Lordship Salvation: The Bad News Bear(er)s

By johninnc

Cambridge Dictionary Online defines the idiom “Throw a Curve Ball” as follows: to surprise someone with something that is difficult or unpleasant to deal with. 

The bad news bearers, those who teach the false gospel of Lordship “salvation,” (LS) metaphorically throw a curve ball by twisting the good news of the gospel into bad news.

If you are not familiar with LS, please see the link below:

Lordship “Salvation” Defined

Following is a straight gospel message, without any LS curve balls:

There is a God. He is the eternal creator, without beginning or end. He created everything, including you and me. He is perfectly holy, perfectly just, and perfectly loving. As such, He cannot allow anything that isn’t perfect into His presence.

You and I aren’t perfect. We have all broken God’s laws, and can’t do anything to fix that. Our efforts to work our way back to God are completely useless.

But, God loves us so much that He would rather die than spend eternity without us.

So, He gave his only begotten Son –Jesus Christ – God in the flesh – to reconcile us to Him.

Jesus had no sin of His own, but bore our sin so that we might be reconciled to God. He had no sin and we had no righteousness. Jesus took our sin from us. He made the complete payment for our sin, leaving us nothing to pay.

He did this by suffering a criminal’s death by crucifixion. He died on the cross, He was buried, and He was raised from the dead three days later, proving that His payment for our sins was accepted.

Anyone who believes in Jesus, and what He accomplished through His death and resurrection – that he paid the full price for our sins, leaving nothing for us to pay – has eternal life. Eternal life means that it can never be lost or forfeited. God no longer sees believers in their sins, but sees them as perfectly righteous.

That is the good news! We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9: [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast.


The bad news bearers turn the good news into bad news by adding conditions to the gospel. They wrap their error in misinterpreted scripture to make it sound biblical.  Following are three common ways that they do this.

False definition of repentance

Luke 13:4-5:[4] Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? [5] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

The bad news bearers will tell you that repentance means “turning from sin,” “being willing to turn from sin,” “wanting to turn from sin,” and so on. Accordingly, they will misinterpret passages such as the one above to bolster their mistaken belief.

Repent means “a change of mind.” In the above passage, Jesus is challenging His listeners to change their minds regarding their relative goodness. They thought that righteousness was graded on a curve. In other words, these people thought that they would escape God’s judgment because they were not as bad as those who died when the tower fell.

But, Jesus told them they needed to repent – change their minds – and realize that their relative good works would not be good enough to earn eternal life. Our only hope of eternal life is based on Christ’s righteousness, not our own.

Misunderstanding of “straight and narrow”

Matthew 7:14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Bad news bearers misunderstand this to mean that someone must live a straight, or relatively straight life, or stay on the path (persevere in faith and good works) in order to demonstrate that they have eternal life.

The actual meaning is that Jesus is the straight way and the narrow gate. Eternal life is received only by believing in Him, and by believing in Him only. No curve balls, just straight truth.

Misunderstanding “the will of my Father”

Matthew 7:21-23: [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.

Bad news bearers misinterpret this passage to mean that only those who are highly successful in avoiding sin and doing good works will actually make it into heaven.

The passage actually means that only those who believe in Jesus as Savior have done the will of His Father, and are thereby known by Jesus. Those who never believed in Jesus are touting their works at the judgment. Jesus does not negate their claims of good works, nor that they were done in His name.

The common theme of bad news bearers is they will tell you that Jesus is necessary for eternal life, but that He is not sufficient for eternal life.

Here is what Jesus says on how to have eternal life:

John 11:25-26: [25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: [26] And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

If you would like more information about the good news of eternal life please click here: THE GOSPEL

128 responses to “Lordship Salvation: The Bad News Bear(er)s

  1. Mary, I am OK with posting the link, but do not want to put it on the blogroll. Anything I put on the blogroll, I have to be personally comfortable with, and keep up with, and I don’t have the time to do that.

    We have reduced the number of sites on the blogroll, and are unlikely to add to it.

  2. Hi John,
    Are we able to put the site I asked about last week on the Blogroll, he has added Tom Cucuzza on there. He definitely teaches the correct gospel.

    Would be so much appreciate.

    God Bless………..


  3. Thanks so much John, I believe there is an urgency to get the gospel out, the right one, out to as many as possible as the lord may come sooner than we think.

  4. Yes we are feeling blessed to have him here in Australia. He doesn’t live in our state, but I pray that god will give him the exposure he needs to help free catholics from their bondage and establish the ex-catholics in the Gospel of Grace.

  5. Hi Mary
    Giving Thanks unto the Lord that there is a PAstor in Australia that proclaims The Gospel of Grace .
    Nice website

  6. Mary, we’ll be glad to allow the link to your post, with our caveat.

    I will leave it up to Jim and Holly to determine if they want to mention it on their respective sites.

  7. http://www.freedomforcatholics.com/

    (Administrator’s note: we have not researched this site and, therefore, do not endorse it.)

    Hi Johnnic, have lost your email due to updating my computer. Are you able to link this onto ex preacherman and maybe Hollys and perhaps Jim Floyd, he is a good trusted pastor here in Australia, that gets Grace. This a site he has been working very hard to put together for Catholics.

    Would be appreciated.

  8. Yes, Holly, thanks for your reply.

  9. Mary, it’s not what someone takes in that defiles them, but what comes out of their heart. As I heard a pastor I respect say recently, it may not be healthy, however a number of things we do are not (being sedentary, eating too much or the wrong types of foods, etc.) But from what I’ve seen of her so far, she seems to get grace, but if she does, as with me, we would expect all people to search the Scriptures to see if what we are saying is true. And as for the strong, bold part? I am weak, truly physically I am weak. In my life many tragedies that have flattened me, but may that always make me delve more into time with Him in His Word. That is what we need, because in our weaknesses, our infirmities, if we choose the good part (Lk 10:38-42) we know in our weakness, His grace is sufficient – His strength is made perfect in weakness, and may the power of Christ rest on us in it.

  10. Mary, Renee had commented on Redeeming Moments back in October of 2016. She seems to be clear on the gospel, based on that comment (which was on the subject of Ray Comfort’s errant teaching).

  11. Hi Guys,
    Have been really blessed by a lady in the USA called Renee Roland, (you tube) she so gets the gospel of grace. She endorses Ralph Arnold, I can assure you, she is on the same page as Ex-preacherman. She is so uplifting and encouraging, she is going through so many scriptures that we have learnt twisted. We do really need more Renee Rolands, I encourage anyone out there, if they are gifted in teaching, to do what this lady is doing.

    Her testimony is amazing, she used to be a Hollywood producer, she still smokes and guess what she is saved. Its a real slap in the face to the self righteous out there, saying she has a disability and gods judgment is on her, because she smokes and calling her a herectic and a false teacher.

    Be really blessed in watching all her teachings, Holly if I was to meet you in person, I think she would be somewhat like you, a strong bold christian.

    Amen, enjoy.

    In our prayers Holly for your beautiful son……..

  12. Great discussion, read a lot of posts I hadn’t seen. Well worth reading back.

  13. Amen and Amen!
    Sound teaching is a joy and brings life to the believer.
    I second it …Thank you!

  14. John, Curtis and RAS, thank you for your kind remarks. I really appreciate the Biblical knowledge, insight and doctrinal purity of the posters here at expreacherman. Proverbs 27:17

  15. Very well put Keith; detailed, easy to follow and I believe accurate. I have one more comment (this discussion has stimulated my study).

    About this quote:[Our sin was laid on Him, and with it all condemnation due to sin. There is no condemnation for the believer because there is none left; it was all laid on Christ.]
    Amen to this incredibility precious positional truth. Unless you believe that Christ died only for the elect (I do not) then the logical conclusion of that quote— if taken as an experiential truth— would be [ALL sin was laid on Him, with it ALL condemnation due sin. There is no condemnation for anybody because there is none left; it was ALL laid on Christ.] But this can’t be true or ALL would be no longer under condemnation. The truth is that the unbeliever is still under judgment because they have never been made alive. Sin is no longer being imputed to them (2Cor5:18) but they are still dead and in penal servitude to sin. The believer, being made alive, having been imputed righteousness (not imparted righteousness), is freed to serve God and no longer under any condemnation. Believers who walk according to the flesh suffer the consequences of sin, one of which is suffering a “death” like experience (as if spiritually dead). As Keith referenced “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law”. This will be the case until all “corruptible puts on incorruptible” and “death is swallowed up in victory”.
    A believer will never face the penalty of sin. A believer in corruptible flesh will always face the consequences of sin. Keep 1 John 1:9 handy.

  16. also if the Law causes me to live an immoral life it can also cause me to live a moral life. tricking myself with the spirt of Cain.
    im convinced the antichrist will be a conservative a pharacee. you dont rise to power by rolling around in the filth of the flesh and advocating it.
    he will rise to power by duplicating the righteousness of the law to fool the people.
    maybe even abolish abortion to have more souls be born to decieve and build his army to war against Christ Jesus.

    the hardest souls to reach are the religious drunk on the spirit of Cain.

  17. thanks for posting Keith.

    that was a eye opener for me realizing to be carnally minded is attempting to keep the law to live and serve Christ. in doing so makes me just as imoral as someone who is not even making an effort.
    we dont kerp the 10 commandments by trying to keep the 10 commandments anymore than trying to live the Christian life by trying to live the Christian life.
    the Just shal live by Faith in response to Grace.
    reckoning (adding up what God says to be true taking God’s side against ourselves) (in our thinking) dead to sin and alive unto God.
    Present ourselves (in our thinking)

  18. Keith, this is a very interesting interpretation that is both consistent with grace and lends credence to the phrase “who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” being properly included in Romans 8:1.

  19. I haven’t posted in a while but have still been reading the articles and comments. This thread about the “addition” to Romans 8:1 is particularly interesting. I think I might be able to contribute some understanding as to the meaning of the “condemnation” which is mentioned in that verse. It seems to me that the phrase, “who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” in the KJV and NKJV does have a place in the verse.

    In Romans chapter 7, Paul explains that the purpose of the law is to condemn sinners by convicting them of sin. Consequently, the law condemns the whole world as guilty before God (Romans 3:19). Therefore, the law is a tutor which leads the unbeliever to place his faith in Christ so that he will be justified before God and receive eternal life by faith alone (Gal. 3:24). In God’s eyes, the believer’s identity has changed from being a child of the devil with his seed to a child of God with God’s seed (2 Cor. 5:17; 1 John 3:8).

    After he has placed his faith in Christ for eternal life, the believer has everlasting life as a present possession. He has been forever delivered from the law’s sentence of condemnation to hell after death, and ultimately, from the lake of fire at the Great White Throne Judgment. Positionally, he is dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Gal. 2:19) since the law no longer poses any danger in sentencing him to eternal separation from God. However, as long as he is physically alive, the believer still has both the natural man with the carnal mind and its sinful desires and the spiritual man with the spiritual mind, or mind of Christ.

    Even after salvation, the carnal mind still seeks to return to the works of the law for justification before God. This is why the Galatians, as immature believers, were such easy prey for the false teachers who crept in teaching that faith in Christ was not enough to attain eternal life or for the assurance of eternal life, but that submission to the law was required for salvation or assurance. Being carnally minded is not limited to the believer’s yielding to the obvious lusts of the flesh like greed, idolatry and witchcraft, but also includes setting his mind on submitting to the law rather than continuing to remember that he has everlasting life as a present possession, as he would do by being spiritually-minded. To return to the law for justification before God after having been justified by faith is heresy, which is a work of the flesh that Paul condemned along with the more obvious ones in Gal. 5: 19-21.

    The spiritual mind of the spiritual man, on the other hand, knows that he has eternal life as a present possession on the grounds of believing Christ’s promise of eternal life via Christ’s death, burial and resurrection and the word spoken in passages such as John 3:16, John 5:24 and John 6:47. Paul told the Galatians to walk in the Spirit so that they would not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16-21), specifically so that they would not return to the works of the law to be justified before God.

    So, a believer “walks after the flesh” by setting his mind on the desires of the flesh (being carnally minded) and “walks after the Spirit” by setting his mind on the desires of the Spirit (Romans 8:5). The believer is spiritually-minded and abides in fellowship with God by setting his mind on the truth that he is positionally secure in Christ. As a result, righteousness is a by-product of who he is since he fulfills the righteous requirements of the law as long as he continues to do this (Romans 8:4; 1 John 2:29 and 3:6). On the other hand, being carnally-minded by setting his mind on being justified by the works of the law brings the believer back under the dominion of the law, and hence, under sin’s power (Romans 7:5-14). 1 Cor. 15:56 states, “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law”. The result for the believer who is carnally-minded by returning to the law is the dominion of sin and the consequent sting of sin, or death, which is broken fellowship with God and loss of assurance of his standing before God (Romans 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:6).

    In his thinking, therefore, the believer who is carnally minded by returning to the works of the law is under God’s condemnation because by submitting to the law, a person, whether an unbeliever or a believer, never knows whether he has done enough to merit God’s favor and escape the penalty of sin. This ties in with Hebrews 10:26 and 27, which teaches that those believers who reject grace and return to the law have a “fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries” (v. 28). Objectively, they are not in danger of paying sin’s penalty because Christ has paid their penalty and their position is secure, but subjectively they can expect it because the law can only condemn, it cannot justify or bring assurance, and I think that’s what the latter part of Romans 8:1 means by “condemnation”. It is only by remaining in abiding fellowship with God by being spiritually-minded and walking after the spirit rather than the flesh that the believer can continue in the assurance of having escaped condemnation from the penalty of sin and experience and reap the benefits and fruits of the eternal life that he already possesses.

  20. To all who are affirming positional truth I say amen with you.

    Future salvation is not to the same as past justification or past reconciliation. Paul never equates salvation in the book of Romans with justification. Never! Not in1:16, 10:10, 11:11 or 13:11 does salvation equal justification. “Deliver” in 7:4 is not equal to justification. Our sin nature, our regenerated spirit, neither will ever have part in our justification; justification is done! Salvation is ongoing.

    The sentence is not the crime. The sentence is a result of the crime. The condemnation of Rom 5:16; 18 and 8:1 is the sentence. We who are in Christ are free not to serve the sentence. Those who walk according to, or sow, to the flesh are serving the sentence unnecessarily.

    Death and eternal life of Rom 6:23 are speaking to experiential sanctification not positional justification. Eternal life is life more abundant free from the sentence. Death is experiencing, receiving the daily rations of sin. This passage is not about heaven/hell. In Romans 7 sin still had power over Paul because he was serving the sentence. He did not rise above the sentence by being justified. He needed to be saved!

  21. Love the discussion on this thread . I like what Chas said hear and causes me to ponder a new
    “for his deliverance has already been done by Christ”

    my old sin nature wants some part in my salvation but can not have what has already been done. “Christ died for the ungodly ” Natural religious mankind hates to acknowledge ungodliness

    “I agree that Paul is not concerned with sin’s penalty in Romans 7. He is concerned with the fact that sin still seems to have power over him, making it impossible to do what he (in his new self) wishes. Paul is describing his own personal experience with sin in the flesh. But Paul’s deliverance from “the law of sin and death” is not brought about by walking in the Spirit. On the contrary, at the end of chapter 7 Paul points out that what needed to be done for his deliverance has already been done by Christ.”

  22. Holly, I recognize the different “dispensationalist issues” you covered (well). I would add that the mid-to-hyper ones don’t believe in communion OR baptism…depending on their bent.

    While leery of the extremes, I have found that “dispensationalists” are often EXCELLENT Bible teachers. They get a lot of detail out of Scripture and are rightly concerned that we discern who is/who is not being spoken to in a passage. Very practical. Unfortunately…those extremes.

    I have spent much time in the Psalms and Proverbs the last couple of years and have be SO blessed. There is so much general information in there about the character of God and the reality of fallen man that it is simply timeless and fresh as ever. Also much prophecy about The Lord.

    One can look at Psalm 91 and learn how Satan twists Scripture, lifting and changing the intent, exaggerating God’s promises in a perverted way. All those awesome promises of protection can seem like a lie to the carnal mind, but what’s at issue is the character of God. One aspect is that He takes the LOOOOONG view and isn’t a dispenser of quickie, shallow solutions.

    In this vein you can go all the way to 2 Cor. 1:20…

    “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.”

    All His promises are YES in Christ. The long view! He knows what He is doing and will do it when HE chooses to. The promises are true BY FAITH. Faith, without seeing, is GOOD! Abraham comes to mind…

  23. Thanks for the reply Chas. Without going point by point and rehashing the argument I‘ll simply say, I failed to persuade you, you failed to persuade me. If I read Romans in the context you do then I’d be right there with you on 98% (do Christians ever agree 100%) of what you say. As is I am with you about 90%. Our differences don’t stem from “the phrase” (I held the same view from NASB) our differences seem to be scattered throughout the argument of the book.

    You are correct, we can get bogged down in Greek. I just didn’t know how to express the distinction between condemnation and condemnation with out using the Greek as often as I did. And sure, katakrima is judicial but it is not the pronouncement of guilt it is the sentence upon the whole of creation because of the guilt. And believers who walk according to the flesh suffer the consequences of guilt while remaining pronounced righteous before the throne of God.

    A couple of easy-to-research facts:
    *From studylight.org —Deissmann (BS p. 264 f.) quotes several passages from CPR I. where he thinks the word must be understood technically to denote “;a burden ensuing from a judicial pronouncement – a servitude,”; It follows that this word does not mean condemnation but the punishment following sentence, so that the “;earlier lexicographers”; mentioned by Deissmann were right. This not only suits Romans 8:1 admirably, as Deissmann points out, but it materially helps the exegesis of Romans 5:16; Romans 5:18.
    *From biblehub.com —punishment following condemnation, penal servitude, penalty (from 2596 /katá, “down, according to,” intensifying 2917 /kríma, “the results of judgment”) – properly, the exact sentence of condemnation handed down after due process (establishing guilt).
    *From apologeticsindex.org—It does not, then, speak of the declaration of our guilt but the bondage to sin that follows guilt.

    Also I found several references to J. H. Moulton & G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 327-28. They define the word as “penal servitude” however I do not have access to the book to give you a quote.

    Thanks again for taking time to reply Chas, you write very well and lay out a logical argument. Hope to do it again sometime.

    Thank you John for allowing us this discussion.

  24. Chas, thanks for your additional explanations.

    We had a similar perspective in a comment from Bruce Bauer, a former administrator, a few years ago. Below is a link to Bruce’s comment:


  25. Btw… johninnc, “walking in the Spirit” and “walking according to the Spirit” are two ways of saying the same thing. Both relate to the believer’s walk. As soon as the word “walk” is used we are dealing with actions, not our position in Christ. When our position–our state of being in Christ is in view, Paul doesn’t bring in the word “walk”. For example, Romans 8:9…

    “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

    No mention of our walk there. It’s all about our position in Christ.

  26. Ok, given the confusion about Romans 8:1, I am compelled to post further. (I’m hoping this will be my final post on the subject. I’ll bet you are too!)

    It seems we’ve gotten bogged down in Greek. A couple of easy-to-research facts may help to clarify the discussion:

    Neither “katakrino” nor “katakrima” are root words. The root words are “krino” (a VERB; “to judge, decide”) and “krima” (a NOUN; “a judgment”). The word “kata-” is a preposition meaning ” down”, “against” or “according to”. Added to either word we get “katakrino”: to condemn (to judge down or against) and “katakrima”: condemnation (a judgment against). The words are closely related. ALL of them are judicial terms.

    RAS… for clarity, I’ll quote some of your statements in your various posts directly, (though not necessarily in order). Nothing personal.

    — (judgment came from the offense resulting in katakrima therefore the judgment is not the condemnation)”

    Whether true or not, the idea that “the judgment is not the condemnation” is irrelevant to our discussion. The issue is: What does the “down judgment” (condemnation) entail in each of the three contexts?

    I see katakrima to mean the same thing all 3 times it is used (5:17; 19, 8:1) that is as penal servitude or more strictly-an adverse sentence which is not the transgression it’s self but rose through the transgression.” (Reference later corrected to 5:16, 18.-ed.)

    This is one place (of several) where I must disagree. As you confirmed in your answer to my question about your term “penal servitude”, you said “Yes that [bondage to sin – ed.] is a big part of it.” So you do at least make the flesh’s bondage to sin part of “penal servitude” (if not directly equate condemnation with the flesh’s bondage to sin). Problem is, that’s an entirely subjective interpretation. That is reading into the text an idea which is preconceived, not drawing the meaning out of the text.

    Romans 5:9 and 6:23 are key. Justification is… no longer being dealt with but salvation (deliverance) is the subject.

    Again, an unwarranted interpretation. Romans 5 does not deal with the flesh’s bondage to sin, let alone “deliverance” from any “penal servitude”. In verse 10 Paul brings the subject of Christ’s risen life to the table, then from verse 12 to its end the chapter is dealing with “The Doctrine of the Two Men” and certain facts involving Christ’s death on the cross. Justification is most certainly still the subject in this part of chapter 5, but a different aspect of it is introduced. It is not the penalty for our personal sins that is in view, it is our status as sinners; our having been set down as sinners (condemned) by Adam’s one act of disobedience, versus the believer being set down as righteous (justified) by Christ’s one act of righteousness; dying in our place. There’s a lot of meat there, but for our discussion the critical thing to note about chapter 5 is that the consequence of the “judgment against” (condemnation) is not “penal servitude to sin”, but death. Death is set against “the free gift” which is also identified in later verses as “the gift of righteousness”, “justification of life” and “eternal life”. Again I must highlight: In Romans 5 “eternal life” is not being set against “penal servitude to sin”, but against death. The passage is about death through Adam, life through Christ. “Penal servitude to sin” is found nowhere in the passage .

    Paul doesn’t address the issue of bondage to sin until chapter 6, and that after posing a couple of loaded questions, the second being “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Then and only then does Paul begin to deal with the believer’s relationship to sin and sin’s bondage.

    I agree that Paul is not concerned with sin’s penalty in Romans 7. He is concerned with the fact that sin still seems to have power over him, making it impossible to do what he (in his new self) wishes. Paul is describing his own personal experience with sin in the flesh. But Paul’s deliverance from “the law of sin and death” is not brought about by walking in the Spirit. On the contrary, at the end of chapter 7 Paul points out that what needed to be done for his deliverance has already been done by Christ.

    Regarding chapter 8, as I said before, “condemnation” in 8:1 does not mean, refer to, or relate to “penal servitude to sin” any more than it did in chapter 5. It is true that in chapter 8 the object of condemnation is different. Per 8:3, it is “sin in the flesh” that was condemned in Christ when He took our sin upon Himself, being made sin for us. (2nd Cor. 5:21). The whole point of the first few verses of chapter 8 is to show the believer that sin has no power over the believer anymore because sin in the flesh has been judged against (condemned) already in the body of Christ on the cross. That is why there is not nor can be condemnation for those in Christ.
    The point of this passage in Romans is not that we escape condemnation by walking in the Spirit. The point is that there is no condemnation for those in Christ because He took the condemnation on Himself on the cross–by which He “condemned sin in the flesh”–the happy result being that we now have the choice of “walking in the Spirit” thereby overcoming the power of sin in the flesh.

    2 steps [are] needed to rise above the adverse sentence and a life of futility in service to this curse: (1) believe in Jesus Christ, and (2) pleasing God by [a] walk in relation to the Spirit.

    Um… no. We do not “walk in relation to” the Spirit, but in Him, and that by faith. Neither do we please God by a “walk in relation to the Spirit”. We please God by believing Him; in this case believing His testimony that sin in the flesh has been condemned–judged against–in Christ and therefore we are no longer subject to it.

    One does not rise above the Genesis-3-imposed thorns and thistles as penal servitude simply by believing, Paul didn’t (Romans 7).

    Welllll… actually, struggling with “thorns and thistles” is exactly what Paul was doing through most of chapter 7. That struggle only drove him to despair, leaving him to call out “Who shall deliver me…?” He finally realized that the deliverance he needed was already in front of him; accomplished by Christ on the cross. Believing that was exactly what he needed to do, and did.

    I’m not saying that there will be no “struggle” involved, but that the struggle is one of faith–believing what God says about our being dead to sin–instead of believing what our flesh and our senses tell us.

    The notion that we (believers in Christ) “escape condemnation by walking in the Spirit” is a false notion. It was spawned directly by the inclusion of “the phrase”* in Romans 8:1. The confusion caused by it is evident in questions posed by others in this thread. I don’t blame you RAS, it’s that corrupt addition–that “copy-and-paste” lifting of “the phrase” from 8:4 by at least two copyists (the addition was done in two stages)–which has caused untold confusion and misery for Christians throughout the Church age.

    Without that corrupt addition the true meaning of the uncorrupted text of 8:1-4 flows from the Scripture like the Spirit Himself:

    There is no condemnation left for those in Christ Jesus because He took it all on Himself, condemning sin in the flesh when He bore our sin upon His own body on the cross. Because of that, we CAN overcome sin, which we do by the continuing, daily act of faith known as “walking in the Spirit”.

    But what happens if we live like a slave to the sin nature we go back like we lived when we’re spiritually dead? We experience punishment in terms of Divine discipline of living like we’re spiritually dead and under condemnation; serving sin, living in futility

    Anyone in Christ who chooses to walk in the flesh will be–by default–“sowing to the flesh”. What is “reaped” from that is not condemnation, not punishment, but corruption.

    The anecdote about the Christian lesbian is interesting, but her mistake isn’t that she believes the plain statement of Romans 8:1; that she–as a believer in Christ (assuming she believes the real Gospel)–is not under condemnation.** No, her problem is she has been led to re-define a certain sin as not being sin. That’s probably based upon quasi-scientific propaganda regarding sexuality (“I was born this way!”), and a distinct lack of knowledge regarding the Lord’s own pronouncements about marriage. It’s ironic that she takes comfort in Romans; Paul didn’t cut lesbianism (women with women) any slack in chapter 1. She probably attends a “gay” fellowship led by a homosexual of either sex. As a result she’s under the influence of another kind of Scripture twisting. She’s still under sin’s bondage, and sooner or later she will reap corruption regardless of her definition of sin. Misery in this life? Surely. Loss of potential reward? You betcha. Condemnation? Christ took it for her, there’s none left for her. In His mercy, may He set her straight about homosexuality so that she changes her mind (repents) before she reaps corruption in whatever form.

    Bottom-lining it, the confusion caused by the addition of “the phrase” to Romans 8:1 has been illustrated abundantly in this thread, and speaks for itself. The MSS evidence for the “short reading” of Romans 8:1 is out there for anyone who is willing to look. Thanks to all who read this.

    * See my above post of July 6 about “the phrase”.
    ** I know, I know. Some will say, “But she’s abusing grace because she thinks there’s no condemnation for her! The idea she’s not under condemnation is leading her to sin!” You know, there are many thousands of Lordship Salvation advocates that make similar arguments about “grace-abusing free gracers”. There are also “Christian” religionists who jettison the idea of “salvation by grace through faith” entirely, because it’s “too easy”. Does that make “salvation by grace through faith” wrong? Of course not. We must believe the Scripture as it is, regardless of how people may abuse it.

  27. Freegracer – there are those who are mid-Acts dispensationalists, or ‘latter Acts’. Hyper or ultra dispensationalists I do feel is something to divide over. What separates them is they say that Matthew – John are not for the church.

    We do realize that although a portion of them was Old testament/covenant, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t forward looking speech (i.e. prophecy, even Jesus prophesying of things that would happen). John was written for a purpose and it was evangelical in nature, and one of the last books written so they can’t use that excuse, the entire gospel was present. But there was also a purpose for the synoptic gospels, and it was to point Israel first to their need for Christ. I think on the Sermon on the Mount (the law increased actually). The Pharisees, the Scribes, the Lawyers. The Rich Young Ruler who thought he kept the law from his youth. They were expecting the Kingdom to come, and yet it would not come if they would reject their Messiah. Hard to explain all fully here, but the disciples were still asking this as Jesus was getting ready to ascend to the right hand of the Father. He gave the instructions on the order of the preaching of the gospel, but it is not a separate gospel for the circumcision or a separate one for the uncircumcision as they are suggesting.

    But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1:8

    They also say Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John and Revelation are not for the church. Many (not all) do not think that we are saved in the same manner as the Jews, and so they divide the Gentiles manner of salvation from the Jews. Peter was only speaking to the Jews as were everyone but Paul according to them.

    They cite Gal 2:7-8 …. but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

    This short passage (to them) speaks of two gospels vs. the same gospel to two groups. The focus was who they were sent to at that time (if they would just continue on in context).

    They miss that Peter FIRST brought the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7).

    And they also miss that Paul was a Vessel to Gentiles, Kings AND Jews (children of Israel) (Acts 9:15).

    More issues with their thinking:

    The Church started at Pentecost, and actually the New Testament/covenant went into force at the cross, at the death of the testator – Jesus (Heb 9:15-17).

    The cross (blood of Christ) made us one new man and reconciled both unto God in one body (Eph 2:11-18).

    We ARE saved in the same manner as the Jews, our hearts purified by faith (Acts 15:7-11).

    There is no Jew or Greek in the church, nor does circumcision or uncircumcision avail anything, but they want to make that distinction (Gal 3:28, 6:15).

    The Apostles all preached the same gospel (1 Cor 15:11), but they want to suggest the mystery was revealed to Paul for the Gentile church but somehow not to them. But Rom 16:25-27 says it was made manifest and made known to all the nations. Eph 3 says it was revealed to all the apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

    So much more, but don’t want to make this an extra lengthy post, hope it helps some 🙂

  28. Freegracer,
    Peter, Stephen and Philip in the book of Acts referenced the OT while evangelizing. Paul on Mars Hill reasoned with the pagans from the OT—he had to establish who God is. I wonder how this YouTuber feels about the Gospel of John.

    I think Paul’s epistles are more often misapplied by the works salvation crowd, mainly because many of them believe the NT reinterprets the OT so they never read or take seriously the OT. The epistles are not written to evangelizing unbelievers but to instruct believers in the Christian life. This is not to say that the epistles contain no Gospel content because they do; believers are often reminded of the content of their saving faith in the epistles. That’s my two cents.

  29. Chas
    Yes that is a big part of it. As best I can put it in my clumsy speech—I agree that there is no pronouncement of guilt to those who are in Christ. All in Christ —those who walk according to the flesh and those who walk according to the Spirit— have been pronounced as being righteous, eternally, solely through faith based on the work of Christ. I do not see “condemnation” in Rom 8:1 to be referring to a pronouncement of guilt— katakrima has nothing to do with what happens in the legal realm before the throne of God but refers to the consequences of sin for believers who yet have a sin nature in a yet fallen creation. Grammatically, contextually, theologically and regardless of manuscript type I am lead to that conclusion.
    If you disagree with me you are not alone.

  30. freegracer24

    This is kind of off topic but there is a guy on YouTube who insists on using only Pauline epistles for salvation and evangelism, steadfastly declaring that the Old Testament Books, Matthew, Mark, and Luke cannot be used. I am VERY concerned with this viewpoint. While there are some passages in the OT and Gospels that can be misconstrued and misapplied by the works salvation crowd, there are passages about believing the Gospel and getting saved. And does not 2 Timothy 3:16 state the following, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Can I have everybody’s thoughts on this issue I have addressed?

  31. RAS – Yes, thanks for clearing that up for me. You answered it much better than I asked it.

  32. Ras, from where I sit it looks like you are equating what you call “penal servitude” with the flesh’s bondage to sin. Is that accurate?

  33. Holly
    What was the judgment, the krinō spoken of in John 3:18? That unbelievers lacked life right? They are condemned to remain dead if they do not come to faith. So krinō is judicial and the judgment spoken of in John 3:18 is death, this happened immediately at the fall. If I gave the impression that krinō always without exception meant judgment of death I apologize. It just means a judicial decision.

    Katakrima focuses on the consequences of the action, not the pronouncement of guilt. It can be eternal but it can also be temporal and in the context of Romans it is focusing on the consequences of sin in the believer’s life (same as Gal 5) until the sentence is removed. Paul, says “Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He is a believer, not condemned, he has passed from death to life but he was trying to live the Christian life through the Law not relying on the Holy Spirit and being dominated by the tyranny of the sin nature—the temporal sentence with future deliverance.

    Does that make sense?

  34. RAS – all throughout the epistles krinō is applied as the word judge/judgement. And only if it speaks of eternal life does it deal with eternal life, so I’m a little confused by you (seeming) to apply it to always meaning ‘condemned to death’.

    Sozo and Soteria don’t usually apply to ‘eternal life’ just because we see salvation or saved, I believe we still ask, saved/delivered from what?

    I might be missing your point, as I realize katakrima, (root word katakrino), means a sentence, or judge against, or damnatory (found guilty) sentence. It still seems it would apply regarding how it was used. In those three cases, I do see it speaking to eternal life, as we are not condemned because we are in Christ.

    In vs. 4, ‘according to the Spirit’ in NASB is the same usage as in the KJV vs. 1 and vs. 4, so that might help clarify, that ‘walk after the Spirit’, ‘in the Spirit’ (Rom 8:9), or ‘led by the Spirit’ (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18) aIl seem to address our standing as believers.

    ‘Walking in the Spirit’, Gal 5 I understand as identifying the fellowship of our walk with Him/discipleship. (Gal 5:16, 25)

  35. RAS – seems like the lesbian woman didn’t understand that sexual immorality was something that we are not to fellowship with other believers partaking in sexual immorality, nor should it even be named among us (as I know you know). As we are to abstain from fornication, she has to know it has never once been said in God’s Word that a marriage is anything more than between a man and a woman. With that said, there are all sorts of churches preaching a totally different thing in order to satisfy their followers itching ears.

    1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
    2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
    3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
    4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
    5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Eph 5:1-5

  36. Good John. Let me clarify. Man sinned and God made a decision, a judgment about man, man was condemned to death —this is krinō. As a result of man’s offense God also pronounced a sentence upon all creation subjecting it to futility, a condemnation—this is katakrima. Man is justified passing from death to life by believing in Jesus Christ for everlasting life. The believer’s position is changed by being found not guilty. This takes care of the krinō but not the katakrima. The whole creation moans until now waiting to be delivered from this bondage. Believers suffer the thorns and thistles as do unbelievers. The believer who walks according to the Spirit is not suffering the thorns and thistles in vain; they are not serving the sentence. Their suffering is rewardable as service in Christ. There is an inheritance that comes with this kind of suffering. The believer who is walking according to the flesh is serving the sentence and suffering the thorns and thistles in futility as the unbeliever does.

    I see Paul’s argument in Romans as — the sentence has been commuted for those in Christ; why serve the sentence and suffer in vain? Suffering for Christ is suffering for glory. And walking according to the Spirit is the only way to turn the suffering into service for Christ. We’re all going to suffer for something because of the thorns and thistles.

  37. Hey John, that is how I have understood it also.

  38. RAS, I understand what you are saying. I don’t think any man (believer, or unbeliever) can condemn another. I still find it odd that when Jesus spoke of eternal condemnation, it was translated as “condemn,” “condemned,” or “condemnation,” yet when Paul spoke of a believer failing to walk in the Spirit, it is also translated as “condemnation.”

    I’m not saying you are wrong, just that I’m not sure.

    I think it is also possible that walking “after” the Spirit describes someone who is in Christ, while walking “in” the Spirit has to do with a believer choosing to walk in the Spirit. In other words, there is a difference between walking after the Spirit vs. walking in the Spirit.

  39. The woman of which I speak, while thinking there is no condemnation (krinō) “in” her (according to how she read Rom 8:1) is demonstrating Paul’s point i.e. she is serving the curse by not walking in the Spirit but according to the flesh and only believers who walk in the Spirit have no condemnation (katakrima) “to” them.

  40. I am not claiming that anyone here took Romans 8:1 the way she did. I apologize if you thought I did. But if katakrima is the same as krinō then the woman had a logical point —no condemnation to those in Christ; she was in Christ —so what difference did her lifestyle make to me. If Christ found no condemnation in her who was I or any other Christians to do so?

    Of course the passage is not about krinō but about katakrima. What is really ironic about my conversation with her is that homosexuality is a result of the sentence, the curse placed on creation, and not the way she was created.

  41. RAS, Romans 8:1 doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for how we live our lives.

    We reap what we sow. I never thought of Romans 8:1 as cancelling that out, whether it has to do with our position on Christ or whether it has to do with our walking in the Spirit.

  42. John,
    She was very angry. I went through all that with her. It had no effect. She had been twisted every which way and only acceptance of her homosexuality and her “legal” marriage were of importance. She liked to play the “what about your sins and hard heart” game. I believe she is saved (justified). She said she felt guilty of her lifestyle at one time but now… it’s legal and Rom 8:1 opened up a new perspective for her.

  43. RAS, the woman that you referenced may need some instruction as to the doctrine of rewards and the judgement seat of Christ

  44. Disclaimer: I do not read Greek but rely on Strong’s for transliterations and definitions. Also, I am not offended by push back or disagreement on specifics especially when we still end up in a Free Grace orientation. I appreciate responses from all and John for making available this forum. I strongly recommend not “taking my word for it”. I ask you to search the word of God, see if I am faithful to the text or off base; hold me in check, correct me when I am clearly in error.

    I do see a distinction between krinō and katakrima. Both words are translated as condemnation yet the latter is used only 3 times all by Paul in one book in the section of that book dealing with the believer’s life after being declared just through the blood of Christ and in anticipation of a future deliverance. This section of Romans references the curse resulting from the offense of Adam making a distinction between the offense and the sentence which God placed upon all of creation.

    Allow me to share an experience of mine with you, not as proof of anything but just anecdotally. I once conversed with a woman who claimed to be an ambassador of Christ (a 20 year disciple of Christ) yet she proudly claimed to be a “married” lesbian and that Christians who oppose the court ruling concerning homosexual marriage and who are un-accepting of her lifestyle are bigots and haters and in violation of Heb 13:4 among other passages. She really did seem to know and understand the Gospel—she claimed to believe that she was a sinner in need of salvation (homosexuality wasn’t a sin; she was created as such…so)and she believed Jesus Christ’s offer of eternal life to those who believe in Him for life through His death on the cross and that He will raise those who believe from the grave to be with Him. Yet she hid behind Romans 8:1. She used Romans 8:1 in every response. Surely she felt justified in do so because she took katakrima as krinō; and as a believer in Christ she was no longer under condemnation; so why the condemnation from Christians if Christ no longer condemned her? Romans 8:1 had “freed her”, sin was no longer an issue for her and homosexuality was never a sin —if not mixed with idol worship.

    Now obviously this woman was mistaken and had swallowed some very faulty interpretations of passages dealing with homosexuality, Sodom and Gomorrah, marriage, grace and love.

    She would not budge an inch on the LGBT issue and she eventually shook the dust off her feet as testimony against me and I presume she is still waving the rainbow flag.

  45. RAS, thanks for the additional explanation.

  46. John, I see John 3:18 as saying one who is not a believer is condemned, judged guilty— krinō which is judicial—having not been justified. A believer however is justified, but the sentence— katakrima—has not been lifted from creation as yet. The creation was subjected to futility and walking in the Spirit—which only believers can do—is required to rise above the sentence God placed on creation.

    Thank you for allowing this conversation.

  47. RAS, I always thought condemnation related to someone who doesn’t have eternal life – maybe due to John 3:18?

  48. Romans 5:9 and 6:23 are key. Justification is being no longer being dealt with but salvation (deliverance) is the subject.
    Romans 5:9 (NKJV) Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
    —(Much more having been justified (past tense no longer under judgment), we will (future tense) be saved from wrath through him. How? By walking in the Spirit and not according to the flesh which is penal servitude to sin brought about because of the offense which brought the judgment we have been justified from.)
    Romans 6:23 (NKJV) For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    —(The daily rations for sin is death, to believers and unbelievers alike. The gift of God is eternal life, not only possession of, but life more abundant.)

  49. socalexile

    Saw this today and thought it a good summation:

    “MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation hinges our eternal destiny not on faith, but on works. If saving faith is simply believing that what the Lord promises the believer is true, then our eternal destiny relies solely on Jesus being faithful to His promise. But if saving faith involves obedience and submission to Christ until death, then the burden of our eternal destiny rests squarely on our own shoulders.”-Bob Wilkin, A Gospel of Doubt, p.33.

    And the discussion on Romans 8 is very educational!

  50. The verses which have katakrima are Romans 5:16, 18 and 8:1. I wrongly referenced 5:17 and 19 : Sorry

    Romans 5:16 (NKJV) And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification
    — (judgment came from the offense resulting in katakrima therefore the judgment is not the condemnation)

    Romans 5:18 (NKJV) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
    —(Again condemnation is a result of the judgment not the judgment itself)

    Romans 8:1 (NKJV) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit
    .—(there is no judgment to those who are in Christ but there is condemnation [katakrima-adverse sentence] to those in Christ who walk according to the flesh. This is the same condemnation that unbelievers are under though the unbeliever is under judgment as well.)

  51. Chas, I see katakrima to mean the same thing all 3 times it is used (5:17; 19, 8:1) that is as penal servitude or more strictly-an adverse sentence which is not the transgression it’s self but rose through the transgression. Adam and Eve had already sinned, were guilty, then God cursed creation with an adverse sentence (thorn and thistles, sweat of the face Gen 3:17-19). There are 2 steps needed to rise above the adverse sentence and a life of futility in service to this curse: (1) believe in Jesus Christ, and (2) pleasing God by walk in relation to the Spirit. One does not rise above the Genesis-3-imposed thorns and thistles as penal servitude simply by believing, Paul didn’t (Romans 7).

    By believing and walking in the Spirit the thorn and thistles, sweat of the face are not done in futility (service to sin) but in service to God with opportunity for reward. The believer who does not walk in the Spirit but according to the flesh will face Divine discipline but I never meant to imply that katakrima is defined as Divine discipline.

  52. My thanks to all who responded to my comments. I know posting isn’t a trivial matter, it takes time and thought. I can see that much thought has gone into each response, with the result that several problems have been raised.

    First off, for brevity I will refer to the phrase in question, “… who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” as “the phrase” for the duration of this post. Also, I must correct an error I made by bringing the issue of Christ’s blood (and by implication the issue of justification) into the context of the passage in question. It is indeed the position of the believer in Christ’s risen life that is at issue, not justification. More on that later.

    Re: RAS‘s contention that “condemnation” in Ro.8:1 should be interpreted as “penal servitude to sin” or “Divine discipline”:

    “Condemnation” is the Greek word katakrima (as you pointed out), literally; “give judgment against”. It is the same word used in Romans 5:16; “…the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation…” and 18; “through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men…”. In neither verse of Romans 5 does the term ” katakrima” refer to “penal servitude to sin” or “Divine discipline”. Why should we suppose it does in Romans 8:1? Such would be a fundamental re-definition of the word. It is condemnatory judgment that is at issue here, not discipline or bondage to sin. I agree that Paul isn’t discussing judgment of the second death in Ch.8 per se. He is continuing his discussion of the new life in Christ; particularly its implications regarding condemnation. To suppose that “condemnation” in verse 8 refers to “penal servitude to sin” or “Divine discipline” involves an assumptive interpretation, influenced (apparently) by the inclusion of “the phrase” in 8:1. But Paul isn’t dealing with “penal servitude to sin” or “Divine discipline” in Romans 8:1 anymore than he was in Romans 5. In Romans 7 Paul presents the fact that the believer has two natures; one which doesn’t sin, the other which can do nothing but sin. The former is the new nature and the believer’s true identity. That is the reason–the “therefore”– why there is no condemnation for the believer. The means of accomplishing that is explained in 8:3:

    “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin He condemned sin in the flesh…”

    In other words, sin in the flesh was condemned in the body of Christ on the cross. Our sin was laid on Him, and with it all condemnation due to sin. There is no condemnation for the believer because there is none left; it was all laid on Christ.

    The rest of verse 4 goes on to tell us one of the intended results of Christ taking our condemnation on Himself:

    “…in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

    That is where “the phrase” belongs; at the end of verse four (where it appears in all MSS without controversy). There the manner of our walk is the subject, not the condemnation due us but which was laid on Christ.

    Benchap, I agree that Ro. 8:9 is indeed pertinent, but its meaning only highlights the problem caused by including “the phrase” in verse 1. Verse 9 speaks of where the believer is in Christ. It speaks of a fact accomplished by God (not by the believer.)

    The problem is, “the phrase” added to Ro.8:1 speaks of the believer’s walk. In other words…

    “The phrase” does not say “…who are not of the flesh, but of the Spirit.” Such would speak of the believer’s position in Christ. But it actually says “… who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” That involves what a believer does, his behavior, his works. And that is why “the phrase” is so blatantly out of place in 8:1, but fits so well in 8:4.

    Curtis Marburger, I agree that context is highly important when attempting to get at the meaning of a text. That is why it is so important that the text itself not be corrupted, especially with pivotal additions like “the phrase”.

    Regarding the relationship of Romans to Galatians, Paul’s letter to the Romans was written about 57-59 A.D. Galatians was written earlier; my references say anywhere from 48-52 A.D. It’s to be expected that in Romans Paul would go into greater detail regarding a subject mentioned previously in Galatians. It’s no wonder some scholars have called Romans “The Gospel according to Paul” and “the most comprehensive statement of the Gospel in the entire Bible”.

    Incidentally, “the phrase” was not added all at once. It was added in two stages; the first half “…who walk not according to the flesh…” was added by itself to some late MSS, and the second half, “…but according to the Spirit.” was added along with the first to even later MSS. So which addition is the “inspired” one? I believe neither. The pattern of increasing additions to later and later MSS is telling. “The phrase” does not belong in Romans 8:1.

    In an email to me, one scholar made an interesting comment about 8:1:

    Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace.

    To conclude…
    I have nothing against someone using the KJV if that’s their preference. I do take issue with the notion that the KJV is “the best” translation. I don’t think there is a “best” translation; they all have issues. The KJV problem discussed above is a stickler for me. Much more about MSS issues could be said, but I’ve avoided that in deference to site rules. I hope I’ve demonstrated adequately why I think the issue of Romans 8:1 is so important, and why the KJV inclusion of “the phrase” in Ro. 8:1 is so confusing, disruptive, destructive and just plain wrong. Like all corruptions of the Scripture, it creates noise, garbling what should be a very clear presentation of the most liberating, life-giving message ever delivered to mankind.

    Thanks to johninnc for allowing this to be posted (assuming he did!), and to all who read it, thanks for your indulgence.

  53. My two cents: The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of TRUTH, can communicate the Word of God to us in spite of any human foibles in translation. Even loosey-goosey translations can be a starting point and He can highlight relevant truth before moving someone on to something more solid (He can be trusted to do this!). God saves us in simple faith and then the eggheads and gurus go to work thoroughly confusing us and drawing us away into their unbelief. Because they are “elders” and “experts”, at first we follow but know something is wrong. How do we know? The SPIRIT!!!

  54. In depth discussion and post Why King James Version


  55. Curtis Marburger

    Context , Content ,Compare, Conclude
    Paul wrote most of the new testament, he got souls saved by proclaiming the gospel but didn’t get them straightened out on doctrine with the legalist dogging his trail .

    Galatians 2 :19-20 Paul is saying here what took several chapters in Romans 6,7,8
    Paul is laying down identification principal to living the christian life

  56. Hi Chas, you said: “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” to Romans 8:1 in the KJV. That addition changes the meaning of the verse, making it infer that our freedom from condemnation depends on our walk instead of Christ’s shed blood.”

    No, it doesn’t.

    Romans 8 later includes “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

    Romans 8:1 can easily be interpreted to mean exactly what Colossians 3:3 says.

    “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.”

    Won’t debate you on the issue of texts – and I believe John won’t want this conversation to continue much further due to it being spoken about several times – but I’ve heard this argument countless times for reasons against the KJV and it’s a very poor one not unlike the ones used by those in the KJB camp.

  57. Interesting Chas: I was a NASB user (I still reference it) before and while investigating this issue. I came out on the other side meaning I trust the Majority Text. The TR (Received Text) is not the Majority Text but comes from a handful of MT manuscripts. You are correct about Erasmus. Dan Wallace is very bright and knowledgeable but he is not without a professional and theological dog in the fight. I felt he (among others) failed to demonstrate the inferiority of the MT.

    Regarding omissions, specifically Romans 8:1, the subject matter of “condemnation” is not second death for the penalty of sin , which there is none for those in Christ) but penal servitude to sin for those who walk according to the flesh whether it be through legalism or licentiousness. The justified are freed from sin and slaves to righteousness (Rom 6:18). But what happens if we live like a slave to the sin nature we go back like we lived when we’re spiritually dead? We experience punishment in terms of Divine discipline of living like we’re spiritually dead and under condemnation; serving sin, living in futility (Rom 6:23, Gal 6:8, 1 Tim5:6).

    So the “addition” to the text (Rom 8:1) only changes the meaning (to legalism) if you think the meaning of condemnation (katakrima) means judgment of the second death through justification but Paul left justification back in 5:9. With or without the “addition” I think the passage makes sense in this context according to the argument of the entire book of Romans i.e. God’s righteousness, man’s guilt, God’s wrath, God’s gift, the power of sin and the greater power of God.

  58. Styles of English aside, I think manuscript issues are extremely important. Given that, there are very good scholastic arguments that the Received Text is not the most reliable MSS. If I may quote one Christian textual scholar, Daniel B.Wallace:

    [T]he Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge.

    That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Regarding “omissions” in newer translations, Wallace goes on to note that scribes had more of a tendency to add to the MSS texts than to omit portions. One of the most egregious additions in the KJV I know of–which contributed to my confusion and kept me under a degree of legalism for years–is the addition of the phrase “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” to Romans 8:1 in the KJV. That addition changes the meaning of the verse, making it infer that our freedom from condemnation depends on our walk instead of Christ’s shed blood. It makes the verse contradict everything Paul wrote in Romans up to that point, throwing a huge legalistic monkey wrench into the flow of ideas. That phrase is found in all MSS copies of Romans 8:4 (where a different subject–the manner of our walk–is under discussion) but it does not belong in 8:1, and does not appear in 8:1 in the vast majority of MSS. That’s why it doesn’t appear in reliable modern translations like the NASB.

    I haven’t seen an in-depth discussion of the reason for the KJV translators’ inclusion of the addition, but perhaps it had to do with the fact that the KJV translators were products of the Reformation, and may have been influenced by its legalistic residue carried over from RCC-ism. In any case, the Romans 8:1 issue is probably the single most important reason that I don’t use the KJV.

  59. socalexile

    A great translation, especially of you are trying to learn Greek or do word studies, is the Apostolic Bible Polyglot: http://apostolicbible.com/

  60. RAS, I agree completely. Some people sound like they are doing Shakespeare.

  61. KJV is fine. KJB (B for Bible) is usually preferred by Onlyist. I researched this topic for myself and came away completely turned off by the KJB crowd, their arguments and their tactics which include criticism when not quoting from the KJB even when the only difference is changing an archaic word such as “mortify” to “put to death” etc. Often discussions are turned from doctrine to vocabulary (or put to an end for not using the KJB).

    I also see KJB preachers (mainly street preachers) who use “1611 English” even when not quoting from the text. It seems to me this is an attempt to be bolster truth in their words but if I were an unbeliever I would have a hard time taking these people seriously enough to listen to. To me speaking like the KJV makes them come across as characters reenacting some event rather than proclaiming timeless truth.

    The manuscript family is a more serious issue I believe but not a fellowship breaker. If you lean towards trusting the majority text (I do) your only choices really are KJV or NKJV. I suppose those are enough. I do avoid the NIV— way too loose and theologically uhmm … inspired.

    To you people who are enjoying Charles Clough’s teaching I again recommend his website which has hours and hours of great stuff—Just Google his name and Bible Framework if interested.

  62. The English language is not getting better the KJV is the English language preserved and probably at its peak God chose a place in time and salted it with people and purpose to bring God’s Word to the English speaking people and many paid with their lives to bring God’s Word into the English KJV language
    My Grandmother went to school in one room schoolhouse and knew not only words but definitions of words

  63. Holly, Good explanation and I agree. I am learning after coming out of
    Calvinism, Arminianism,and Legalism for so many years.It still wants to take hold of me occasionally. I do listen to Tom Cucuzza, Yankee Arnold, have
    You and Ex-Preacherman on my website plus my preferred KJV Bible
    So there’s hope for me. Madeline

  64. Madeleine, Curtis, Benchap — I call it KJV preferred. I love the language. With that said, I still have embedded in my mind someone saying ‘a fifth grader can understand the KJV’ (Gail Riplinger talk). Not true. There are tons of obsolete words you might be able to guess, but to say something like that is the same kind of legalism we’re trying to avoid, and it keeps people from searching to see if what is said is really so.

    People need to kindly show some grace in these matters, and make their case for why they believe it to be a better translation. I really believe the KJVOnlyists have done the most damage in denigrating the Word of God by their ridiculous claims and charts. (Along with their extreme fundamentalism). Because when people hear them they shy away from one who might only use KJV thinking they are one of the extremists, which send them into a version such as NLT which is a mess, or even worse, the Mess-Age new age Occult ‘bible’.

  65. RAS, I think you can die on that hill. Moses committed murder, so did King David.

  66. well said Ben

  67. Curtis, thank you for pointing me to Charles Clough! I’ve started his series “Government – World View – The Christian Perspective” and am being blessed.

  68. For me, and this is just an opinion, I find myself to be a hypocrite when I say I’m not KJV only. I only trust the KJV and personally won’t refer other versions. However, I don’t believe that the KJV is the infallible word of God. That is, I don’t believe it’s a perfect translation. That said, I trust the translation-style used (word for word rather than thought for thought) and do believe it’s from the correct line of texts.

    Curtis, you may be able to point me in the correct direction if I am wrong in my beliefs, though.

  69. Got your point, Curtis.No, I’m not of KJV only as I’ve used different
    Translations to study Gods word. Just am a Senior citizen brought
    Up on old KJV and was easy for me to memorize scriptures, but
    Thanks for the warning. I can still learn.Madeline

  70. Curtis you said:
    “…you maybe getting hooked into the idol worship of The KJV”


  71. myself as well Madeline when someone uses another translation i don’t like. I did get side tracked a short time with KJV onlyism so im careful to watch myself there as well.
    if you’re in an assembly or you hear keep Textas Receptas The KJV is the inspired word of God
    Run forest Run. you maybe getting hooked into the idol worship of The KJV.
    most all KJV onlyism will deny works for salvation but are works as evidence of salvation and keenly by sleight of hand try to hide the works for salvation

  72. Madeline I agree with modern translations.
    this is a KJV prefered blog and i should of caught that with Charles Clough using the ESV.
    The KJV is a superior work of Art Translation.
    that being said. the staunch fundamental legalist have high jacked the KJV from the Gospel of Grace belivers in general. Im pursudaded thats why some have started using other translations and speak teach back too the KJV when using modern versions.

  73. Holly, et al, among the many things that I love about this site and the people is that I know they are Bereans. I am pretty confident that my premise about Cain is correct. My conclusion may be flawed. Cain’s justification is not a hill on which I am prepared to die. That 1John is not saying that a believer could never commit murder is a hill I will defend.

  74. Thanks Curtis, I’ve seen some of that on the believer side for Balaam, and the errors of Korah and Balaam. (Also going through Tom Cucuzza’s Revelation series now, he discusses that in the beginning chapters).

    I’ve also seen the unbeliever side, but haven’t really ever followed up on it. I appreciate always these things stirring me up to check. I’ll try to get back in here later and share from the other perspective, but thanks for your explanation, I’ll get to it also.

    RAS, thanks for that too. It’ll make for a fun study.

  75. Curtis, Guess I am sensitive to using ESV as we came out of
    Calvinistic ,LS ,church that they used that version. Google The
    English Standard Version Study Bible,”A dream come true ?”
    and you will see an extensive comparison on the differences
    And subtle omissions from the ESV. Madeline

  76. Not to stir up controversy but I think there is evidence to suggest that Cain was justified (a believer) and an apostate—(Genesis 4:7) “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” “Doest well”; are the works of unbelievers acceptable to the Lord? Can an unbeliever do righteous acts in the eyes of the Lord? Does doing have anything to do with being justified?

    I believe 1John has to do with manifesting ourselves as sons of God or sons of the devil. Cain’s offerings were not acceptable to the Lord and by killing his brother he manifested himself as (like, not as being) a son of the devil. We should love one another, we don’t always. 1John speaks of eternal life abiding in us not our position of having eternal life.

    I think Cain being a believer yet an apostate fits the text of Genesis and 1John as well as fits with the Free Grace perspective.

  77. Hi Madeline
    Just in KJV is the same as righteous
    I myself prefer the KJV for personal study.
    the concept, the practically of how Charles Clough uses God’s word to use scripture to defend scripture when presenting the Gospel is what I was hoping would help. It has helped me.
    I do understand your concern for other translations.
    The Gospel of Christ KJV vs The Gospel in Esv
    i would need to search that out to see if it subtracts from the gospel

  78. Holly thanks for the questions it caused me to search out the scriptures. excuse me for the lack of outline. im on my phone waiting to get loaded i did ponder as i drove today.
    there is teaching that see’s Balaam as a unbeliever but have not heard it to seek it out.

    the doctrine off Balaam attepmts to mix the distinction between believers and unbelievers were God draws a sharp divide do not be unequally yoked .
    Balaam was the first evangelical using the authority given by God before man and using it to achieve wealth and posture.

    there are different categories of apostasy

    can believers get involved in and fall for apostasy?

    I will promote thee unto very great honour,

    Num 22 :17 For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people.

    Balak king of the Moabites recognized Balaam as a believer? As someone the God of Israel recognized as a prophet.
    Could a false prophet be a believer?

    Numbers 22
    And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.

    5 He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me: note xref-1 [xref-2]

    6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.

    7 And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spake unto him the words of Balak.

    There is teaching that says Balaam is a unbeliever

    Num 23:12 And he answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which the LORD hath put in my mouth?

    Does God talk to unbelievers?

  79. Curtis, I started to listen to “Not ashamed of the Gospel” but noticed
    That pastor Clough uses ESV translation which leaves out the
    Gospel of ” Christ” in Rom. 1: 16 and also seems to change the
    Meaning in vs. 17 by inserting “the righteous” shall live by faith”
    Instead of “the just” shall live by faith. It seems to water down the

  80. Curtis – may I ask you why you think Balaam was a believer vs. an unbeliever and a false prophet?

  81. Thank you Curtis

  82. “Who was the first Apostate? Isa, 14 teaches that it was the Devil. He in
    turn fooled Eve who in turn caused Adam to turn against the truth.
    From that time on, men have been turning from the truth. Even after a
    lamb’s covering was provided by the Lord in the garden and a blood sacrifice was instituted as an approach to God, Cain turned against the truth and preferred his own works rather than a blood sacrifice of another.”

    categories of apostates
    A.Lust for praise: (Cain–unbeliever)
    B.Lust for money: (Balaam–a believer)
    C.Lust for power: (Korah–a believer)

    When you walk into a grocery store and you see the produce section with all the finely polished vegetables and fruits smartly displayed for the most appeal ? ( mankind’s works before God for righteousness)
    Now to the meat section the smell, the blood (that measures are taken not to be seen) the violence to prepare not seen .
    the grumpy butchers ? ( knows the blood sacrifice of another)
    the happy produce tenders ? (legalist his own sacrifice working their own way to God )

    Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

    1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

    Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

    Jud 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
    Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
    Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

  83. Curtis,
    I do really see this now we have this natural part of us that is legalist and that why the finished work of the cross is indeed a stumbling block and a rock of offense to so many.
    When you have a minute can you please elaborate just a bit on the statement below especially on the works of Cain, or perhaps you have a link. I had one teacher say we had to perform the good works of Abel, which tells me he too does not understand the finished work of Jesus.

    “Mankind is naturally born a legalist wanting to know God their way by their own acceptable standard for righteousness or works aka the spirit of Cain and the spirit of Cain wants to compete with God in being religious.”

    Thank you,

  84. in their own Twisted corrupt perverted Translation The Truth of God’s word can not be stomped out in JW’s own book John 5:24 is still in tact from the KJV . The minions of the JW’s use the new world translation . The hardened apostates of the Jw’s use the KJV for they have taken the Truth of God’s word and twisted it to deceive

    He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,
    Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

    if you would want to go down the trinity path or better yet call it the Tri-Vinity it is all around us and is a mathematical constant that affects every area of life

    Nothing (0) split by Unity (1) is Phi, Φ the constant of creation
    0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, …1.618 constant

    “tri-viding” the whole preserves the relationship to the whole

    And so it is with our understanding of God, that we are created in His image. Not by dividing the whole, but only by tri-viding the whole does each piece retain its unique relationship to the whole. Only here do we see three that are two that are one.

    in Proportion the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit are 1

  85. if i may , mankind is naturally born religious a legalist
    that being said most all religions of the world come out from Judaism all pagan religions (that don’t want to know the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob of the Bible) come out from Hinduism .
    hinduism one of the most tolerant oldest religion and yet buddhism come out from hinduism .
    Mankind is naturally born a legalist wanting to know God their way by their own acceptable standard for righteousness or works aka the spirit of Cain and the spirit of Cain wants to compete with God in being religious.

    to defend the Gospel Proclaim the Gospel , Paul did not debate , stay focused on the finished work of Christ Jesus

    Charles Clough
    Not Ashamed Of The Gospel

  86. So what do you guys know about Eastern Orthodoxy? I run into these guys a lot on Reddit, and what info is out there is mostly from a Catholic perspective.

  87. Daniel the JWs teach that Jesus Christ is a created angel -“Michael the archangel”.

    (Interestingly their founder taught that Michael in Revelation chapter 12 was not Jesus Christ but the anti Christ).

    They also teach that Jesus was only a man while on the Earth and that “the man Jesus Christ” suffered everlasting destruction.

    I have the first 40 years of Watchtowers in a watchtower published bound set, so I can back up everything.

    For witnessing using the Bible I point out the fact that the Bible says that God Created the heavens and the Earth ALONE. See Isaiah 44:24 (Job 9:8). Hebrews 1:10-12 shows that Jesus is Jehovah!

  88. 16. I John 5: 20 calls Christ “the true God.” Hebrews 1: 8 refers to the Son of God as “O God.” In Rev. 1: 8 Christ is speaking ( see v. 5) and says He is the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the ALMIGHTY.”

    17. Colossians 2:9-”For in Him (Christ, v. 8) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Everything that is in the Godhead, everything that is God, was in Christ in a bodily form. “For it pleased the Father that IN HIM ( Christ ) should all fulness dwell” ( Col. 1: 19) .

    18. I Timothy 3:16-”And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, (GOD was) justified in the Spirit, (GOD was) seen of angels, (GOD was) preached unto the Gentiles, (GOD was) believed on in the world, (GOD was) received up into glory.”

    When did this happen? When Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory.

    The Bible says, “God was manifest in the flesh,” etc., because Christ is GOD.

    19. In Romans 10: 9 and 13 the Apostle Paul quoted from an Old Testament prophet saying, “For whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.” Of course, Paul was speaking of Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9) . But the verse he was quoting in the Old Testament is Joel 2:32 which says, “. . . whosoever shall call on the Name of the LORD (Jehovah) shall be delivered (saved) .”

    Why did the Holy Spirit give the Apostle Paul the liberty to use an Old Testament verse which speaks of JEHOVAH and apply it to the LORD JESUS CHRIST? Because the Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah.

    20. Isaiah 9:6 prophesies of the Messiah to come, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace.”
    Our Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the Everlasting Father.

    21. Micah 5:2, also prophesying of the coming Messiah, says, “whose goings forth have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING.”

    But Psalm 90:2 says, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from EVERLASTING to everlasting, thou art GOD.”

    Christ was from everlasting, was in existence and one with God before the world was formed (John 17:5) because Christ is GOD.

    22. When Moses asked God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is His name? What shall I say unto them?” (Exod. 3:13) God answered unto Moses (v. 14), “I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

    Christ, revealing Himself unto the Jewish people, made this life and death statement unto them in John 8: 24, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM (he), ye shall die in your sins.”

  89. 11. Acts 20:28 says, “. . . to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.”

    When did God shed His blood? God shed His blood when He took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and shed His blood for our sins. Christ said in Luke 22:20, “. . . This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you.” Revelation 1:5 says, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood.”

    God shed His blood when Jesus shed His blood because Jesus is GOD.

    12. Ezekiel 44:2-”Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”

    This is the gate that the LORD God, the LORD JESUS CHRIST, entered at His “triumphal entry” spoken of in John 12: 12-16 and each of the other Gospels. The Mohammedans closed the gate soon after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., and it shall remain shut.

    In John 12:26 Christ says, “. . . if any man serve Me (Christ), him will My Father honour.” And yet in Matt. 4:10 Christ affirms the Old Testament command, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve.”

    Christ, knowing and upholding the Old Testament teaching, would not tell people to serve Him, and would not tell people God the Father would honor their lives when they do serve Him . . . in direct contradiction to the command in the Old Testament to serve only the LORD THY GOD.

    Man is honored by God the Father when man serves Christ because Christ is GOD.

    13. Rev. 15:3, 4-”. . . Great and marvellous are Thy works, LORD GOD ALMIGHTY; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints. Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy Name? For Thou ONLY art holy.”

    But Luke 1:35 records the words of the angel Gabriel, who was sent from God, saying, “. . . that HOLY thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

    Only the Lord God Almighty is holy . . . but the Son of God is holy because He lS the Lord God Almighty.

    14. Genesis 1:1 says, “God created the heaven and the earth.” Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:15-17 say Christ created it.

    15. Titus 3: 4 says “God our Saviour.” Titus 3: 6 says “Jesus Christ our Saviour.” Isaiah 43: 11 says the LORD (Jehovah) is the ONLY Saviour.

    Do these three verses contradict? No! But they WOULD contradict if Jesus Christ and Jehovah God weren’t one and the same.

  90. 6. Luke 1:68 records at the time of the birth of Christ, “Blessed be the LORD GOD of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people.”

    7. Luke 8: 39-Christ had just cast out demons and told the person, “Return to thine own house and shew how great things GOD hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things JESUS had done unto him.”

    This is not a contradiction. Christ did it and said God did it. Christ told the man to say God did it and the man said Christ did it. It is not a contradiction because Christ is GOD.

    8. In John 9:33-38 is recorded Christ’s conversation with a man who wanted to know who Christ was. Christ said He was the Son of God and the man (v. 38) “worshiped Him.” Christ did not reprove this man for worshipping Him, and yet Christ knew the clear commands of the Old Testament not to worship any God but Jehovah God. Exodus 34: 14, “For thou shalt worship no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”

    If Christ were not truly God and accepted the worship from a man without even rebuking the man, then Christ would not even have been an honest man.

    Christ did accept worship. For Christ is GOD. ( See John 5:23.)

    9. John 14: 7-Christ says, “If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also: and from henceforth ye know Him and have seen Him,” and vv. 8, 9, “Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER: and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (See John 12:45.)

    In John 15:24 Christ again says people have “both seen and hated both Me and My Father.”

    The reason Christ can say that when someone has seen Him he has also seen the Father is that Christ is GOD, one and the same as the Father.

    10. John 10:30-33 tells us the same thing. Christ said in v. 30, “I and My Father are ONE.” And “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him” (v. 31). In answer to Christ’s questions of why they were stoning Him they replied in verse 33, “. . . for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

    The Jews KNEW Christ was claiming to be God. They were so sure of His claims that they wanted to stone Him for what they SUPPOSED to be blasphemy.

    But Christ didn’t commit blasphemy. Even a good, godly human being would know better than to commit blasphemy, time after time, especially when he was constantly being accused of it.

    Christ could say “I and My Father are One” because it is true. Christ is GOD.


    “He is a ‘mighty God’ but not the ‘Almighty God who is Jehovah’ “ (Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 47).

    “He was the first and direct creation of Jehovah God . . . He was the start of God’s creative work” (The Kingdom Is at Hand, pp. 46-49).


    1. Isaiah 43:10, 11-The LORD, Jehovah, says, “. . . before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.” The LORD, Jehovah, says, “. . . beside Me there is no Saviour.” (See Isa. 44:6, 8; Deut. 4:39.)

    Therefore, if Christ is God in any way, if Christ is the Saviour in any way, then according to the LORD God Jehovah, Christ is GOD.

    Luke 2: 11 says, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Since Christ is the Saviour, then Christ is GOD.

    2. Isaiah 42:8-”I am the LORD: that is My Name: and My glory will I not give to another….”

    Only Jehovah God is the LORD of glory. If Christ is the Lord of glory, then He must be Jehovah God.

    I Cor. 2:8 says the crucified Christ is the “Lord of glory.” Since Christ is the Lord of glory, then Christ is GOD.

    3. Zechariah 12:1-10-The LORD, Jehovah, says, “ . . . and they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced….”

    When was the Lord, Jehovah, pierced?

    “But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him shall not be broken, and again another Scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced” (John 19:33-37).

    Since Christ was pierced, and Jehovah God said He would be pierced, then Christ is God.

    4. Isaiah 7:14-”Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His Name Immanuel.”

    Read Matt. 1:18-25. Notice in v. 18, the child was “OF the Holy Ghost . . .” and Mary was with child “BEFORE they (Mary and Joseph) came together.” Again, in v. 20 the angel of the Lord confirms the child is “OF the Holy Ghost.” In v. 21 the child shall be named JESUS because He shall save His people from their sins. The very name Jesus means “God who saves,” etc. And in vv. 22, 23, we learn that “all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken OF THE LORD by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US.”

    So God Himself says the child Jesus is actually GOD HIMSELF dwelling with man. This is again clearly confirmed in John 1:1-14. “The Word was God . . . And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us….”

    5. Mark 2:5 records that Jesus forgave people’s sins. The scribes heard Christ doing this and said (v. 7), “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but GOD ONLY?” They failed to realize that Christ wasn’t doing anything blasphemous at all. HE WAS GOD!

  92. Daniel, stand firm in the truth of God’s Word. Here is some help from Ray Stanford’s “How to witness handbook”, I highly recommend going to each passage and link the corresponding passage in your Bible by writing it next to the passage, and then the next from the NT to the OT, so you can follow along by just memorizing the first verse to go to. If I didn’t make sense, let me know, I’ll show you what I mean.


    “The ransom does not guarantee everlasting life to any man, but only a second chance” (Truth Shall Make You Free, pp. 176, 177).

    Men will be given a second chance for salvation during the millennium (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 106, 107) .

    “One forfeited life could redeem one forfeited life, but no more. The man Christ Jesus redeemed Adam” (ibid., p. 133).

    “The second trial will decide whether we may, or may not have everlasting life” ( The Watchtower, February 15, 1960, p. 143).


    “He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

    “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

    “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31).

    “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47). Christ’s own guarantee to believers.

    “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” ( Hebrews 9: 27) . There is no second chance after death.

    “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave-Himself a ransom for all . . .” (I Tim. 2:5, 6). Christ was not just a ransom for Adam, but a ransom for ALL!

  93. Angela – great reply, I can relate ❤

    Kate – praying for your friend to be set free now by the truth. (John 8:31-32), glad to hear you feel comfortable really presenting the gospel, I firmly believe since it is part of our armor it should put on each day.

    God bless you both.

  94. Great post as usual, johninnc. Much needed. Enjoyed reading it very much.

  95. JWs also teach LS as the means of salvation; their bible (New World Translation) has John 3:16 as:

    “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life”

    Daniel, are your parents aware of the false prophecies of the JWs? Are your parents new converts?

  96. Daniel, I am praying for you and your parents.

    There is a good sermon by Yankee Arnold on the reality of hell. It is linked below:


    Incidentally, JW also do not believe in the reality of Jesus (his deity).

  97. Kat, it is wonderful to hear from you, and particularly with such encouraging news!

    I am thankful for the opportunity you have to share God’s word with your friend, and I am praying for you and your friend.

  98. Guys! I need some help! My parents are trying to convince me that hell is not real and is cruel for god to do. they’re also bringing in people to supposedly teach me a lesson! having me go to their church! Jehovah’s witnesses! I really thought they knew the truth by now, but their ignorance has brought me to a boiling point. I am so frustrated.

    You guys are awesome by the way. Keep it up.

  99. Katmazdobelieve

    Hello all,
    I haven’t commented in a while but I have been reading the articles and comments. Still wonderful too!
    I am commenting because yesterday was the first time in was ably to present the gospel to a friend without stumbling and fumbling. He asked questions and I could answer them.
    It’s was amazing. For so long this friend had been confused and burdened. His father is a LSer and it has created a roadblock for my friend. Yesterday, he began to see God in a new light. Please pray for him.
    Thanks for reading,

  100. Angela, how wonderfully stated!

  101. Ben,
    I hope the moderators will let me respond because I so understand what you are going through, it is the perfect storm that the Lordship salvationists create in people.
    Sin is indeed a bondage to the soul, and I like you kept trying to be good, trying to turn from sin, confessing sin, after all I was born again and I had all these scriptures that tell me that I am no longer in bondage. The more I looked at my sin the more I was sinning.

    Get your eyes off your sin and onto the righteousness of Jesus as a born again believer.

    It pleases God to rely upon the complete redemptive work of the cross and be free from this cycle of sin and feeling bad for what you have done, you need to rest in the knowledge that Jesus has done it all.
    I myself just did not understand this, He has done it all, I just have to rest in that knowledge and believe. When you do this His Grace can flow and you will abide in Him. Do not abide in your self-effort that will get you nowhere and do not condemn yourself that is deadly to the Spirit as well because it negates the work of the cross.

    Remember, He has paid for all your sins, past, present and future.
    This is what he wants for you, to partake of His victory, having been born again, He no longer sees your sin, He sees the righteousness of Jesus in you. Be free in this understanding and His Grace will both restrain sin and free you to be more like Him.

    I will be praying.

  102. Curtis,

    I just want to say……. AMEN!

  103. Ben, Me and all
    While we yet sinners Christ Died for us!

    now as beliver soul’s in Christ Jesus whom paid our sin debt past, present, future by his death burial and resurrection His shed blood the perfect lamb of God.
    Will you allow the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob By the Holy Spirit occupy our minds? how? by reading His Word and The Truth of God’s Word be your Truth in spite of yourself? Taking what God’s word says to be True against yourself?
    the Holy Spirit will take care of all the rest We need simply enjoy the Lord in our position being filled with the Holy Spirit.
    Thoughts of condemnation are not of the Lord.
    there is no such thing as license to sin. Stop it!
    In the Old Testament there is no sin offering for willful sin I guess thats were legalism gets that from.
    Now the God of heaven Bankrupted heaven for Fellowship with beliver souls.
    Fellowship does not come from anything we do.! it is a result of allowing a change of mind repenting that most times leads to confession of sin to God in agreement with God.
    that is the only thing that can be done with sin is to confess it to God.
    Present yourself! you bring all that you are, all that you got to God Just as you are and be honest with yourself in spite of yourself by Faith in response to Grace and admit your failures. That im to stupid to run my own life?
    Now See its the legalist that needs to manufacture a license to sin because they are the ones who will not to admit failure. thats why Jesus said the harlots and publicans will enter heaven before you legalist…

    1 cor 8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. note View more

    Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. View more

    Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

  104. Ben, who that is dead in sin can turn from it? And what believers do you know who don’t ever do anything wrong?

    God doesn’t pass out sin licenses, either to believers or non-believers. He gives eternal life freely to anyone who believes in Jesus as Savior. There are consequences for believers when we do things that are not God’s will. I don’t think you are looking for a license to sin.

    Only believers can even have fellowship with God.

    I think you will find that you will feel closer to God when you focus on His word, and who you are in Christ, than when you focus on yourself.

    I have prayed for you.

    Ephesians 2:4-7:

    [4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)[6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:[7] That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

  105. I know this is a late response, but thank you Johnninc, Curtis, and Angela for your input and prayers on what I’m going through as a result of Lordship Salvation. I want to enjoy my walk with God as a saved man, but I struggle with almost tangible thoughts and feelings that I can’t turn to God (not even for fellowship) without turning from sinful behavior (or committing to do so) for salvation. I want to turn from sin as a saved man, so then I can focus on God and enjoy fellowship with Him. But these thoughts and feelings that I cannot turn to God without first turning from sin makes me feel like I have to walk on a tightrope to get to Him. I have done everything I could to alleviate these thoughts and feelings but they won’t go away and I don’t know what to do. I hope none of you get the impression that I am looking for a license to sin because I’m really not. I hope you understand what I am trying to say because sometimes I cannot explain things as clearly as I want to. All I want is to focus on my relationship with God without struggling with these heart dividing thoughts that I cannot turn to Him (not even for fellowship) without having turned from sin for salvation. Can someone please help?

  106. Curtis, I’m with you and Jack on that, there is always a time to contend for the faith, but I am also in agreement with John and Tom regarding Gal 2:4-5. There is a reason to cut these teachers short, so others won’t be made to stumble. Mark them (name names) then avoid them.

  107. RAS – I believe I know which one you speak of. Unfortunately a number of the ‘discernment’ sites are just wolves pointing out other wolves in the hopes their big teeth won’t be noticed. Phil Johnson is John MacArthur’s clean up PR man, who comes behind him and ‘explains’ what he ‘really meant’ when there is an uproar over something he has taught (i.e., taking the mark of the beast and still being able to be saved).

    They are spin doctors, who have no love of the truth. They call the gate and the narrow way, a path of their own making (which it is). Paul Washer is another wolf who says that our walk is that ‘narrow way’. Jesus said He is that narrow way. He is the door. He is the prophesied gate of righteousness. There is only one way that leadeth unto life and we all know it sure isn’t by works. They continue to attempt to climb up some other way.

  108. Hi Curtis and Ben an any others reading here coming out of the chains of Loadship Salvation,

    I too have lost many years to the Bad news bear(er)s. What a terrible time, Praise God that HE has lead us out because somewhere I knew something was not right and I started on the path of searching again.
    He is more than able to heal the wounds of false teachers and false teaching.
    It took me a whole year and many tears but well worth the trial.

  109. RAS, same old “turn from sins for salvation” false gospel – bi-lateral contract salvation.

  110. I was just given a link to a video (3hrs long) that supposedly exposes the Purpose Driven and Seeker Sensitive leaders for the false Gospel they preach. I got about 8 minutes into it and the narrator actually said, citing Matt 1:28 “Jesus did not come so that you can continue in sin but to save you from your sin. You can’t continue in sin and escape the penalty”. Then Phil Johnson (JMac’s right hand) rebuked R. Warren for preaching works salvation. 8 minutes was enough hypocritical irony for one day.

  111. I still remember what Jack would say something like , “when you spot a false gospel website , Leave and Never go back “, Ole Jack always cut it sharp and I appreciated that about him.

    an apostate is someone who knows the Truth of God’s word and then they twist it to their own advantage the woods are full of them. Unfortunately there are so few who come out of the woods and they usually don’t bring anyone with them.

    Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

  112. Lordship (non)-Salvation is so prevalent because it appeals to the fallen nature; the flesh. It’s the opposite of faith–in this context faith in the sacrifice of Christ alone for eternal life. We’ll all struggle with the flesh to some degree until our bodies are redeemed; removing the old nature. Only way to fight LS now is with God’s written Word, as in this thread.

  113. SoCal, there really is a famine in regards to the word of God.

    And, there are so many deceivers out there.

  114. I’m concerned for those who don’t know any better and get deceived.

    There is truly a famine in regards to the word of God.

  115. socal, I admire you for taking a stand for the faith on the website that you referenced. I know people eat up the false gospels, and I really don’t understand why.

    I personally don’t go to apostate sites and argue with them, because the purveyors of those sites are so vested in their false doctrine.

  116. John how do you do it? I read stuff like this tripe:

    (link removed)

    and I’m floored by how many people eat it up. I don’t want people to be lead astray, but It’s a flood of bad doctrine that I can’t keep up with.

  117. socal, that passage does draw the contrast nicely between faith in works and faith in God.

  118. LS Reminds me of Luke 18:9-14:

    9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

    11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’

    13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

    What stood out to me recently after reading this for the upteenth time, is that the Pharisee’s faith was actually in himself; as evidenced with, “I…I…I…I…I…”, just like the false teachers of Matthew 7:21-23, and very much like the LS false view of salvation that centers around “I-Salvation” .

    The Tax Collector (who is still one when he left), simply placed his faith in God’s mercy, rather than himself.

  119. Curtis, exactly!

  120. Misunderstanding of “straight and narrow”

    Matthew 7:14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    another thought on this . is it not the religious by their own works working their way to heaven or favor with god they think that is the narrow way while all the while they are working their way right into the lake of fire on the broadway ?

    Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
    Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

  121. Hi Ben
    right there with you Ben I Was ,Am ,and Being saved since my early 20’s under Grace but legalism took hold of me and now I realize I lost about 30 years , the last 5 years I have been rebuilding my Faith . I know to my emotions were a wreck and false gospel doctrine still angers me and am very sensitive to it . best advice I can give is be thankful for what you do see now in your position in Christ Jesus and rejoice in knowing your identification in Christ .
    Know this as well Jesus has prayed for you as well and all of us who shall believe .

    Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
    Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

    do our emotions fully recover from works based religion ? Well there was and Is one who was perfectly emotionally stable who walked this planet and that is Christ Jesus our Lord and now when we focus our attention on His word and admit our failures to Him we become more stable .
    allow the Word of God to occupy our minds by Holy Spirit

    Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

  122. socal, very interesting. Jesus would not have told people who were trusting in their works to get to heaven to do more works to get to heaven.

  123. Notice the LS inserted into the wiki page for the Tower of Siloam:


  124. Ben, I have prayed for you to feed on the truth of God’s word, and to tune out the LS lies.

  125. Lordship Salvation has severely damaged my walk with the doubt it creates, the guilt it induces, and the fear it instills. Even now I am still recovering but staggering along the way. Can you pray for my recovery and spiritual revival in my life? I would really appreciate that.

  126. Daniel, yeah, I hate the curveballs, because they keep people from Jesus.

  127. oooooh! I hate these curveballs! I’ll be glad when we get caught up, we won’t have to deal with this nonsense. Lordship Salvationist: “I turned from mah sins! I don’t sin no moar!” Oh Please! You never stopped sinning! You are a liar! A self-righteous hypocritical Liar! Wake up already lordship Salvationists!