Berean. I certainly do not extrapolate from the passage in Acts a need for works in any capacity. I simply examine everything. Not out of any sense of being “noble” in any way. I am just a simple woman with a curious mind and have seen enough baloney over the years in my Christian walk. As my mother would put it, “from soup to nuts”, and because of that, I am cautious. I have seen people being destroyed by false teachers, where those who have been harmed have not taken the time to way things out or even consider scriptures even in the context of historical evidence, but rather so and so said so, so it must be true. Some of those people who lead people here or there in the Lord using great charisma, berating, fear of losing your salvation and on and on.
I have seen where the rubber meets the road and am not easily moved unless I am convinced. Hense my desire to examine.
Anyway, will have more to say later.
Bye for now.
Hello John G,
I am going to have to ponder what you wrote. At the moment I am very much embroiled in something very serious that demands my attention, but I will take the time to think about what you wrote and hopefully respond when I have an opportunity. That was pretty intense what you wrote, but like I said, I’ll have to ponder. I always think things out. I believe in examining everything in context and in the light of the scriptures. Hence my original commenting on this very post about “Berean”, as the people of Berea turned to the scriptures to ascertain if what Paul and Silas were saying was so.
Acts 10-12
10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Anyway, I’m sure you get the gist.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Cheers, Carol
How refreshing. No, “repent of your sins,” or “make Him Lord of your life,” etc.
Great video!
Thanks for posting this Jack.
To all:
Below is a link to a new video by Dr,. Tom Cucuzza.. The Gospel of God’s Grace.
You will never see or hear the Gospel any clearer.
Send the link to your friends.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Sister Carol, I am sorry for being late to answer your questions concerning the Sermon on the Mount. I have been absent from the Web for a few days. I hesitate to do what you ask, but I will do so. I need to explain my theological background & schooling in order to show where my thoughts come from. I am a Biblicistical, Free Grace Pauline Dispensationalist. I have mentioned Scofield in the past. Scofield had a student named Chafer who helped him write up the notes for his study Bible. This Chafer later in life founded the Seminary in Dallas, Texas around 1920. Even though Chafer’s theology was tainted by Calvinism, I will not throw out the baby with the bath water. NO ONE is against Calvinism more than I. But I realize that at the Dallas Seminary I could learn a great amount, & I did. Dispensationalism teaches that the Church of Jesus Christ began on that one Pentecost day when the Holy Spirit came upon the group in the upper room. Before that day the Church did NOT exist. The New Testament did not exist until after the death & resurrection of Christ. The four Gospels
are Old Testament era, NOT New Testament! In the sermon on the Mount, we have the Jewish Messiah announcing the rules of the Kingdom not the Gospel of the Grace of the Church. In the Sermon on the Mount, where is the Cross? Where is the death, burial, & resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ? The Sermon on the Mount is the big weapon that the LS’ people use to show that more than faith is needed to be a Christian. The Sermon on the Mount is for those who want to become disciples. It is not for those wanting to become Christians! And I might add that these disciples were Jewish.
WE are Free Grace! We believe in order to gain eternal life! NOTHING MORE! Those who teach LS frontload the Gospel with the admonishments of the Sermon on the Mount for salvation!
Everything before Acts is Law not Church! If you want rules,
read the letters of Paul. Every thing we are told to do is for scantification! Not salvation! Our marching orders are in the letters of the New Testament. Not in the Gospels. We are members of the Church. We are the Bride of Christ We are ambassadors of Christ waiting for the blowing of the trumpet taking us home! We DO NOT WAIT FOR A KINGDOM! We wait for our groom! Our destiny is not a Jewish Kingdom where we are servants. Our destiny is to meet our groom for the marriage supper of the Lamb, in Glory where we will be co-rulers with Christ. There is SO much more to say, but I do apologize to the owner of this blog for the long entry. You may not agree with what I have written, that is OK! Sister Carol ask, and I try to answer.
God bless you all,
John G.
Daniel,
Thanks for responding. I think ultimately the orginal point I was trying to drive home is that the message of works or outword signs etc has really made it way into many areas of Christendom, whatever the schism may be.
I think it is human nature to want to have some kind of outward expression of love or devotion. David danced naked before the Lord. Was it out of complusion or what it simply and outward expression of honouring the Lord from his heart? I suspect it was the latter. Some people travel the world proclaiming the gospel, while others are faithful janitors who keep the house of worship in order. As long as it is NOT done with an attitude of working into God’s good graces or a good showing before man, then I say go for it. God judges the heart and the motives. But, as we point people to Christ or simply share our testimony, as long as we don’t include the “musts” while simultaneously pointing people to the cross, I’m good with that.
Cheeseburger you say? Why, I`d be up for it, just so long as it isn`t a tofu burger. lol. Just a joke to all you vegans out there.
Nice chatting with you Daniel
Thanks for explaining that Carol and thanks for being one of the Christians who understand the freedom we have in Christ and speaking that.
I completely agree with you that if the Feasts and these celebrations and this style of worship is not explained with very clear teaching they can certainly garble the Gospel with works and result in people getting confused. Add to that a lot of zealous people who somehow wish to do ritualistic things and don’t properly discern the difference between Law and Grace and the dispensation of the age we are in right now, works salvation and legalism can gradually work their way in.
I am very sorry to hear how some of this mess has come into your family and I too see many concerns with a great deal of the Messianic movement and understand your concerns with much of what is happening in it. I won’t talk too much about the movement so to respect Jack’s wishes as I understand that the purpose of this website is to focus on the Gospel and exposing LS.
Unfortunately some Messianics (Jews and Gentiles alike) feel that they are somehow superior but the clear teaching of scripture is that all are under sin and through faith in the Messiah we become adopted as God’s children and are all equal in the sight of God once we are ‘in Christ’. I would have a Bacon Burger with you any day Carol!
Daniel,
Hello to you. What I believe is this; I, being a gentile am a “jew” grafted into the tree of Israel through throught faith that Jesus Christ is the “glory of Israel” and a “light of revelation to the gentiles”, thus the saviour of us all as the Messiah.
With respect, the founders of the “Feast of Tabernacles” had a website up until very recently where everything on the website pointed to the festivals,
Shabbot, Hanukkah with no mention of Easter etc. This couple by the way are like me, gentiles grafted in.
My point was to illustrate how the message of the gospel can get lost in amongst this.
If the festivals are presented in a clear manner distinguishing what was of the Torah and that Christ fullfilled the law, yet it is enjoyable to partake as a learning tool of the roots of Christianity, I have absolutely no problem with that. My original point was that it can become a mixed message if not explained clearly.
Paul was a son of Israel. As he put it “a pharissee of pharissees and a persecutor of those of “the way” (Christians). Until he was met on the road to Damascus by the Jesus. Paul was sent to a home where he received the gospel.
Paul in Corrinthians 2:2 stated “and I am determined to nothing among you accept Jesus Christ and him crucified”.
Having said that, I am mindful of Stephen’s and his testimony throughout the historionics of the Jewish faith “beginning with Abraham”.
On that note, I, as a lover of all things history and in particular, the history of our faith and in full agreement with believers understanding the roots of our faith. My concern that when it is presented, that it be in a very clear manner, so no one is left confused and unable to understand the message of the law and the message of grace, laying out where the Jewish nation is cherished in the eyes of God.
I hope that clears things up.
Daniel R and Carol,
Carol, I understand and sympathize with your concern and know where you are coming from with your family experiencing the bad side of the Messianic movement.
Daniel, we praise the Lord for you and every Jewish person who trusts Jesus Christ alone as his Savior. I pray daily for Jews everywhere (especially in Israel) to recognize and believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah. We were privileged to have visited Israel and to have Jewish believers in Jesus as members of our church.
By using your liberty in Christ to attend various Messianic celebrations, I assume you must use extreme care when attending such services, that your presence does not mistakenly mean to them that you endorse their teachings — which may be perverting the Gospel of God’s Grace. Your testimony suggests that you are now very clear in your faith in Jesus. You need to continue to reinforce that (growing in Grace) by studying God’s Word and savoring clear Grace doctrine which is often absent in some Messianic teachings.
Incidentally, using the “baby/bathwater” discussion to justify involvement with a false teaching (bathwater) is a rather fallacious exchange since sound doctrine is not a “baby/bathwater” discussion. Sound Salvation teaching is always True and never a mixture of true/false. We should completely avoid the “bathwater” from the beginning.
Also, please, I prefer we not have further discussion on the Messianic movement and all of its idiosyncrasies but we, Jew and Gentile alike, simply rejoice in our salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hi Carol,
As a person who is a Jewish believer myself and has friendships with people who identify as Messianic Jews, I can agree with some of what you are saying about Messianic teaching but I feel you have probably seen the worst side of it. It would be shame to slur the whole Hebrew roots movement and throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. I personally have found many faults with the movement but not entirely. I do enjoy on occasion celebrating Passover (in preference to Easter) and have attended Feast of Tabernacles celebrations. To me, this is the freedom I have in Christ to choose either to enjoy or not to enjoy these celebrations. That’s what they are, celebrations not compulsions or requirements for obedience. The Feasts are not ‘musts’ nor compulsory by any means. The last few years I have not taken part due to inconvenience and I have no guilt because I am not under Law to keep these. They have nothing to do with salvation and in my understanding, in the current dispensation of the Church age, they are not required for obedience either.
To have some Messianic’s tell me I need to keep the Feasts, food laws, the Sabbath or any such ordinance under the Law as a proof of obedience to the Lord is legalism, judgmental and unscriptural. (Colossians 2:16-17) However, to have some other Christian (as has happened to me occasionally by Christians who have no understanding of what these Feasts are about, no understanding of my motives or where my trust is resting) tell me that if I choose to attend a Passover Celebration or Feast of Tabernacles celebration that I am ‘putting myself under the Law’ is also just as unscriptural, judgmental and aims to undermine the freedom I have in Christ to keep these Feasts or not (Romans 14:4-10). There is no obligation to keep the Feasts or rule to not keep them. Let each be convinced in their own mind and not judge others that do keep them. The problem with many Messianic’s is when they start making these ordinances requirements for or proofs of obedience and when they start tying to be ‘Justified by the Law’ it is simply heretical and Christ becomes of no effect to the person trying to be justified by the Law (Galatians 5:4). That is quite different however, to a believer celebrating Christ and gaining a Hebraic understanding of the roots of our faith.
As a Jewish believer I also see that the Hebrew roots movement as a fantastic way of reaching out to Jewish people who often think that Jesus is for the Gentiles and think of Christianity as santa claus and bowing down to statues of Mary. It’s a great way of being a testimony to my unbelieving Jewish family and the rest of the Jewish community that you can still be Jewish and believe in Jesus. Likewise, it’s a testomony to any anti-semitism that still exists in the Church. You know, the first believers in Jesus said that you needed to basically become Jewish by getting circumcised and following Judaism. Today, there are many of the opposite extreme that would have Jewish people renounce their Jewish heritage; that’s also wrong and very unfortunate though not an affront to the core Gospel message itself.
I fully agree that within the Messianic there are some messed up factions. It seems to attract all kinds. I have personally seen a range of people from a great many denominations attend a previous local Messianic congregation I was involved in. It can also attract some works orientated people and extreme views. I once heard a practicing Messianic pastor I know call it the ‘Messy-anic movement’. I would basically summarize the Messianic movement into two very basic camps. Torah observant and non-Torah observant. Most of the Torah observant ones are LS and are on the extreme side. I would say that few of them have ever been saved but only God knows, I am sure there are some saved Christians amongst them that have gotten caught up in this wrong teaching. With the non-Torah observant congregations you will find a great deal of LS just the same as you would among the rest of evangelical Christianity. You will also find the odd free gracer just as you would in the rest of Evangelical Christianity.
First off I would like to say thank you to Pearl for her greetings to me several days ago. It’s appreciated. And thank you to Jane and califgracer for taking the time to respond to my posts last night and to clarify the distinction between free grace and LS. I absolutely appreciate it.
Secondly, before I comment further, I really do want to say that this has been an education coming to this blog. While it gives me a term to describe how I see things with my own faith, it puts things in perspective about the convoluted messages that are out there, of which, I have heard many. And I have most certainly seen the damage take place with others who have simply believed the gospel and have had others come and say, “but wait there’s more”… you have to do to earn your salvation or to learn deeper teachings that must be grasped in your Christian walk etc. And I have seen the confusion about such matters. My personal core in my belief in the gospel has been my anchor when these winds of the “musts” have swirled around me.
Where I live in Canada, it has either been the Word Faith, Vineyard or Pentecostal to the other end of the spectrum of Mennonite Brethren. Each and everyone of them has a component of works or outward demonstrations of fruit or evidence of salvation. And this viewpoint I do not abide in, no matter what the denomination. And if any reader of this blog is involved in any of these teachings, my advice is to go to the foot of the cross and rest. The spirit of the Lord will do the rest. And not to feel that you must show good works in order to be saved, speak in multiple tongues, sing and write the most glorious music to be in God’s good graces. It simply is not true.
As I have mentioned before, the LS exposure is only now making its way here. Now that I have had time to ponder, what I see is this; it is the desire of the devil from the very beginning to undermine God and the message of the cross. And he certainly is attempting to do that through the insidious message of works no matter what the denomination.
Another movement has taken root in Canada, which is Messianic Christianity. Starting with the Toronto blessing, which claimed an “anointing” that was false that brought about none other than the likes of Benny Hynn and two people named Merv and Merla Watson (among others). They are the ones who brought about the renewal of the “Feast of Tabernacles” in Jerusalem in the name of Christianity. All things of the Torah and festival are embraced and mixed in with Christianity. This festival is now the largest in Israel and has been attended by every Israeli Prime Minister except one in the last 30 + years.
While I appreciate all the history of our faith and it Jewish roots, it is mingling faith and works. It undermines the gospel once again. And this messianic teaching is yet another teaching that made its way into my family with an in-law who got involved with such teachings, which became the catalyst for something far more sinister. She is now involved in what I describe as a cult, where the food they eat, the music they listen to, the friends they have, what they read and on and on is dictated to by a leader. And how does this leader manage to pull it off? The message is you will be closer to God. You will be more favoured. If you don’t do this or that, you can lose your salvation. You are better than those who sit around. It induces pride and fear. It is not the message of grace.
Thanks to all your commenters. They are very helpful.
Pearl, bingo!
LS hardens non-believers to the Gospel.
Some people think that LS simply confuses salvation with discipleship – putting the “fruit” before the “root.” I believe LS tries to REPLACE the root (salvation by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) with the fruit.
The sad fact is, LS is a much more grave error than simply confusing salvation and discipleship. For if someone has never trusted in Christ alone, he remains unsaved.
If I thought that LS was “just another flavor” of Christianity, I would not bother with this website.
Well spoken, John and Jane.
Of the Christians I know personally, none are lazy but very enthusiastic, feasting on sermons, “bible” studies (where they study anything but, with the possible exception of BSF [Bible Study Fellowship – don’t get me started on that]), Christian seminars, Christian books and entertainment, all the while being propped up and reinforced by their contradictory study bibles which “define” for them those hard verses, by which the busy Christian is once again pricked to the heart and endeavors to prove himself one of the elect until finally he either calls it quits, despising so-called “Christianity” and its hypocrite followers, or somehow, in spite of the plethora of LS propaganda, the weary Christian learns he’s been everso subtly misled and, amazingly, finally finds rest in the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Thanks, Jane, for your excellent response to Carol’s question. It’s great to have you join us.
Blessings!
Greetings Carol!
Thanks for your comments and questions. I think that I get what you’re asking. Ephesians 2:10 tells us of our responsibility after we trust Christ alone by grace through faith for salvation:
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
Notice that the text says, “that we should walk in them.” Once we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then, by all means, we SHOULD serve the Lord faithfully. It is the right and proper response to God for his wonderful gift of salvation. Lorship “Salvation” teaching, on the other hand, says that we MUST do good works to PROVE that we are saved. That teaching is unbiblical; it creates unending questions and doubts in the mind of the individual (LS is a real assurance killer!): How many good works must I perform to be certain that I am saved? For how many years? What if I backslide; is that ever allowed? If so, for how long? Must I live a radical, over-the-edge, “on-fire” existence for God, as Chan and Platt would require—what all that means, who knows? Under LS teaching, can I ever truly be certain that I am saved for eternity? Do you see how all of this LS teaching is man-centered and works-based salvation?
Regarding LS slams against Free Grace Theology, there have been many: “antinomianism” (it simply means, “lawless”), “cheap grace,” “easy believism,” “greasy grace,” are typical slurs that I hear. For some strong responses to these slanderous comments, go to the search bar at Expreacherman.com (this site) and put in “easy believism.” You’ll find several good articles on this subject. Another article, called “Grace Baiting,” can be found at Free Grace Alliance: http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/baiting.pdf
Thanks again for writing.
Hi Carol, Since I mentioned the “heretical” word, I will address that with regard to LS (lordship salvation) and free grace. A person who believes LS thinks that there is something you either must do, try to do, promise to do, or be willing to do (ie. turn from sin, tithe, go to church, follow commandments, be sorry for your sins, etc.). Someone who believes in free grace believes that God sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins, and that it is through Christ and this special GIFT to us from God that saves us. We just believe that this is so. We don’t believe there is anything WE must do to add to, keep, or maintain our salvation. People who believe LS say we are being heretical because we are leaving out the LS part that states that you have to do your part. So they believe we aren’t giving the whole plan of salvation. WE believe THEY are ADDING to the plan of salvation, making it incorrect because people, in essence, are busy trying to help God save themselves. If they think they must help, they do not understand the plan of salvation. There are LS groups who say they believe only free grace, but add that if you can’t tell whether a person is saved by the life he is living that he probably isn’t saved (back-door LS and “fruit inspection”). The following link provides a great description of LS.
https://expreacherman.com/2012/08/14/you-might-be-a-lordship-salvationist-if/
I am new to all this “LS” and “free grace” lingo and as a person who has always believed in the simple message of the cross and the power there of, could someone clear up something, that some people apparently feel that “free grace” is “heretical” doctrine. Why is that? Also, since I have been reading this blog, I have NOT seen commenter state that “free grace” for example advocate that everyone go out and have a “sin fest” because believers are set free from the law of sin and death and under grace. Having said that, In terms of any misunderstandings in the general church body about “free grace” can someone weigh in and explain “free grace” concerning such things after being born again and how God views it or how it is believed he deals with it.
My view is is that a person who is of the faith can have their concience pricked, a prodding away from sin. It is not works to abandon sin as a believer, rather it is the “WORK” of the Spirit of jesus in us steering us away from such things. In fact it is again his grace.
Thank you.
John G said:
“The Sermon on the Mount is NOT Grace! It is LAW!
I realized that I do NOT have to live the Sermon on the Mount to gain salvation!”
Could you expand on your viewpoint about the sermon on the mount? In much of the sermon I see what I perceive as a new perspective on scripture calling out for example, hypocrisy. However, is it safe to assume that you see the Sermon as words that were simply meant to convey that no one is capable of fulfilling even the heart of the law as opposed to the view that the Sermon was making it clear how we are suppose to be and that Jesus was actually utilizing the Sermon to illuminate the listeners to their need for a saviour?
Hope the question made sense.
You know, many assume that Satan is busy tempting people away from God with drinking, smoking, drugs, etc. – which I’m sure he is. But even more insidious is how he is able to work through all of the false religions of LS who are busy doing the work for him – that is, keeping people from understanding that salvation is through God’s grace and Jesus’ death on the cross for our sins, not our works, nor how much we work on our relationship with Him.
Jane,
Good to hear from you again.
You have a great point. Back in the days of World War II (I was a teenager), it was called “brain washing.” Thus the brain washing of LS is happening in religion like unstoppable, crowd hypnotism. Many LS preachers and teachers are really “good” at it.
The only cure is the Gospel of God’s Grace as we share, teach and reason together with each other as encouragement — and with folks on the edge or even in the mire of LS as we plead and pray that they learn the Truth.
We sure do appreciate your and John’s wise comments.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
John G,
Thanks for those kind words and the recommendation. We notice our readership steadily increasing every month and we pray others will recommend ExP as you do.
The laborers are few but we are encouraged when we see our statistics — several regular excited commenters from Australia, the UK, Canada, occasionally from Austria and the Netherlands and other countries. Plus we have readers from hundreds of nations all over the World. We pray the Lord will use all of you to increase interest in the Gospel of Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone and people will share that Good News – The Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I certainly cannot disagree! The problem is huge. And the workers
are few. May God give us the wisdom, to spread the simple truth of the free grace Gospel to all that we are able. That is why I reccommend this blog to all my fellow Church members and others.
God Bless You All,
John G.
John G., I think the reason LS is spreading is because that’s what 99% of the churches teach – with fervor. In addition, there are study and Bible groups within the churches that spend hours pouring through and discussing in depth the latest LS bestsellers – things like “The Hole in Our Gospel” or “Not A Fan.” I don’t think it is that these people are too lazy to explore further. Instead, I think their lives are inundated with LS from the preachers they trust who went to seminary to the study books recommended to them by their churches. Many of them are very busy learning how to be better Christians without even realizing that they are vainly following a false religion, and have no idea what the real plan of salvation even is. These people don’t know this information is false because all of their research is in LS doctrine. They don’t know that there is anything different. Those who do have been taught that anything else is heretical.
John G., you make a good point, but…there are a lot of LS folks out there who have read their Bibles through and through. They have been to LS seminaries, are preaching from LS pulpits, etc.
Until I had read a clear presentation of the Gospel and believed it, I could not really understand scripture. The LS lens always interfered with my understanding and belief.
I believe there are millions of unsaved people in the pews who think they might be Christians, who hope they are Christians, but who have never heard or believed the Gospel.
After surveying the situation over the years, after being a victim of the lies of LS/Calvinism thru MacArthor, & after being set free from that blindness, I do think that one of the problems is that there is a huge amount if ignorance in the general Christian theater among protestants of just what the true Gospel is. I do not mean that people are not capable of knowing or learning, but that there is a majority that are not willing to put in the time or effort to learn. Too many of them just listen to the Sermon & go no further. They may read their devotions etc. but there are not many willing to put in the time or effort to learn more or enough to equip themselves to discern the errors coming from the pulpit! I do believe that is why LS/C is spreading so rapidly. Too many Christians setting in the pews are not able to discern the errors that are being fed to them! They don’t know. How can they contend for the truth & its simplicity when they don’t know the truth? How can they point out the error of “repent of or repent from your sins” which is coming from the pulpit when they do not know that it is wrong?
Again, I am not trying to be mean. I am just saying what I have witnessed thru the years. I have actually been told “What difference does it make if you are a Calvinist or not, we’re all Christian!”
Too many just want to skate by & not study anything. Ask around, how many Christians have read through the Bible at least once in their lives? Not that many! No wonder they cannot tell when they are being confronted with incorrect doctrine.
Sorry for being so garrulous.
God bless,
John G.
Hi Bruce. I don’t want you thinking I was brushing off your comments. I had attempted a response yesterday but scrapped it as I wasn’t able to gather my scattered thoughts into a more cohesive reply.
Determining what qualifies the setting up of “red flags” could very well prompt a disagreement amongst us free grace contenders, and I’m certainly not looking to engage in such a discussion. But, as I’ve come to recognize LS and realizing its near “absolute rule’ throughout Christendom, I’ve had a difficult time finding balance when considering teachers/preachers. As we’ve mentioned here before, the litmus test ought to be whether a ministry gets the gospel right. In my mind, if any root of the tulip exists, especially pertaining to free will, then it fails (and, for the life of me, I can’t see how the issue of “free will” is a red herring).
However, there are those who appear to convey the true gospel, yet have no qualms aligning themselves with those who don’t. One bad apple infects the entire barrel, not the other way around.
Frankly, when I look out, I see a massive, homogenized glob of confusion, and those whom I consider worthy of instructing me can be counted on one hand.
Hi Jewel,
Good to hear from you again.. It has been brought to my attention that we may have ignored your previous comment. I sincerely apologize.
I believe your husband has the right idea about fellowship after salvation. Upon belief in Christ all our sins are paid for, past, present and future. Therefore I believe upon trusting Jesus, we have immediate fellowship with the Lord.. but 1 John 1:9 is given to us, realizing that fellowship is passing, temporal and depends upon our behavior, i.e. walking in the Truth (or not).
And in light of that we see 1 John 1:6 “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:”
Of course that does not mean we are lost — just that we are walking in disobedience and not doing the truth.
We know that Jesus Christ has paid the death penalty for ALL our sins — therefore “there remains no more sacrifice for sin. (Hebrews 10:26) Jesus made that sacrifice for us once for all. But then we are advised to confess (acknowledge) our sins to the Lord to regain our fellowship with Him.
I pray this helps.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
hi have been catching up on your recent blogs. I have a question when a person puts faith in jesus for eternal life after hearing the grace message that salvation is a free gift no strings attached. no front loading or back loading of the gospel with works etc.I realize god gives them eternal relationship at that moment. does he also give them temporal fellowship at
the same time until they sin and have to use 1john to get back into fellowship. by looking at different passages it seems most new beleivers
start off in fellowship and are encouraged to keep on abiding in him. I
were under the impression that after believing on jesus for eternal salvation
you then had to repent of your sins to gain fellowship with the lord.My
husband reckons you receive eternal life salvation and are cleansed from your past sins at the same time whether you have decided to turn from them
or not in gods eyes you are in fellowship and set free but its then up toyou
to choose to become a disciple and abide in fellowship. wondered if someone could share somelight on this.
Hi Pearl!
Insightful comments about Swindoll and others who have drifted into weird territory. You were the one who educated me about Swindoll over a year ago, I believe. I was saddened about his drifting into contemplative thinking and preaching. I think that you nailed it with your statement about “tiny steps of compromise” for a number of years. I can give you a little background info. that kind of backs up your statement. My wife and I were members of an EV Free for five years while Chuck Swindoll was our pastor. That was back in the late 80s. In 1990, he published his best-selling book, “The Grace Awakening,” which I took as an invective against legalism in general, against LS in particular (although he never named it in the book) and against MacArthur’s book, “The Gospel According to Jesus.” I can honestly say that, at that time, Swindoll was solidly Free Grace from my vantage point. But, looking back (hindsight is 20-20), there were some red flags. On two occasions he brought in well-known Calvinist preacher, R. C. Sproul, as a special guest Sunday preacher. On another occasion, to honor “Reformation Sunday,” he invited another well-known Calvinist, Sinclair Ferguson, to be the keynote speaker. At the time I was not well-versed about Calvinism or LS and I figured that Swindoll, being a celebrity on the Christian scene, must have had many associations with other famous pastors. He also had Joni Eareckson Tada speak twice (I only discovered in the past few years about her connection with LS).
So, I guess that the warning signs were there even in the earlier days.
Thanks, Pearl, for speaking out and standing strongly against “drifting” from the grace gospel and the Bible.
Just want to say thank you to Pearl for the supportive words. I really appreciate the verses from Galatians and 2 Timothy that Pearl and Daniel shared also. I’m happy if I have been an encouragement to you Daniel.
Yeah, it’s a shame about Swindoll, because he is one of those preachers who does understand grace. When I was driving home the other day, I, too, caught the latter part of his sermon, which was actually pretty good. That’s the hook.
He preaches from The Message a lot, and there’s no shortage of critiques of that mess online (but be very careful of all discernment ministries…they all preach an LS message too, and some, like this post’s topic, Dave Hunt’s “The Berean Call”, will actually warn about contemplative prayer, but then defend and promote those who clearly dabbled in in, like AW Tozer). The contemplative path I speak of goes by other names, too. If you come across any classes called “Spiritual Formation”, just keep walking. It’s a “spiritual discipline” which involves meditation, as in reaching the “silence”, really, a trance. I know, hard to believe, but it’s true. Swindoll actually instructs readers how to reach the silence in his book called “So You Want to Be Like Christ: 8 Steps to Get You There”. No doubt about it Dangerous stuff.. It’s as pervasive as LS, and allows for a “meeting of the minds” between the east and west, with Catholic Rome being the head of it all.
So, how does a man like Chuck Swindoll get to a place like that? I believe by allowing tiny steps of compromise all throughout his years of being a nationally celebrated preacher. It could happen to any of us.
I was recently shocked to learn that he and Greg Laurie collaborated on a book about 5 or 6 years ago, each sharing their version of the gospel, where one-half is by Chuck and the other by Greg. That had to be a confusing read unless Chuck has amended his gospel message to be more compatible with the LS message of Greg Laurie, who appeared with Rick Warren a few years ago, none of which is surprising when you realize contemplative prayer is the grease in the ecumenical wheels. That’s just how it works. The discernment walls come crumbling down.
So, what could be considered a “first step” of compromise toward contemplative prayer? So-called “Christian” yoga. There’s no such thing. Reading from “The Message” would be another step. Then, getting all sentimental over books like “The Shack” and tons of other titles. There’s no shortage of ways which allow this sensual spirituality to creep in.
We must never let down our guard.
Daniel, thank you for the reminder to be loving, patient and gracious with people we are trying to teach.
I just also want acknowledge the encouragement that both Jon and Pearl have said and yes you are right, I do need to be more patient with my wife and ‘show grace in action’.
I am so grateful for God’s patience with me and I also know that when I have been struggling to find assurance of my salvation in the past, some were not very patient with me and that really was not helpful at all.
As people who proclaim the Gospel which is all about salvation that is by GRACE through faith in Christ’ we need to be patient with people and show that grace in action while at the same time exposing the errors of Calvinism, Arminianism and LS. Several free grace proclaimers that I have heard either in sermons or on youtube have been less than patient and gracious in their dealings with other people.
II Timothy 2:24-26
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
haha, I didn’t even see your answer regarding Chuck Swindoll at the end of your earlier post Pearl, thanks. Could you explain to me what you mean by saying that he has ‘taken the contemplative path’. Not sure what you mean by that or why I should steer clear of him. Is he leaning towards LS or does he have other doctrinal errors? The local Christian radio station where I am now living has been promoting him alot and I have only listened to one excerpt of a sermon he preached so far. In that excerpy he magnified the grace of God and I did not hear any LS, however, it was just an excerpt of a total sermon and I have not listened to him enough to comment. Maybe I should boycott the station anyway as they have mishmash of stuff on there. There is some interesting discussion, some decent music but I have heard them playing sermons of Joyce Meyer who is definitely on the LS side and also has a heap of doctrinal error that goes along with what most Pentacostal Churches preach. I just switch stations (when driving as that’s the only time I listen to the radio) when I hear a preacher like that come on.
I Spy a very teeny, tiny answer regarding Chuck Swindoll in comment 11:33a.m. of this same date. Now go get ’em, Cowboy. 😉
Thanks for the encouragement John regarding my wife. Good thing is that she is starting to become willing to listen to some sermons and read some stuff so I think I shall point her in the direction of Toms book which is on this website.
Regarding Chuck Swindoll – sound free grace preacher or not????
Frying Pan 9,
Mixed bag churches (preaching seemingly both free grace AND works salvation) frequently preach vague and ambiguous hintings that unless you meet some uncertain level orstandard of works righteousness, you are not eternally saved.
But Romans 4:4-5 and 11:6 declare that there can be no mixed bag. If works are needed in any degree, then salvation is no longer a grace gift and/or Christ death was insufficient payment for our sins.
Daniel, I think Jon’s counsel is spot on. I don’t see that I have anything to add to it. Let Jesus Christ be evident in you. You have the opportunity to show grace in action, as did Jon toward his wife.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” Gal. 5:22-25
~~~~~~~~
FryingPan9,
WELCOME! WE’RE SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU ABOARD! I REALLY ENJOYED READING OF YOUR LIGHTBULB MOMENTS!
(And those will be the only caps you’ll get from me.)
I identified with so much of what you wrote. Just as it is when you learn a new vocabulary word, you’ll soon be hearing LS everywhere. Then, you’ll realize you don’t need to be a missionary in Africa, but have your work cut out for you in your own household.
~~~~~~~~
I almost forgot, Daniel – Chuck Swindoll may have started well many, many years ago, but he’s long since taken the contemplative path. I’d steer clear.
~~~~~~~~
Carol, forgive my delay in greeting you. I was very touched by what you shared about your son. He’s a very blessed young man to have a faithful mother like you. I have also prayed that your brother receives your warnings about John MacArthur, who’s really just the tip of the LS iceburg.
Daniel, I can relate somewhat to your situation. My wife was attending a local E-Free church for some time. The messages there were a mixed bag. Some sounding Grace-friendly and some sounding much more works oriented. My wife would come home very discouraged some sundays and it would frustrate me. I would try to counteract the LS garbage that was bothering her with Free Grace and it would help some. Finally I got frustrated with the false discouraging message she was coming home with and suggested she stay home for a while and listen to Tom Cucuzza sermons with me instead of going for her weekly ‘dose of discouragement’. Thankfully she decided to try it and I see she has now turned a corner and really ‘gets it’.(the Free Grace message). We also read Tom’s book Secure Forever! and Simply by Grace by Charlie Bing. She has tried talking with some of the ladies from that church about it and is usually met with silence. One lady actually said to her that the Free Grace message just appeals to people who want to continue in their sin. So she has seen now that most or all of them simply do not agree with Free Grace at all. My point is not to say don’t attend church but just to be patient with your wife. The more people are exposed to the Truth the less they will want to tolerate lies or half-truths I think. You are wise to not compromise with the Gospel. My wife and I are church-less right now and I don’t know where we can go in my area. I hope I have made wise choices, I do feel a little guilty when my wife says she misses going to church though.
Dear Fryingpan 9,
I’m so glad that you wrote again and that you have been enlightened and encouraged by the Expreacherman.com site and its many contributors. I think that it is one of the few sites that holds solidly to the Free Grace gospel message.
If I may encourage you, at the church that I attend I, too, have heard on occasion statements that could have come right of an LS playbook guide. These have come from some in the congregation and from a few of the younger assistant pastors. Praise God that our senior pastor preaches a strong grace message each week. And he has made a public declaration that our church is not Calvinist or Arminian. I teach a weekly Bible class of about fifty people on Sundays. I have been given a free rein to proclaim a Free Grace Gospel message, which I do. And on a number of occasions I have spoken out strongly yet graciously against questionable (LS sounding) statements made by others. Mostly my statements have been received well by others; a few times they have not. One man quit attending my Bible class because I spoke out against Rick Warren for his ecumenical stances. Usually, when these folks say things that sound like Calvinism or LS, I think that they mostly speak out of ignorance, for that’s what they have heard on “Christian” T.V. and radio and that’s what they’ve read in “Christian” books.
I would not presume to tell you where to attend church; I think that God will lead you to make that decision. I would just encourage you to stand strongly and boldly yet graciously at every opportunity for the Free Grace Gospel declared in Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5, John 3:16-18, Titus 3:5, and Acts 16:30-31. Free Grace Christians need to speak out against unbiblical false teachings, such as, Lordship “Salvation,” Calvinism, ecumenicism, Eastern mysticism, and spiritual formation. In order to speak out strongly, we need to study the issues and know what the Bible declares. I hope that sites like Expreacherman.com help people to learn and declare the simple straightforward gospel of grace (and educate others too).
I’m really getting a lot out of this blog and everyone’s comments. I’ve been attending a Calvary Chapel for 6 and a half years and now I’m starting to have some light bulb moments like in a movie when the main character finally “gets it” and looks back on prior events and is able to finally connect the dots. Don’t misunderstand me–I’m not saying the CC I attend is steeped in LS theology (for example, my pastor recently said of Ray Comfort, “I really don’t ‘get’ that guy,”) but I didn’t know Greg Laurie was considered LS till reading the comments here. Now I seem to recall the “prayer of salvation” (or whatever they’re calling it these days) used at my church has LS elements in it (from what I can remember–I was saved years before ever hearing of the CC movement), elements such as, “Make Jesus Lord of your life.” I never realized the fallacy in such an idea till this blog/comments. It makes total sense now. Not to mention this one time the associate pastor filled in one week to give the lesson and came REALLY close to preaching that if you weren’t living up to a certain standard you weren’t really saved. I know him well enough to know he doesn’t believe that, but the confusion and apprehension was there, nevertheless as he had to give a quasi-disclaimer by saying something like, “I’m not preaching a works salvation here, but . . . ” Now I’m reminded of a Youtube video I saw where Francis Chan (basically) said, “Yes, the Bible says we’re saved by faith, BUT . . .” But WHAT????????????? Ugh! To think I had to wait several months for it to hit me like this. I should have closed my browser the second I heard that nonsense. But I was searching and to be fair, I really shouldn’t be running anyone down.
And I did one time have my pastor tell me that “only you know if you’re saved.” That’s not biblical. I see that now. Again, it sort of troubled me at the time, but I wasn’t sure why. It’s pretty clear NOW: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” (Or something very close to that.) And during that same conversation he said something to the effect of “It’s a heart matter, not a brain matter.” Again, it SOUNDS so good but it’s not scriptural. At least not as far as I can tell.
So while my home church is not STEEPED in LS elements, there’s certainly some smoke there, and now I have to find out if there’s fire as well.
My situation is more complicated (and not nearly as “bad” as one might think) than I’m able to express here, but suffice to say I feel it’s a no-brainer that the Holy Spirit lead me here and I appreciate all the great information and encouragement.
I suppose some of you are going to have things to say about the seriousness of considering leaving my church and that’s fair. I’m mainly looking for information, wisdom and encouragement but feel free to rebuke and chasten if you see fit . . . just keep the all caps to a minimum 😉
Daniel, please ask your LS friends to explain the following verses through their LS lenses:
Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
John 3:14-17: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Romans 4:5: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Romans 11:6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
Daniel, how can someone reTURN unto the Lord, if he has never TURNed to the Lord?
Thanks for responses guys. I told the wife that the church in question recommended LS teachers books on their website but my wife does not think it’s a big deal that they simply recommend some books by teachers even though I told her they are known LS teachers as long as they are not preaching LS themselves and she still has some pretty loose views on what’s acceptable and not acceptable. How do I get through to her???? So frustrating!!! I have pretty much said to her straight that I won’t compromise on this issue, if a church can’t get the ABC’s of the Gospel right then I will not go to that Church. Period! At least so far there is one option and I spoke with the pastor for a good 40 mins and he is definitely not LS.
Pearl, I’ve sent up a few prayers every now and again for you and your family situation, if you want let’s pray for each other’s families in this issue. It’s really unfortunate because since I spoke with the in-laws, they seem to think I am on the extreme side in my theology and not accepting enough since I explained that most churches are preaching LS and preaching a false Gospel. I still have good relations with them but I think their ears are shut to what I have to say theologically since they have put me in the ‘extreme category’.
I heard a LS put a point across for his acceptance of a pretty hardcore LS false Gospel. One of the scriptures he used to put forth his point was Isaiah 55:6-7.
Isaiah 55: 6-7
Seek YE THE LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return UNTO THE LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
It’s a scripture that on the surface seems to uphold his view. Any sound Biblical rebuttals please let me hear them!
Blessings
Daniel
ps. Chuck Swindoll – sound free grace preacher or not????
John G,
Thanks for your wonderful testimony of release from LS. I pray many others who may be stuck in the morass of Lordship “Salvation” will read it and and respond to the Grace of God.
It is amazing how hypnotic MacArthur and his ilk are. We praise the Lord for your ability to see and vividly describe the evils of LS from your personal experience and perspective.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
John,
I have taken these several days to ponder what I discovered on this blog and see that this is not simply a matter of semantics between “protestant” doctrines, but is a matter of the purity/simplicity of the gospel. The gospel has been on the forefront of my mind for years. Prior to reading this blog, I simply considered myself a “protestant” and was in agreement with Martin Luther and really saw it as simple as that.
I had an opportunity to speak with my family member regarding McArthur teachings and cautioned him in simply accepting what he was teaching. This family member, to be sure has ALWAYS believed in the gospel. In fact has lead many a person to faith with his simple testimony and the message of the cross and nothing more. Again, I find it timely that I stumbled on this blog whereby I was able to convey the point of “Lordship Salvation” to him. While his belief has always been pure in my opinion, he certainly has been safeguarded into being cautioned in what he is listening to. On that point, clearly this blog has proven to be an iron sharpening instrument.
One of the reasons that I am so against LS / MacArthurism is that I was sucked into the deep quagmire myyself! I read MacArthur’s “The Gospel According to Jesus”. I became enamored with his books! This is a confession on my part! I kept smelling something wrong, but I could NOT identify the error! It was after reading “The Gospel According to the Apostles” that I knew that there was something really wrong with MacArthur’s theology. I had to step back & ask myself, Where was the Gospel of Grace that I had learned so many years ago? Where was the assurance that I knew that I was supposed to have? Neither the Gospel of Grace nor the Assurance were in his books! I found the answer when I realized that MacArthur was preaching the Sermon on the Mount as the
Gospel!!! The Sermon on the Mount is NOT Grace! It is LAW!
I realized that I do NOT have to live the Sermon on the Mount to gain salvation! I had always known that salvation was by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. I know that the Holy Spirit showed me & rescued my from this error!
I was ashamed of my own retardedness! But I was overjoyed to be set free from this bondage! His arguments were Good! But they were NOT sound or Scriptural! I had been duped! And I was angry! I threw away all the books of MacArthur that I had. I have been involved in undoing the damage that MacArthur’s ministry has caused for many years now.
Some of my own family slipped into the slippery quagmire of this man’s lies. I worked on them for two years before God set them free from their blindness! The one nephew is now a preacher of Free Grace!
We both fight LS/Calvinism anywhere we encounter such refuse.
One reason why I love, read, & stay on this blog! I know that I can trust what I read here!
God bless,
John G.
A few days ago I stumbled across this blog and weighed in. And as I stated above in this thread, I didn’t know what the “kafuffle” was all about concerning particular teachers. I had never heard of “Lordship Salvation”. As well, I never gave it much thought as to the breakdown of my own views down to such an extent to make an effort to decipher between whether I had a repentant heart before believing the gospel or not, simply because, I believed. And in that belief, never once did I ever feel inclined to work my way into God’s good graces. I became born again when I was 15 after my family moved across the street from a Gospel Hall in BC Canada where a scripture was presented on the church. The scripture was: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”. Romans 6:23
Everyday, I looked out that window and asked myself “what does that mean?” I would ride the bus to school and ponder. I’d lay on my bed at night and ponder some more. The fact of the matter is, is that I BELIEVED through one of my pondering sessions. I believed the gospel and the scripture verse that stared me in the face everyday, which embodied the very point that the Apostle Paul was driving home through his writing which is encapsulated in that one verse. And that verse and its message pointed me to the cross, which did not embody a message of works.
Having said that, being young, I succumbed to peer pressure etc and long story short, became entangled in a very, very bad situation. I was with a brutal unbeliever. I now had a child who was disabled and I cried out to God.
With respect to this point, this is where my initial post on this thread comes in. I believed I was saved all along, as indeed I was. But in the situation I was in, I was feeling deep regret for my choices and sought the Lord for a way out. This is what I was originally referring to when I posted the links from Strong’s Concordance about repentance.
My remorse for my actions steered me towards being delivered from my circumstances. Never once did I ever feel that I had to earn my way into God’s good graces even at that time. Rather, it was the Spirit of the living God working his work in my heart as a believer to change my ways. This had NOTHING to do with my salvation.
Now, I will testify to the goodness of God. My son, who was born with severe disabilities, who has undergone numerous operations has completed a BA in History (finished with top honours) and is about to complete his law degree. God is good. This I acknowledge as the grace of the living God. I raised him as a single mother, but the Lord was there every step of the way, even when I entangled myself in the ways of the world. His arm is never too short to save.
Fryingpan9,
Glad to hear of your progress in coming to free yourself of the Lorship deception. We can be thankful that the Holy Spirit continually leads us to ( and back to) the truth.
Thanks, everyone.
In my particular case I don’t think it’s a matter of me never having believed the true gospel until quite recently by “seeing the light” re LS “doctrine” and repudiating it. I’m sure I did get saved well over 20 years ago. But somewhere along the way I allowed the false doctrine of LS to cloud my judgement and confound my ability to truly know God’s will for my life.
I’ll eventually read everyone’s comments here on this topic and can say I’m already finding more useful information here to compliment my study of scripture in order to help others find their way out of the bondage of the false gospel of LS.
Welcome Fryingpan 8!
Like Jack said, I trusted Christ a little over two years ago, after I finally understood that salvation was a Gift and not a trade.
Below is a link to a previous post of mine that you may find interesting:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/12/04/southern-baptists-fragile-detente-the-fight-over-competing-false-gospels-calvinism-and-lordship-salvation/#comment-15559
Daniel, I read some of the material from the church about which you were asking.
In addition to the statement that you thought might be questionable, I noticed that the church referenced the ESV Bible Translation in its “verse of the day”. The ESV translation is popular with Calvinists.
Also, under “suggested readings”, the church included titles by both J.I. Packer and Tim Keller. You can find an article on Keller here at ExP:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/11/25/latest-on-new-calvinist-timothy-keller-timothy-keller-in-interview-stumbles-over-the-gospel-speculates-that-there-is-a-trap-door-to-heaven/
Packer is a renowned Lordship “salvationist”.
I would not recommend this church.
Welcome Fryingpan 8.
We are so happy to have you aboard. You will find many friends here who have similar experiences with one type of Lordship “Salvation” (LS) or another.
I would suggest you invite your Bible Study group to join us here, search and read our web site, then join in the discussions. We have many articles exposing many proponents of LS. As we used to say when I was a kid in Alabama, “The woods is full of ’em.”
Your poignant statement,“… it just troubled my spirit deeply” is so sad and typical of those who realize the false message of LS and determine to find the Truth. One of our writers and commenters here, John, (a 51 year old successful businessman with a wonderful family) was in LS for twenty years and trusted Christ two years ago. I am sure John will comment and assure you that you are on the right track by leaving any semblance of LS.
We will all be praying for you in your wise decision.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Welcome Fryingpan 9. We’re so glad that you joined us at Expreacherman.com today!
Thanks for the warnings about Ray Comfort and Lordship “Salvation” teaching. I think that many regular commenters at this site have had a similar background as you of, at one time, being influenced by Lordship “Salvation” teaching. It is so widely pervasive in churches today. It’s very difficult to find a church that hasn’t been affected [infected] by this false teaching.
I have to keep remembering Proverbs 14:12:
“There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
Thanks again for joining us and blessings on you as you serve the Lord.
I came across this blog about how The Berean Call has been seemingly compromised by its association w/ Ray Comfort’s Lordship Salvation message and well . . . Let’s just say I’ve been a big “fan” of Dave Hunt and TBC for over 20 years (and even met Dave and Tom once) but I’ve had problems w/ Ray Comfort for quite some time and your article helped me put it into perspective. My main reason for writing is to let you know I’m pretty much in your camp on this one but I tend to over think almost everything to death and this is all rather significant because only a month or so before realizing this “new and unfortunate development” at TBC, I’d written them that they’d be able to count on my donating to their ministry on a fairly regular basis indefinitely, and now I’m not so sure.
I think you get what I’m saying. I meet with some fellow believers in my neighborhood once a week for fellowship, prayer, Bible study and general discussion on matters on our hearts and this whole Lordship salvation issue took front and center last week. Like I said I’m still working/thinking this all out but I must admit if a proverbial gun (or real one for that matter) were pointed at my head and I had to say what I truly believed was the case, I’d have to say that Ray teaches a gospel of works which of course isn’t a Gospel at all. How hard it is for so many Christians to accept the simplicity of the true gospel and that only our faith in what Jesus did for us can save us. For YEARS I sort of went along w/ the whole Lordship Salvation line (to an extent at least, in terms of how it shaped my attitude) and now I’m praying and studying my way out of that false teaching.
I can personally attest that when I used to watch Ray in the past and didn’t know any better, he really was able to do a number on me through fear and intimidation. At the time it just troubled my spirit deeply. Thanks to honestly pursuing the truth of God’s word and blogs like yours, I’m coming to a better understanding of the TRUE gospel once and for all.
It pretty much comes down to logic. If you listen to Ray Comfort closely enough you realize he DOESN’T preach salvation by grace and I’ve NEVER heard him quote passages of scripture like Paul where he talked about doing the thing he hated and not doing what he knew he should be doing, or John who said if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves . . . or that if we sin we have an advocate w/ the Father . . . to give a few examples.
John,
Thanks for that excellent, clear explanation of 2 Corinthians 7:10, a verse over which many stumble.
Daniel,
Praying for you and your family as you all learn the beauty and security of God’s Grace.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I have to say, Daniel, that you are doing very well in discerning the presence of LS, front door or back, as well as rightly identifying the crossless gospel in Hodges’ & Luke’s videos.
The quote you included which says the Holy Spirit enables belief is such a common teaching, even among those who aren’t Calvinists. Arminianism has its “prevenient grace” to make it so. It’s simply a way of insisting that good works will follow.
The latter half of that quote is a real head-scratcher, isn’t it?
Whatever.
The pure grace of God through Jesus Christ will always cause people to say “yeah, but…”. There can be no compromise whatsoever.
I’m embarrassed to say, but IICorinthians 7:10 caused me to stumble just a few weeks ago, and we discussed it. I mistakenly thought it was referring to being born again, but it wasn’t. Just taking the verse into context, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to be going back to preaching justification, a one-time isolated event, just as being born into this world is an isolated event. It was pointed out to me by several here that it’s in regard to maintaining fellowship with our heavenly Father.
I’m so sorry that you are experiencing a sort of division in your home. I’ve had nearly identical discussions in mine, but it’s been quite a while since the last one. We can certainly pray for each other.
Daniel, regarding 2 Corinthians 7:10, think about the following combination of verses:
Romans 4:5:
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Romans 5:6:
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”
2 Corinthians 7:10:
“For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”
Christ did not die for the godly. He died for the ungodly. He did not justify the godly. He justified the ungodly.
No-one who is ungodly can have a godly sorrow. Therefore, no-one who is unsaved can have “a godly sorrow that worketh repentance to salvation.”
Regarding the concept that your father-in-law set forth that when a person trusts in Christ that they have in doing so ‘repented of their sin, I think this is a REAL STRETCH. That is not what LS folks mean. When I hear this kind of language, I RUN.
Following is an excerpt from Clear Gospel Campaign’s doctrinal statement, under the section entitled “Denial of the Gospel”:
ii) the belief that a promise of future works of the law must be offered in exchange for God’s offer of eternal life, such as “repenting of one’s sins,” or “making Christ the Lord of one’s life;”
Daniel, there is an excellent resource at the back of Ron Shea’s booklet “The Gospel” called “The Grace Chart”. It sets forth something he calls “The Four Perversions of Grace”. The mistaken belief that good works automatically follow salvation is rooted in one of Calvinism’s false tenets called “perseverance of the saints” (the “P” in the poisonous TULIP of Calvinism).
Please find link, below:
http://www.cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3&i_id=328&s=2
Another author (me) wrote a short article on ExP last year entitled “You Might be a Lordship Salvationist If..”. I wrote it after discussing the Gospel with a Christian friend of mine who made positive reference to a couple of subtle LS beliefs. Please find link to that article, below:
https://expreacherman.com/2012/08/14/you-might-be-a-lordship-salvationist-if/
Daniel,
Thanks, you are right about the church whose link you included and the quote from it. It is certainly questionable and appears they may be teaching LS and reformed “theology” in your quote. Then their reference to “regeneration” is unclear (a subtlety often used by Calvinist or reformed teachers).
The WordPress blog you mentioned is very conflicting. It appears it may be OK in one article which contains a quote from my mentor and personal friend, Dr. A. Ray Stanford and then in another article he lauds and quotes a sermon on “free grace” (of all things) by Charles Spurgeon (of all people)!!!
In case you are not aware, Spurgeon’s greatest claim to fame is his terrible sermon entitled “Turn or Burn” in which he butchers the precious Gospel of God’s Grace by telling his congregation they must turn from their sin or they would burn in hell. Spurgeon is also the darling of Calvinists, noted for his occasional Calvinist leanings.
The owner of that WordPress blog seems to be anonymous. That bothers me to some extent. I would like to know who he is — we may be acquainted.
I am of the opinion that we have enough extensive information exposing Lordship Salvation and Calvinism right here at ExPreacherMan. (We have 369 articles from which to choose and over 8,600 comments you may use to glean information.) And the Gospel is always clear here.
I’ll leave the rest of your questions for other commenters here at ExP.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Another point I forgot to mention. When talking with my Father in law, after my mother in law had said that the Bible says you need to repent and I asked them to show me one verse in the Bible that says one needs to repent of your sins to be saved they came up with this verse:
II Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
I explained that this verse was in the context of a pastor talking to saved people, they were already saved. That’s all I got to say on this verse but I would also say that this in its context is referring to salvation from the power of sin in ones life on a day to day basis, NOT salvation from the penalty of sin regarding Justification’ and salvation from Hell. How else would you explain this to them?
It’s funny though cause after talking with my Father in law for a while he said he believed that ‘repentance’ is synonymous with believing on Christ for salvation in which I agreed. He also said that when a person trusts in Christ that they have in doing so ‘repented of their sin’. He insisted that repenting of sin is not repenting of sins plural but sin in the singular. He basically said that when one is an unbeliever they are living in sin but the person who puts their trust in Christ has automatically ‘repented of sin’ (not sins). I agree with him about his conclusion that ‘repentance’ is synonymous with believing on Christ and glad that is what he thinks ‘repenting of sin’ means but I dont think thats what LS mean when they say ‘repent of your sin’.
Hi there everyone,
Boy oh boy! My wife and I have been getting into disagreements and some tension brewing between myself and my wife and the in laws about choosing an acceptable church for my wife and myself. They are of the opinion that ‘no church is perfect’ and to just go to a church and find out what they are about. We found a church that my wife wanted to go to tonight but I said ‘no’ after I looked at the doctrinal statement and to me its obvious Lordship Salvation. In their doctrinal statement on the salvation section they say:
“The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to be regenerate or born again – that is to repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ – guaranteeing us forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life.28 The proper evidence of regeneration is voluntary obedience to the gospel, the fruits of repentance and faith, and newness of life.”
{Church link removed by Administrator}
I said to them (wife and in laws) that by saying the above, this Church is requiring works as evidence for salvation and therefore are backloading the Gospel with works. I tried to explain what that meant and they basically think I am ‘reading too much into it’ and ‘need to go to the church for a while to see what they really mean’. I attempted to explain to them (probably very poorly) that THIS IS WORKS SALVATION. Their reply to me was that I was complicating the Gospel and that I also need not judge others even if they don’t have everything perfect.
My wife and her Mother actually said this Church are not requiring works FOR salvation in saying this statement above. They said because they are not REQUIRING works FOR salvation but only that works were EVIDENCE OF salvation that this is not works salvation preaching. I tried to explain that it still is but obviously I did not explain it well enough, they did not get it. Maybe you guys could help me explain to them how this doctrinal statement is messed up.
My Father in Law also explained to me that he had an experience once where a man in his church said that baptism was required for salvation and he gently corrected him and even though he had obviously a wrong understanding of the Gospel that this man was still saved and he need not divide or remove himself from fellowship with such people.
Any words of wisdom you can give me to explain to my family. If I am out of line or mistaken anywhere please tell me also.
Regards
Daniel
ps; I feel they need to get some discernment and learn what ‘Lordship Salvation’ is so that they can understand things a little. Is this website and articles below recommended? Otherwise please give better links I can give them for not only explaining what the Gospel is not but clearly exposing LS.
{Link to WordPress blog removed by Admin}
Jack & Bruce! Thank the both of You for the information concerning
Thayer. Very helpful!
God bless you both,
John G.
John G,
It is a rather simple exercise to do an Internet search for “Thayer Trinity error.” There you will find many sources, including the one Bruce quoted.
I thank Bruce for his research concerning Thayer errors.
Likewise with very little effort you may search the Blue Letter Bible’s CAUTION concerning the Thayer error. (Remember use caution also when accessing Blue Letter Bible itself).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3341&t=KJV
Then Click on:
Thayer’s Lexicon (Help)
Look at the bottom paragraph:
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Hi John G.,
On behalf of Jack I’ll send a brief excerpt which explains about theological issues with Thayer.
This excerpt was sourced from “Sharper Iron” which got it from the author’s own web site (this selected usage does not in any way imply a general endorsement of Sharper Iron or of any other web site).
Article: “Doctrinal Error in Thayer’s Lexicon,” by Douglas Kutilek
“Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), was a professor first at Andover Seminary, then at Harvard Divinity school, and was indeed a professed Unitarian, and at the end of his life a denier of Biblical inerrancy (there are brief biographical accounts of his life in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, and at Wikipedia).
I have indeed found a few places in the lexicon where the theological perspective is tainted; however, since Thayer’s lexicon is a translation, revision and enlargement of C. L. Wilibald Grimm’s edition of C. G. Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti [literally, Key to the New Testament], one would have to compare Grimm’s original to see what is from Thayer himself, and what is just translation of the work as he found it. But at any rate, there is theological error here, especially regarding the Trinity—
p. 287, column b “Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; I John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8ff; etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians.”
(Being unbracketed, this statement is evidently Grimm’s own, not Thayer’s). To the claim that “the matter is still in dispute among theologians,” I reply—NOT among those who are willing to believe the obvious!
p. 521 On the word pneuma, as it is used of the Holy Spirit, we read, “The Scriptures also ascribe a pneuma to GOD, i.e., God’s power and agency,—distinguishable in thought (or modalistice as they say in technical speech) from God’s essence in itself considered,—manifest in the course of affairs, and by its [note that “it” which recurs regularly under this heading] influence upon souls productive in the theocratic body (the church) of all the higher gifts and blessings ….Among the beneficent and very varied operations and effects ascribed to this Spirit in the NT the following are prominent: by it [n.b.] the man Jesus was begotten….hence to its [n.b.] promptings and aid….it [n.b.] was imparted to the Apostles….” and so on, referring to the Holy Spirit as “it” at least 8 times (which is even more times than the KJV!). And yet, further down in this same column, we find, “He [n.b.] is present to teach, guide, prompt, restrain,…. He is the author of the charisma…. his efficiency in the prophets…his inspiration…. his utterances….” Inconsistent, to say the least.
p. 522b “In some passages the Holy Spirit is rhetorically represented as a Person…: Matthew 28:19; John 14:16ff, 26; 15:26; 16: 13-15 (in which passages from John the personification was suggested by the fact that the Holy Spirit was about to assume with the apostles the place of a person, namely of Christ),…”
Further down the column, this denial of the actual Personhood of the Holy Spirit is repeated, when in regard to the “seven spirits” of Revelation 4:5; 5:6, it is said that these “are not seven angels, but one and the same divine Spirit manifesting itself in seven energies or operations (which are rhetorically personified,…”). To speak of “personification” is to deny the actual Personhood of the Spirit.
p. 555 On prototokos, [literally, firstborn]—”Tr[Ty?]opologically [i.e., figuratively] Christ is called prototokos pases ktiseos [literally, firstborn of all creation]…who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things….” This plainly is a denial that Christ is either eternal or God, and lowers Him to the place of a mere creature, not the Creator. The note does continue: “this passage does not with certainty prove that Paul reckoned the logos in the number of created beings….”
(p. 521 also speaks of “regeneration wrought through baptism”—a serious doctrinal error.)
So, then, yes, there are some clearly heretical teachings in Thayer—denial of the Trinity by denying the deity of the Son and denying the personhood of the Holy Spirit, as well as the error of baptismal regeneration. Since my knowledge of Thayer is by no means exhaustive, I suspect a careful reading of the whole would likely reveal other serious errors. But these, at least, remind us that we must always have our eyes wide open when we consult Bible-related reference books, since all authors are both fallible, and come to their task with a set of theological presuppositions, some of them plainly aberrant.”
[ed. note: Kutilek gives a good warning about being cautious when using study aids]
Brother Jack, could you please give more information on Thayer’s error
concerning the Trinity? I would really appreciate your enlightening on this!
God bless,
John G.
Carol L,
BLB would be OK if they would simply put Strongs definitions and the Greek reference rather than spoiling those definitions by referring to Thayer and Westcott and Hort.
I have an excellent Bible search program on my computer through which I may search words and phrases and then get the Strongs number and definitions of those words. But even so the program has The Bible Knowledge Commentary which is polluted with false doctrine.
We must be diligent and discerning in our searches.
It would be nice if we could simply find an online Strongs Concordance without all the extra fluff and false baggage.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
John,
Thank you for the link. I’ll definitely give it a spin through.
Thanks Jack on the heads up on the BLB. I had no idea. As I said, I simply used it as a tool for original language for Strongs since my paperback copy is just too darn hard to see with itty bitty writing.
Anyway, love to contend for the faith!
Carol, welcome!
I would heartily recommend “The Gospel” booklet, by Ron Shea, which I have linked below. You may find it helpful in explaining God’s plan of salvation to your brother and others.
http://www.cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3
Carol L,
Thanks again for your refreshing comments.. Glad to know you understand Free Grace and are pleased with what we offer here. We are glad to have you participate.
I know you say you do not dwell on Blue Letter Bible site but I want to take this opportunity to make a point. My wife Shirley and I were talking about your note and she reminded me that BLB uses the Thayer Lexicon to expand upon Strongs word definitions. BLB warns about the possibility of the Thayer error on The Trinity.
BLB also uses Westcott and Hort as a research and reference tool. Here is the BLB quote:
Some of our readers may not be aware that the Jehovah Witness abomination they call a “bible,” the New World Translation, used the erroneous Westcott and Hort Greek text to formulate their “translation.”.
So we see error multiplying over and over in “religious” circles.
Carol, we are happy to have you aboard and pray for your discussion with your brother.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Thank you Jack. I am not a Calvinist nor a reformer. Nor do I go to the Blue Letter bible page out any particular agreement with a doctrine they may carry. Rather it is a tool via Strongs Concordance to get to root words etc.
I believe in free will, the grace of Jesus, and that my salvation is secure. I do not believe I or any other human being can carry out the works of the law. Rather, Christ is the propitiation of my sins and that he fullfilled the law on the cross. It is a done deal. However, I certainly have experienced a sense of conviction throughout my walk to either abstain from this or that or have felt remorse when I have indulged. I know where the cross is and recognize the Holy Spirit always points me to the foot there of.
And you are quite right, I have not gone through your entire blog, but a couple of posts and subsequent comments. It is interesting to be sure and is certainly food for thought.
And given the fact that John MacArthur’s name has been mentioned numerous times to me in the past few weeks, looking at your blog has proven to be timely. There will no doubt be a discussion about this tonight.
First and foremost, it’s the gospel, the gospel, the gospel.
Anyway, stumbling onto your blog has certainly been interesting.
Thanks.
Carol L,
Thanks for your understanding of what we do here at ExPreacherMan.com.
Our goal is to emphasize the “simplicity that is in Christ Jesus” and expose those who would pervert the Gospel of His Grace — whoever or whatever they may be.
Please forgive me if I misjudged you in my earlier comment as being Reformed. You seem to now understand our mission of Grace.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
Carol L,
Welcome to ExPreacherMan.
It seems as if you may not have searched and read all of our articles and comments about “Repentance.” We have explained the contextual words and meanings thoroughly.
I sense by your statements that you may be a Calvinist or Reformed or at least have tendancies in that direction.
Your links to the Blue Letter Bible quoting Strong’s are accurate but as we have stated over and over, Repent (NT) in regard to salvation always means “a change of mind,” specifically about the Savior, Jesus Christ and never a change of action.
While the Strongs definitions are correct, they must be taken in context and not applied in the “fullness” of the definition but applied to the direct point of context.
I have deleted the inks to Blue Letter — simply because Blue Letter preaches false doctrine about the definition of “tongues” as expressed in 1 Corinthians. Here is a quote from one of their FAQs on “tongues”:
This is the Blue Letter teaching of false doctrine and it is inexcusable. With all the “scholarship” available to BLB, they should know the truth.
In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack
I have perusedd your blog in the past few days and I have to admit I was left scratching my head. My initial impression was that there was a message to simply confess Jesus and then go on your merry way and indulge in the world if one so chose, since salvation was thus secured anyway. Again, my initial take on this blog was that it was flippant with the message of the gospel.
Names such as John Macarthur and Zane Hodges were being bantered about and I could not quite understand what the kafuffle was all about. And after putting together a pithy comment for your blog that still remains in moderation mode, I decided to delve deeper.
To give you background, I am an American who has lived in Canada for close to 40 years and have been a believer for 35 + years. And in the Christian circles here I had never heard of the “Lordship Salvation controversy” until I read your blog. It simply has not been an issue. Having said that, I suspect it is on the forefront of becoming an issue in this region and am thankful today for your blog which lead me to taking the time to look into this matter.
And looking into this matter today is indeed timely. The reason for this is that my brother for the last month or so has being going on and on about John MacArthur and listening constantly to his sermons and has been eagerly desirous of having me listen as well, which I did for about 5 minutes a couple of weeks back. When I listened something felt amiss and I conveyed this to my brother which of course did not deter him because I was not able to quantify what I was feeling.
But today, I took the time to look into John MacArthur and simply had to hear the first 54 seconds of the post below and I saw a GLARING ERROR which I have no other way to describe it, but as blatant heresy.
In this particular Youtube video entitled “The Lordship controversy Part 5 of 5” John MacArthur states at 51 seconds of video, “ The power to then keep the law, which he prior could not keep”. He is of course speaking of someone accepting the gospel according to him.
The power to keep the law?! Unbelievable. This is rank hearsay.
Now in terms of my previous post, that is still probably sitting in moderation mode, it was not posted for the purpose of refuting your blog or undermining. I was unaware of what you and your commenters were dealing with.
Now that John MacArthur and his heresy has made its way to Canada and virtually on my doorstep, I will be speaking with my brother tonight about this doctrine of deceit.
Thank you for your blog. Definitely and enlightening day for me.
Video
John MacArthur – The Lordship Controversy Part 5 of 5
{Link to John MacArthur deleted — we see too much of JMac as it is}
scroll to sec 51-54 MacArthur states “The power to then keep the law, which he prior could not keep”. He of course is speaking of those who just accepted the gospel. Again, simply unbelievable.
Hello Daniel
It is encouraging to see how The Holy Spirit is leading and warning you! In particular because the late Zane Hodges, and others akin, were once on the straight and narrow.
No matter how much I read THE truth, it is only when it is challenged by fakes that the penny finally drops for me. Having said that, the penny wouldn’t ‘drop’ if I hadn’t already steeped myself in The Truth in the first place; error then floats to the surface ready to be skimmed off. (Discernment)
I’m a bit odd that way but the Lord still sticks close to me and my desire to know only Christ and Him crucified 1Cor2:2.
God bless you both in your search for Truth.
Sue
Just a note: Ignore the display name above. Have just made an account. I shall appear as Daniel R from now on.
Thanks Bruce and John G for setting me straight. In future I will be sure to avoid GES and Zane Hodges and not post any links of that here. Shall also stop listening to brother Luke.
I have lots of Bible passage questions which over time I would like to get your feedback on. For now, I have basically come to the point of realising that there are only 2 Biblical passages/teachings that are causing me doubts a times and from not having 100% assurance so I shall post those here in my next post in next day or so. I still have only just moved into my new home here in beautiful South East Queensland Australia on the coast a few days ago and have only just unpacked 3/4 of the boxes so will be posting those questions in next couple days as I get time. Thanks again for your ministry here and clearly explaining and speaking the truth in love.
Blessings
Daniel
Since the definition of the meaning of “repentance” has been brought up, I am going to weigh in.
Below are links to Strongs Concordance of the meaning of “repentance” translated from Hebrew and Greek.
Hebrew:
Greek:
{Links deleted by Administrator}
Please take the time to expand and read each link where it should become apparent that the definition of the word “repent” is defined broader than to simply be a “change of mind”. Such a statement is a misnomer which removes and dismisses the fuller picture that the two definitions of the word describe.
Whether someone has an overwhelming sense of repentance when they first believe and confess the gospel, or if it is a process leading up to or after confession is up to the Lord as he works in each individual heart. Regardless of this, the Holy Spirit always points believers to Christ and convicts us and the world concerning sin and righteousness which does indeed bring about a sense of remorse. I can speak from my own experience that the fullness of th