What does God value more than anything?

In a recent Sunday School lesson, the leader guide was going through Matthew 5:13-16, part of Jesus's sermon on the mount. The passage clearly has evangelistic overtones, indicating that we are to shine our light to the world, and that we are also to be salt in this world, carrying with it the ideas of preservation, seasoning, and communicators of the New Covenant (see Leviticus 2:13 for a bit about how salt was used for covenants). The salt illustration is possibly referencing the permanence of it.

The lesson guide that we were using nearly always does a good job in going through the text and deriving applications. The last part of the lesson for this past Sunday, found on page 26 of The Inquest study entitled "Beyond Belief" is what bothered me. It is taking us on a walk through the Sermon on the Mount, and I am very much enjoying teaching the study to our small class. Once in a while, however, certain statments need to be corrected. I read these to my students, but before I did, I asked them to listen carefully and identify any statements that might not be correct. I'll go ahead and cite the suggestions (what I read) the guide makes as closing applications to the students, though I'll put them in a slightly different order so as to put the problem statement at the end:

Emphasize the importance of believers assuming their RESPONSIBILITY as salt and light in the world.

I agreed with this statement, and they did too. We have a responsibility to share the Gospel; we are commanded to do it. In the power of the Holy Spirit, we take His message to a lost and dying world, showing that we are His by our actions and telling others we are His by our witness, which is His Gospel.

God chose us to be used as instruments in the REDEMPTION OF MANKIND.

I also agreed with this statement, as did they. For whatever reason, God decided that it would be His message preached from the mouths of imperfect people such as you and me that He would use to call people to Himself.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek.

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.

Without the preaching and communicating of the Gospel, there is no salvation. God ordains those who will be saved of course, but He has also ordained the means by which He will call His elect to Himself. This means is none other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anyone who says otherwise is speaking contrary to the teachings of the Word of God. There -- I said it, and I meant it. :)

He has given believers the task of sharing the gospel. We are part of THE PLAN; there is no other PLAN.

This is the last statement in the section, another one I agree with. God has chosen this to be the way He draws people to Himself. There is no other plan, no other way for someone to be saved that to hear the message of Christ. General revelation doesn't cut it, that is, things observed through nature. We must know the Name of Christ.

Acts 4:12 There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved.

(above emphasis mine) Only in Jesus is there salvation, and only in His Name can we go when we speak the Gospel. The Name of Jesus is critical; there is no salvation without it.

Because God loves people more than anything, He has given believers the task of sharing the gospel.

Here is where I have disagreement. One of our students, when I read this, began to sing "God Loves People More than Anything," and another agreed with it. Right then I mentioned that this statement was not true, and there was surprise in the room -- my wife reaction being the exception to the surprise (she's wonderful -- and smart too, knowing the Scriptures well). I told them that God loves HIS GLORY more than anything; God does indeed love people, but He has given us the task of sharing the Gospel for the primary purpose that HE would receive MORE glory. My wife agreed, but the rest didn't seem to, so I went on and explained.

Isn't this the teaching of the very passage in Matthew that I linked to above? Let's get the last verse of it, Matthew 5:16--

Matthew 5:16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

What is the point of our light shining before men? It is that they (those before whom our light is shining) would see our good works. What then, is the purpose of them seeing our good works? What does the text SAY? Does it say that they may see our good deed so that they can get out of Hell? No. Does it say that they may see our good deeds so that they can live in Heaven some day? NO! The text clearly indicates that the goal of people seeing our good deeds is so that they would "give glory to your Father in heaven." THAT is the purpose Jesus is teaching, that the Father would be glorified.

I also gave them a few other passages, such as Isaiah 43: 6-7 and 25, and encouraged them to study it more. God saves us for His Name's sake, that He receive glory, the same reason He chose Israel. Yes, when God sets His love on us we are saved from Hell and bound for Heaven, but we're not the main reason He does it; it is for Himself, and we should be grateful for that! God doesn't base His love on sinful creatures such as ourselves; He bases it on His unchanging majesty, the surest foundation for salvation we could ever hope for. Thanks be to God! May our desire be for His Name and renown, and may we desire that in all things He is glorified. Why should we desire this? The main reason is simple; it is His desire.

All Glory be to God Alone.

The Fifth and Final Part of the Analysis of the AoG Position on Security

The last section in the AoG position paper is short, but a lot of exegesis needs to be done since they cite a few verses and erroneously use them to support their position. "Proof-texting," or pulling a verse out of context to try to demonstrate a point, can often be a dangerous thing to do, and is best avoided lest we misrepresent what the Word of God is saying. This position paper, sadly, does that frequently.

I pray that God would grant me the grace and wisom I need to divide His Word rightly as I move throughout this last section.

"IV. Salvation Is Forfeited by Rejecting Christ"

This is their summary section, and they grab a few more Scriptures to try to demonstrate this to be true. Let's see what happens.

"God does not let anyone go easily. (See Romans 10:21 where Paul was speaking of Israel, but the principle applies.) But a believer can be lost if he disregards the continuing checks of the Holy Spirit and reaches the point where he rejects Jesus as his Saviour."

I suppose since God doesn't let anyone go, you could say that He doesn't let anyone go easily. Their second statement is exegetically unfounded. My previous five posts (counting the addendum) show this to a large extent, and I'll do a little exegesis on John 10 when I finish this one, but let's deal with Romans 10:21 real quick, and we'll see again that we have an issue of context:

Romans 10:18 But I ask, "Did they not hear?" Yes, they did: Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the inhabited world.
Romans 10:19 But I ask, "Did Israel not understand?" First, Moses said: I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that lacks understanding.
Romans 10:20 And Isaiah says boldly: I was found by those who were not looking for Me; I revealed Myself to those who were not asking for Me.
Romans 10:21 But to Israel he says: All day long I have spread out My hands to a disobedient and defiant people.

OK then, what is Paul talking about here? He is stating that people who were NOT looking for God found Him (20). How did they find Him? He "revealed [Himself] to those who were not asking for [Him]." This is a clear reference to the Gentiles, peoples who were not seeking God, yet peoples that God decided to go to with His Gospel through people like Paul (and modern day missionaries) so that they would be saved (see verses 13-17). At this time, God has decided to overlook Israel as a nation. He invited them to come, but they did not. It just goes to show what Paul said in Romans 3:10-18 is true; no one seeks God. Israel thought they had claim on God's blessings, even when living in gross sin. God held out his hands, but didn't choose to reveal Himself completely and effectively. So, those Israelites with their sinful natures resisted God in every way, provoking Him to wrath and earning their just punishment, which all of us deserve.

Given the context, this doesn't appear to be talking about people who truly knew God, that is, the people who were "disobedient and defiant" since it contrasts them with the people to whom God revealed Himself in verse 20, people that really did follow Him, though originally they were not seeking Him. So then, we have an example of eisegesis on the part of the AoG since they ignored the #1 rule of good interpretation -- context.

"It is possible to believe for a while and in time of temptation to fall away (Luke 8:13). It is possible for the weak brother to perish for whom Christ died (1 Corinthians 8:11). It is possible for a name to be written in the Book of Life and then removed from the Book (Revelation 22:19)."

Alright, let's look at each of these three passages.

Luke 8:13 And the seeds on the rock are those who, when they hear, welcome the word with joy. Having no root, these believe for a while and depart in a time of testing.

This is part of Jesus's explanation of the parable of the sower. These people in this case "believe for a while" and "had no root" so they "depart in a time of testing." Given the fact that these people "had no root" it seems right to state that they never had real faith. The passage indicates that they never really had root in the word; they took it with joy, but apparently only had a superficial belief. Everything was fine when things were going well, but when testing came, their faith was proved to be ingenuine; it had no root in Christ. See my previous post's discussion on John 8:30-31.

Now for the passage in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 8:7 However, not everyone has this knowledge. In fact, some have been so used to idolatry up until now, that when they eat food offered to an idol, their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:8 Food will not make us acceptable to God. We are not inferior if we don't eat, and we are not better if we do eat.
1 Corinthians 8:9 But be careful that this right of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.
1 Corinthians 8:10 For if somebody sees you, the one who has this knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, won't his weak conscience be encouraged to eat food offered to idols?
1 Corinthians 8:11 Then the weak person, the brother for whom Christ died, is ruined by your knowledge.
1 Corinthians 8:12 Now when you sin like this against the brothers and wound their weak conscience, you are sinning against Christ.
1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to fall, I will never again eat meat, so that I won't cause my brother to fall.

Is Paul talking about salvation here? It doesn't appear so; he is discussing the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols and not doing something that would cause a brother to stumble who thinks it is dishonoring God to eat this meat. This passage has absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation, which is fairly obvious when given the context. The believer being ruined is not being references with regard to his salvation; it is referring back to his "weak conscience" and being led into sin by the more mature believer's reckless actions, and the result was very injurious. However, and it is bad if this were to happen, it is not a loss of salvation; this person is still referred to as a brother. The context makes it pretty clear.

Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.
Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book.

This is a confusing passage, because we really don't have a lot of context to work with. With that said, this passage doesn't have a soteriological (salvation discussion) context either. Furthermore, this is not talking about the Book of Life. The "this book" is talking about "this prophetic book" which has to be talking about the book of Revelation that John is now finishing. So then, if someone were to take away the words of this book (Revelation), then God removes his share of the tree of life. It seems to be a reference back to Genesis with Adam and Eve (the real Tree of Life), in that if someone does this, then death will result. God took away Adam and Eve's right to eat from that tree and have eternal life; so then, someone who takes away from the words in this book will also not have life in Heaven (the holy city). Do true believers do this? The answer is a resounding no, as we have established from other verses. However, it might be of help to grab one of John's references to this (from a passage that really IS dealing with how people are saved), since John also wrote Revelation:

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish--ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand.
John 10:29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

No one snatches them out of the Father's hand; no one snatches them out of the Son's hand when Jesus gives someone eternal life (saves them). Some would say, "well, can't we jump out even if no one else can snatch us away?" My answer would be twofold:
1.) No one means no one; no exceptions.
2.) Secondly, someone who raises that argument is ignoring the word "never" in the same verse. Someone who Jesus saves will "never perish." This is a double negative in the Greek, which serves to strengthen the denial (hence the Holman's translation with the emphasis). Someone who is saved CANNOT be lost.

"It is not always possible to determine whether a person has already turned his back on Jesus as his Saviour. Therefore it is well to leave judgment of these matters in the hands of the omniscient God. Of this we can be certain, however; if God does not give up in His efforts to bring the prodigal back, neither should the church of Jesus Christ. Too often people write off an individual when God has not written him off at all."

This can have some good application to testing to see if someone is truly saved or not. If they are being convicted, then they truly were. However, if they show evidence that they are not and do not care at all, chances are they were never saved, as I have stated before. I will readily agree that we write people off far too often.

"The Bible does recognize the possibility of forfeiting salvation,"

No it does not, as I think has been evidenced clearly in this series.

"but it never ceases to offer hope for anyone who wants to respond to the entreaty of the Holy Spirit. Jesus' invitation is without qualification. He speaks to all when He says, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). Again the Bible speaks to all when it says, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13)."

This is a good final statement, and indicates that indeed, the Gospel must go out. Jesus's invitation is universal, and those He quickens and want to respond will. Only the elect will want to, as we've already discussed, but, since we will never know who the elect person is until they trust Christ, we share indiscriminately. And this, like everything else is,

For the Glory of God Alone.

An Analysis of the AG Security Position, part the fourth

As before, my words in plain type, theirs in BOLD.

"III. Continued Sin Will Adversely Affect the Believer's Faith"

This is their next section title. They are building on their previous arguments, as one would expect; it is simply logical progression. The problem is that the points they have made thus far really don't jive well with sound doctrine or, by the same token, good biblical hermeneutics.

I wouldn't have a problem with this statement if they meant that a believer will have increased doubts if he/she continues in sin. However, I doubt this is their meaning given their official position and the thrust of their paper.

"The Bible makes it clear that in this life Christians do sin and that the Christian's recourse when he has sinned is forgiveness through Christ (1 John 1:8, 9; 2:1)."

I agree completely! That statement was pretty well worded and well supported with Scripture. Nicely done indeed; I was encouraged when I read it.

"On the other hand, it is unnatural for a Christian to continue in a life of sin. That is, as long as he has the life of Christ within him, he cannot habitually sin. (See 1 John 3:8, 9 where the Greek tense is the continuous present.) The one who practices sin is of the devil. Whoever is born of God does not practice sin, does not keep on habitually sinning. He cannot keep on sinning the way the child of the devil does."

WOW! Again, nicely done! They brought out a good point with the grammar too, which I always appreciate. Sadly, this appears to be an isolated incident; they didn't do their grammar work on many of the texts they cited for their position (noted in my earlier posts). Had they, then they might have a different view on this matter of security.

"Instead, the Christian should grow spiritually and lay aside sin, recognizing that continued sin will adversely affect his faith."

YES, the Christian should grow spiritually and lay aside sin. Otherwise, I would say, the chances are great that the person was never a Christian to begin with. Continued sin should affect one's ASSURANCE, and I pray that God's grace would work that out in those who really don't have faith that they would be saved, and would also restore true believers to fellowship with Himself. However, the AG implication here appears to be (from the context of this passage) that a true believer, if he continues in sin, will lose salvation. Perhaps I'll borrow from John on this point, since they did too. I'll just use a couple of verses down from where they stopped in 1 John 2:

1 John 2:3 This is how we are sure that we have come to know Him: by keeping His commands.
1 John 2:4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," without keeping His commands, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1 John 2:5 But whoever keeps His word, truly in him the love of God is perfected. This is how we know we are in Him:
1 John 2:6 the one who says he remains in Him should walk just as He walked.

The Scripture seems clear. If someone claims to have come to know Christ and doesn't keep His commands, that person is a liar. He never came to Christ. No life change = no real salvation. Furthermore:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.
1 John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.

John indicates that "many antichrists" went out from the church, but said that they didn't really belong to the church. If they really did, then they would NOT have left. John then indicates something different for his readers -- that they are different from those that left, that they "all have knowledge" and have God's annointing. Those that leave didn't have it; those that remain (and continue to remain by the grace God provides, I might add) do have it.

"Does this imply that a Christian can sin and still be saved? The first impulse of many may be to say that he cannot. Yet it is necessary in this connection to consider the fact that worry, pride, envy, and bitterness are accepted as common failings. Few would suggest that believers committing these sins are lost.

Moreover if it be insisted that God demands present sinless perfection from believers, then the question must be raised: "Is man's standing in Christ based upon his own righteousness or upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to him by faith?" If man is saved only as long as he maintains a flawless life, then salvation is not of grace, but of works!

Then too if man is accepted by God only if he is without fault, Christian living is not free from condemnation as Paul insisted in Romans 8:1. It is rather a continual exercise in soul-searching and penance, full of fear and condemnation and void of the joy and confidence that a knowledge of salvation can bring. (See Romans 5:9-11 where it is clear that the God who loved us enough to provide for our salvation loves us enough to provide for us all the way to glory. This assurance gives us joy in Him.)

A related question is: "What would happen to a believer who commits a sin at that moment Jesus returns?" Those who maintain that a Christian cannot commit a sin and still be saved would teach that such a believer is lost and doomed for eternity. What despair!

The believer is not in a revolving door, moving in and out of the grace of God! He is secure in the hand of God, and neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate him from the love of the Father!"

WOW. I find this statement to be VERY good. Given all of the Scripture they cited and the conclusions they draw, I honestly cannot understand why they don't bring it ONE step further and say "because of this, our salavation is secure, because for it to be forfeited would be condemnation for a believer (which is not allowed per Romans 8:1) and would therefore be something that would separate us from the love of Christ (violating Romans 8:39). It would also be a violation of Romans 5:9-11 that they cite above (hit the link!), since Paul states clearly that since we (Christians) have been "declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath." (emphasis mine) Those who are justified (declared righteous) WILL be saved! When do we get justification? We get it when we place our faith in Christ (that of course He gives us)!

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

What peace would there be if we could indeed lose our salvation, if maintaining it were based on some work of our own? Would we really have "peace with God" or would He be still be at war with us, having some sort of armistice agreement, until we sin too much? Food for thought.

"This must be said, however, with further emphasis that it is not the natural thing for the Christian to sin. He cannot keep on sinning the same old sins. Having been born of the Spirit, the believer is a new creature for whom old things have passed away and new things have come (2 Corinthians 5:17, NASB).

It is thus now unnatural to sin. The old life is a thing of the past, a latent force within, subdued and reckoned dead by the new Presence (Romans 6:11). What was the custom and practice before now becomes unnatural and contrary to the new impulses of the heart.

"He that is born of God," John said, "cannot sin [or keep on practicing sin]." That is, sin is foreign to the new nature. The new nature that is ours by faith does not sin. Thus when the old nature temporarily and unexpectedly regains ascendancy, the whole new being revolts against this unnatural intrusion. The immediate recourse is to Christ."

MORE good stuff! Again, I'm very happy with their statement here, and I wish it were taught more often.

"As the believer who has sinned turns to Christ, he turns not with the despair of a lost soul, but with the secure knowledge that as a son of God he has an Advocate with the Father--who is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse from all unrighteousness. Thus the believer exercises his prerogative as a child of God, never needing to doubt his standing, which he knows is based upon the infallible righteousness of Christ by faith."

Oh, if they would but continue on this course! Sadly, however, they do not.

"Having stressed the sovereignty and grace of God, it is also imperative to bring the free will and responsibility of the believer into focus. God does not withdraw the power of choice from the person who believes. By the exercise of free will the believer becomes a child of God, and by the continued exercise of free will he remains a child of God. To keep on believing is the believer's responsibility."

Much of this contradicts what they just said, and also contradicts Hebrews 12:2, which I cited before in a previous post. Truth be told, they have already talked about the responsibility of man in their previous statements! We are indeed responsible for our sin, and responsible to live for God. However, it is JESUS who gives us the grace to live that way. As they indicated above, HIS imputed righteousness is what we rely on -- not our own works! Someone who is truly born again will NOT live habitually in sin; John indicated it, as did Paul. That being the case, a true believer WILL be convicted and repent, unless God kills them outright as His means of keeping them in faith (as is mentioned in a previous post of mine referencing 1 Corinthians 11:30-32 in relation to the Lord's Supper). Salvation is of the LORD from beginning to end; we must not lose site of that!

"The believer must also be careful that he does not take a light attitude toward sin. He dare not use the grace of God as a license to sin."Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" asked Paul (Romans 6:1). The answer is an emphatic negative."

Again, I agree completely!

"Paul knew and taught that continued sin will adversely affect a believer's faith, and faith is the very thing that makes a relationship with God possible."

Yes, faith is the thing that makes a relationship with God possible, but Paul didn't indicate that continued sin will affect a believer's faith. To make that statement based on the above text is NOT doing exegesis. In the answer Paul gives to the question he poses in verse one, it is indeed an emphatic negative. However, it is more than that:

Romans 6:2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

It is unthinkable that a person who truly was dead to sin could still live in it. It doesn't happen; God doesn't allow it to happen, one way or another. He'll either restore or remove. If someone is experiencing NO conviction from the Holy Spirit and is living in sin, then they were NEVER saved, or as Scripture says, are "illegitimate children."

Hebrews 12:8 But if you are without discipline--which all receive--then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

"All receive" -- all who? All true sons. If someone doesn't receive discipline from God, they are not really true sons, period.

"Continued sin becomes presumptuous, high-handed, and is evidence of rebellion. (See Numbers 15:30, 31.) Rebellion is the opposite of the trust and obedience of faith."

OK, now things get more interesting. Let's look at those verses:

Numbers 15:30 "But the person who acts defiantly, whether native or foreign resident, blasphemes the LORD. That person is to be cut off from his people.
Numbers 15:31 He will certainly be cut off, because he has despised the LORD's word and broken His command; his guilt remains on him."

The context of this passage is that of unintentional sins , for which a sacrifice could be offered (going back to verse 22), and intentional ones (described in the above verses as defiant sins) which would indicate someone being cut off. Making a connection between how God worked then, that is, betwen all biological descendents of Israel compared to the spiritual children of God, needs to be done carefully. There are some (indeed many) parallels, but putting it in here doesn't quite work. The reason is that, as Christians, we sin both unintentionally AND intentionally. If I am ignorant of a biblical command and I violate it, then I sin unintentionally. If I speak harshly to my wife, then I intentionally sinned. If I were to lie to someone, then I would be intentionally sinning. If I were to look at a neighbor's car and want that for myself, then I would be sinning willfully. Would we then say that if we ever sin on purpose that we forfeit our status with God? Of course not! Yet, that appears to be the case here in this passage in Numbers if we apply it to the church and to Christians. I would again say that if a person were to remain defiant with no conviction of sin, they then were never saved. The fact that I, when I have sinned intentionally, am convicted and then repent would therefore indicate the opposite for me, and for that I thank and praise God!

"Believers must be on guard constantly, "looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God" (Hebrews 12:15). The Bible's exhortation is: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Corinthians 13:5)."

Agreed, we must be on guard constantly. However, do these verses indicate a person who is losing his salvation? Let's examine them.

First, we have Hebrews 12:15. Let's look at the context.

Hebrews 12:14 Pursue peace with everyone, and holiness--without it no one will see the Lord.
Hebrews 12:15 See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no root of bitterness springs up, causing trouble and by it, defiling many.
Hebrews 12:16 And see that there isn't any immoral or irreverent person like Esau, who sold his birthright in exchange for one meal.

OK, without holiness no one will see the Lord. That is verse 14. What appears to follow in verse 15 is an exhortation to the believers to be aware that there are likely people among them who are not truly believers, giving Esau's attitude as an example (16). Given that verse eight (cited above) is in this chapter as well, this fits the context. So then, for someone to "fall short of the grace of God" would then indicate that they didn't ever have it; "fall short" is, according to Strong, a better translation of the Greek hustereo. If you want to keep the word "fail" then that is fine, but it would mean part of what Thayer indicates on it: "metaphorically fail to become a partaker."

Second, for 2 Corinthians 13:5, a better word for "prove" would be "test" or "discern." Paul, like the writer of Hebrews, understood that there might be wolves among the sheep. He was not indicating that a person could lose salvation here by any means. Let's get the context:

2 Corinthians 13:6 And I hope you will recognize that we are not failing the test.
2 Corinthians 13:7 Now we pray to God that you do nothing wrong, not that we may appear to pass the test, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear to fail.
2 Corinthians 13:8 For we are not able to do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

Hmmm... Paul goes on to say that he and his companions (most notably Timothy) are not failing the test. Not only that, but he was appealing to GOD that they would do nothing wrong, showing understanding that it was God who enables them to "do what is right."

I find verse eight to be fascinating. Paul was not ABLE to do anything against the truth. The word is dunamai, indicating they had no power to do it. They did not have the ability to go against the truth, the Gospel. So much for "free will." :)

"Why such precautions and concern? These repeated warnings are meaningful only when it is recognized that the loss of faith means the eternal loss of the soul. For while it is true that the believer's salvation is not earned by his righteous deeds nor his salvation maintained by them, it is equally true that as the believer obtains his salvation by faith, so he can lose it by unbelief!"

Saying "only" is making a very strong statement. I would contend that I made a meaningful statement relating to the two above passages without indicating that someone can lose faith in Christ, which eliminates this whole argument. The "precautions and concern," given the context, appear to indicate what I mentioned, and since it is God who maintains our faith, then our deeds cannot change that. Rather, our deeds will confirm whether or not God ever granted us faith in the first place.

"Sin and unbelief are closely related."

Well, since unbelief is sin, I would have to agree. :)

"Sin jeopardizes faith, and loss of faith means loss of standing."

Since our faith is carried to completion by God, then no, a sin we do won't jeopardize it. See what I've said before on this in this post and previous ones.

"Hebrews 3:12-14 bears this out. The writer warned the brethren against unbelief which will lead to a departure from the living God. He mentioned the deceitfulness of sin as the cause of unbelief and reminded them that we are partakers of Christ only if we hold the beginning of our confidence unto the end."

OK, let's grab Hebrews 3:7-14 and then a couple of verses in chapter 4.

Hebrews 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: Today, if you hear His voice,
Hebrews 3:8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the desert,
Hebrews 3:9 where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, and saw My works
Hebrews 3:10 for 40 years. Therefore I was provoked with this generation and said, "They always go astray in their hearts, and they have not known My ways."
Hebrews 3:11 So I swore in My anger, "They will not enter My rest."
Hebrews 3:12 Watch out, brothers, so that there won't be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart that departs from the living God.
Hebrews 3:13 But encourage each other daily, while it is still called today, so that none of you is hardened by sin's deception.
Hebrews 3:14 For we have become companions of the Messiah if we hold firmly until the end the reality that we had at the start.

The bold above is an Old Testament quote and appears that way in the HCSB text. It is interesting to note that in verse ten that the writer indicates that they "have not known my ways," these who will not enter God's rest. These people "always" went astray as well. Based on this example, we then look at verses 12--14. It would appear that someone then who is departing "from the living God" would have been a person who, despite the encouragement offered in verse 13, "always" goes astray. Their supposed profession of faith, their "reality that [they] had at the start," proved to be false. Why? Verse 14 indicates that if we truly "have become companions of the Messiah" then we'll "hold firmly to the end." Not only that, the beginning of chapter four looks back to this:

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, while the promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear so that none of you should miss it.
Hebrews 4:2 For we also have received the good news just as they did; but the message they heard did not benefit them, since they were not united with those who heard it in faith
Hebrews 4:3a (for we who have believed enter the rest)

Do you see? The message that the people mentioned previously (in chapter three) received didn't benefit them; they didn't get "united with those who heard it in faith." What do those who really believe get? They get the rest. Those that don't really believe do not get the rest that God promises.

"Standing in Christ is by faith."

Yes.

"Remove faith, and there is no longer any standing."

Well, yes, but that never happens, as was demonstrated.

"This is why Scripture admonishes the believer to "take heed . . . lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief" (Hebrews 3:12)."

It would be better, given the context, to say that we are talking about people in the community of believers who were not truly Christians. In the same way, there were people in the community of Israel who truly didn't fear God. The parallel works this time. :)

To God ALONE Be the GLORY!

A Wonderful Explanation

I've had the privilege of sharing the Doctrines of Grace with a couple of students recently, and I am thankful for the experience. As is common with such discussions, verses like John 3:16 came up, questions about why God only chooses some, and the like, how it is that God ordains everything.

I was reading an article last night on Slambammin's site (the link is on the list at the right) where he discusses prayer with a person who sent him an email on it. He's 18 years old, but let me tell you, this was one of the clearest presentations of how God works in prayer and His absolute sovereignty. I strongly recommend it; he's a bit more eloquent that I am at the moment. :)

SDG

Part Three of the Analysis of the AoG Position on Security

As before, I'll be putting the AG statements in BOLD and mine will be in regular type, like this.

"II. Salvation Is Received and Kept by Faith"

This is the title of their next section, and when I first read it, it rubbed me wrong. I decided that the problem was how they were saying faith was maintained, which is that man is responsible for maintaining it. Now that I understand what the problem was, I'm now ready to discuss their reasoning.

"The Bible clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and that the just shall live by faith (Hebrews 10:38; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Habakkuk 2:4)."

These verses indicate just that! I suspect that they are going to try to use Hebrews 10:38 to indicate that someone can indeed lose salvation, if they "draw back." However, I will maintain (as discussed a little in previous posts and I will further discuss) that the true "righteous one" will not draw back, and those that do were never truly saved at all, hence verse 39:

Hebrews 10:39 But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have faith and obtain life.

The second "but" in that verse is a word that indicates STRONG contrast. In other words, the author is saying that we are not those who draw back.... BUT, we are those who have FAITH! In other words, those who drew back didn't really have faith. The contrast appears to indicate that those who have faith are NOT those who draw back and are destroyed.

"As the believer's salvation is received, not by an act of righteousness but by an act of faith, so the believer's salvation is maintained, not by acts of righteousness but by a life of faith!"

This is true. However, to say that the faith is maintained on our own is not correct. God gave us the faith, and He maintains it and brings it to completion! This is best seen in Hebrews 12:2.

Hebrews 12:2 keeping our eyes on Jesus, the source and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that lay before Him endured a cross and despised the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of God's throne.

This is a verse that I cited before, but only emphasize the first part. (the bold in it is my epmhasis and not in the text itself) Before, I mentioned that Jesus is the source of our faith, which indeed is required if salvation is to be all of grace and not works. The SECOND word there, "perfecter" means "a completer, that is, consummater: - finisher." (Strong) So then, Jesus starts our faith, and HE is the one who finishes it. So then, I have no problem at all agreeing with the words of the AG statement, but their theological underpinnings...with these I cannot agree, given the text I just cited.

Allow me to quote from Dr. Wayne Grudem, from a couple of footnotes on pages 790 and 791 of his Systematic Theology:

"Of course, those who believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (such as myself) would affirm that the way God keeps us safe is by causing us to continue to believe in Christ. . . so to say that Scripture also emphasizes the necessity of continuing in faith is not to object to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as it has been expressed by Reformed theologians frequently in the history of the church. In other words, there is a way to believe in both sets of texts without concluding that people who are truly born again can lose their salvation."

...and the second quote on page 791....

"Rather than assuming that passages on human responsibility negate the idea of God's sovereign protection, it seems better to adopt the Reformed position that says that God's sovereign protection is consistent with human responsibility, because it works through human responsibility and guarantees that we will respond by maintaining the faith that is necessary to persevere."

He says it better than I do. :)

"Being a Christian then is not a matter of works; it is a matter of faith. This must be emphasized. In no case is the sinner accepted by God on the basis of any good that he has done. He is saved totally and solely by grace through faith. By faith he accepts the fact that Christ died in his stead. By faith he throws himself upon the mercy of God and accepts Christ as his Saviour. By faith he sees himself clothed with the righteousness of Christ--a standing imputed to him through no merit of his own (Philippians 3:9). He knows that he is accepted through faith, and this knowledge gives him peace and joy."

Wow, I LIKE this statement. Glory be to God; in NO case are we accepted based on any good we have done. However, as I am sure the reader of this blog will see by this point, this statement by the AG is somewhat contradictory to their views of election. How can it be, if there is absolutely NO good in us that would cause God to accepts us, that God elects on the basis of forseen faith? The two positions are contradictory and cannot both be true.

The only thing I *might* change is rewording the statement about "accepting" Christ and replace the word with "receive" (see John 1:12) since it is a biblical term. Other than that, bravo!

"The believer's state must not be confused with his standing, however. He stands secure because of faith. His standing is the result of God's grace which he has accepted by faith. He stands justified, clothed with the righteousness of Christ! The believer's state, or the working out of the righteousness of Christ in the believer, is another matter. It involves spiritual growth, a progressive sanctification by obedient cooperation with the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:5-7; Romans 6:12, 13; 8:13; Colossians 3:1-5). During this maturing process the believer must learn by his mistakes as well as by his victories. Nevertheless, his security is never in doubt as long as his faith in Christ is steadfast, for he is kept by faith."

OK, the last sentence is the most important here. However, our security is never in doubt, period. The reason for it is above; Christ causes us to remain in faith. It is the working of His grace that maintains both our state and our standing.

I would also agree that the believer must learn by mistakes and victories, but I would maintain that, if we are truly talking about a believer, God will bring him through these situations. If the faith never really was true, than such a person will "fall away" because they never really had faith. A true believer does indeed stand justified, clothed with the righteousness of Christ! Christ never removes that righteousness either, but maintains it, and raises up ALL true believers at the last day:

John 6:37 Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:39 This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day.
John 6:40 For this is the will of My Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Salvation, and its maintenance, are the works of Christ (above emphasis mine). The subjunctive use here appears to be indicating purpose and result rather than possibility (as my saying "I turned on my computer that I may print my paper." my purpose was to print and the result is that I did; it wasn't intended as a statement of possibility).

"His spiritual growth varies in excellence and degree according to the yieldedness and attention he affords to the Spirit who is at work within him. Yet all the while as the perfecting processes go on, he is credited with the perfection through the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. Through the process of "becoming conformed" he is secure; his salvation is sure."

As seen before, we are secure by the power of God. The very fact that we are "being conformed" indicates that God is working in us. Of course, there are plenty of counterfeits, but if we truly are "being conformed" then out salvation is secure since it is God who is causing us to maintain faith.

"'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus' (Romans 8:1)."

This is an important verse! If we are truly in Christ Jesus, then there is no condemnation for us. The question to ask is this: if someone in Christ, whom Christ has saved, were to lose salvation, would that not be a form of condemnation? The answer I think is obvious.

"The believer's security, then, is solely through faith, both in the receiving of salvation and in the keeping of salvation. This security is made possible through the mercy of God in imputing the righteousness of His own Son to the fallible and faulty believer as long as he maintains a living faith in Christ. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21)."

The thing is, as stated above, it is GOD and NOT us that causes us to "maintain a living faith in Christ." We definitely act it out and benefit from it, but it is GOD who is the source and completer. Again, in the verse the AG cites above has a subjunctive in it -- it appears to be one of purpose again. This is not a possibility; this is a purpose/result clause again. "that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" could well be worded, with the same meaning "that we would (or should, or shall) be made the righteousness of God in him." Some Bible translations, though few and far between, render it that way for understanding, but it isn't necessary to translate it that way; all that is required is an understanding of grammar, English, Greek, or otherwise, in how the subjunctive tense works.

Soli Deo Gloria!

true
Tyre
tire
tyre
Tue
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

A few comments on 2 Peter 3:9, An addendum to Part Two

After I completed my post, I noticed that I hadn't dealt with 2 Peter 3:9, which was a verse that the AG cited in their position paper in that section. It got past, because they cited the reference in their introduction, but didn't mention it in their elaboration on that point. Sneaky. (grin)

I also want to make it clear that my purpose for this series of posts is not to slam the Assemblies of God. I firmly believe they have taken an unscriptural position, but that doesn't mean I want in any way to gloat over them. There once was a time when I denied the beautiful doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints and the rest of Reformed Theology, but God saw fit to bring me to a deeper understanding of His grace, and that salvation, through and through, is of the LORD and not of us. My prayer is that all who read these blogs, and even the Assemblies of God, would come to understand that and to give God the glory.

Without further delay then, here it is, the verse in its entirety:

2Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

OK, there is the verse! Now, this verse is often used by Arminian-leaning people to state that God desires the salvation of every person ever born, and has planned for no one to perish. After all, God is patient; He is hoping that all will eventually come to Him, so the reasoning goes.

I am not here to tell you that God in some sense doesn't love every person in the world (though I would argue that He doesn't love them all in the same way, or everyone indeed would be saved; we'll talk about 1 Timothy 2:1-7 at some point probably; for a WONDERFUL discussion of most of this, see this link), but I *am* saying that this passage doesn't support that. The number one rule of interpretation is context, and the context insists that we give this passage the meaning that Peter is talking about the Elect of God, and NOT every single individual in the entire world.

How can we be sure of that? Part of the reason is that "all" doesn't mean "all" the way most people think it does. Think about it -- how often when we use the words "all" "everywhere" "never" "always" or other universal terms, do we actually mean what we are literally saying? People use those words all the time to explain what they mean -- see? Do people REALLY use those words "all the time" or do they do it frequently? If someone were to use those words "all the time" then they would be doing nothing else! -- WAIT -- YES they would! They would be breathing, looking around, probably hearing something (their own voice if nothing else), perhaps thinking about various topics, having blood circulate throughout their bodies, etc.

You see, many, MANY times, when people use universal terms, they really are not intending them to be taken in a universal sense. The Scripture is no different, and here is a clear example:

John 12:19 Then the Pharisees said to one another, "You see? You've accomplished nothing. Look--the world has gone after Him!"

Ah, there is a universal term! We see here the term "world." Now, does it mean that every single person in the world had gone after Jesus? Of course not, because, if no one else, those Pharisees weren't going after Him! They were merely observing that Jesus had a large following at that particular time. There are other examples, such as in Luke 2 (I'll be using the ESV for this ONE verse):

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

Ah, "all the world." Does this mean that every single person everywhere was going to be registered? Such a decree never went out in that case, and we'd have to declare the Scripture in error. Of course, Luke is not saying that all parts of the world received this decree. He is saying the whole ROMAN world received the decree, and is using a universal term to convey that meaning.

So then, we need to ask ourselves how Peter using the terms in this passage. Is he talking about every individual unconditionally, or is he referring to "all" of a particular sort of people? When we look at the passage, it appears very much that the latter case is true.

First, let's look at what Peter is trying to do to encourage them. "The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay.." What promise is Peter referring to? Verse four tells us:

2 Peter 3:4 saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation."

It would appear that the promise Peter is writing about then (in fact, it's very obvious) is Jesus's coming. This also wouldn't be His first coming, as that has already happened; this is the second coming of Jesus, when He would return in glory. So, it would appear very much so, that Peter is writing this to encourage believers. Furthermore, let's consider verse 1 of chapter three:

2 Peter 3:1 Dear friends, this is now the second letter I've written you; in both, I awaken your pure understanding with a reminder,

OK, this is his second letter. Do we have his first letter? We do! Peter introduces his second letter to believers, and he does the same with the first one. However, the first letter is even more important in ascertaining Peter's audience.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ: To the temporary residents of the Dispersion in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen
1 Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for the sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

I went ahead and emphasized the word "chosen." The word is often translated, as in the ESV, elect. The word in the Greek is eklektos which means "picked out, chosen by God (to obtain salvation in Christ)" (Thayer, Strong). So then, Peter's audience is the same in both letters; He is writing to the Elect of God, those chosen to receive salvation!

With that in mind, let's go back to 2 Peter 3:9 and discuss a different word and how the "all" should be taken, along with another universal term, "any" --

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

With whom is the Lord being patient? He is being patient with "you." Who is the "you?" We established before that Peter's audience is "those chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Foreknowledge was discussed in part two. :) Peter's audience is the elect, those chosen by God for salvation. So then, given Peter's audience, we can deduce through exegesis that the "you" in this passage is referring to God's elect. Context indicates that we need to interpret it this way.

That being the case, the "you" being the elect, who then is Peter saying that God is not wanting to perish? If He is "patient with you, not wanting any to perish," context indicates that the "any" would be referring back to the you. In other words, Peter is in effect saying "not wanting any of [you] to perish." In addition to that, the thought follows that Peter would be qualifying the word "all" in the same way. He is using universal terms, but isn't really meaning the universal statement by them, as I discussed above. So then, the verse means this:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you [the elect], not wanting any [of you, the elect] to perish, but all [of you, the elect] to come to repentance.

Given the context and exegesis of the passage, this is the correct meaning, and is also why the AG cannot use it to support their first summary statement, that is, that salvation is available for every man. When we share the Gospel we do so indiscriminately, because we do not know who the elect are; God doesn't tell us who they are anyway. We present salvation to every person without distinction, but ultimately, only the elect will be saved. It is available for everyone who will believe, but only the elect will believe, and they are the ones Jesus is delaying His return to save: those chosen before the foundation of the world, according to Ephesians 1 as discussed in part two.


******* UPDATE 6/11/2006 *****************
Dr. James white has written an excellent article that references 2 Peter 3:9 and the context very well, highlighting some things that I didn't address in this post. You can find the article HERE, and I strongly recommend its reading.

To God Alone be the Glory

An Analysis of the Position of the Assemblies of God on Security, Part Two

As before, I'll have their words in bold and quotes; mine will appear in normal type.

"I. Salvation Is Available for Every Man"

This is the title of their section. It's something natural to say, but there are exegetical issues with even that statement. I hope to show those below.

"Two questions may be asked: 'Are some predestined to be saved and others to be lost?' and, 'Who are the elect?' The answer is clear when it is recognized that the message of the gospel is one of 'whosoever will.' No one reading the New Testament can miss the impact of this great truth."

I will readily agree that the questions that they ask are very important, and I commend them for pointing out those issues. I will also agree that the message of the Gospel is one of "whosoever will." However, their last sentence, though I wish it to be true with my greatest desire, it indeed is NOT true. MANY people miss the impact of this great statement, and I weep at times when I think about it:

Psalm 119:136 My eyes pour out streams of tears because people do not follow Your instruction.

I have done this, and I credit it to the glory of God alone. Dr. James White on his website (Alpha and Omega ministries, click the link at the right if you like) deals with the issue of "whosoever will" on his site, pertaining to John 3:16 (which I cannot help but think the AG church is referencing here with their statement). However, the issue of John 3:16 came up in our youth group at church a while back, and I posted an exegesis on it and the surrounding verses here on the forums of our youth group. I strongly encourage you to hit the link and read it in its entirety, paying special attention to the FIRST and LAST TWO posts in the thread (because I correct myself a little there at the end). I reference a lot of Dr. White's material in it, and it will show by exegesis of Scripture, that yes indeed, it is a matter of "whosoever will" but it is NOT what the AG is assuming it means.

In answer to their first question above, "are some predestined to be saved and others lost," is that the answer is a little complicated. The short answer is YES, but there is a little more to it than that. I'll address how election works later in this post, since the AG mentions it. However, election does not work the same as reprobation; this doesn't mean that God doesn't sovereignly "pass over" those whom He hasn't chosen, but it is not that God is unjust in the matter, nor is He forbidding people to come to Him who really want to come. Election is unconditional (which I'll discuss more later); reprobation is not. I mention this in my post I linked to earlier, and it explains it quite well I think:

It is critical to understand that in the Bible, God is never the one to blame for the sins of mankind. Even though it is true in a sense that people are not saved because God has not elected them, there [can be] an inherent mistake in that line of thought. The blame is always placed on man, because man is determined to go on sinning. It is not as if God was dangling a carrot in front of us and then laughing at us when we wanted to follow Him and could not. NO! Verses 19 and 20 [of John chapter three] tell us clearly that while we were lost in sin (and all those who still are) we HATED the light! This passage tells us of a few reasons why we don't come to Christ:
* We loved darkness -- that is why we didn't come to the light!
* Our deeds were evil -- that is why we didn't come to the light!
* We practiced wicked things -- -- that is why we didn't come to the light!
* We hated the light -- that is why we didn't come to the light!
* We avoided the light -- that is why we didn't come to the light!
* We didn't want our evil deeds to be exposed -- -- that is why we
didn't come to the light!

With that said, I will leave the issue of election until later in this post; much more digging must be done, by the grace of God.

"However, in Romans 9-11 there are some statements that seem to imply that man's free will is excluded in the matter of the believer's salvation and that God in His choice of the elect exercises His divine sovereignty entirely apart from man's volition."

The AG is correct; these chapters do indeed imply, in fact, MORE than imply -- blatantly state -- that God's election is not based on man's volition. This is not to say that man doesn't willingly follow Christ; most certainly man does this, but when dealing with the issue of God's election of individuals to salvation, man has NOTHING to do with it. I'll explain further below, following the example the AG puts forth.

"For example:
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.... I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.... Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Romans 9:11, 13, 15, 16, 18).
When this passage is considered in the light of all that God's Word teaches concerning election, however, it is evident that man's will is involved in his election. Jacob was chosen before having done good or evil, but God's choice was on the basis of what He foreknew Jacob would do.
This truth is brought out in Peter's letter to "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." These believers were recognized to be "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Peter 1:1, 2).
This same truth is stated in Romans 8:29. Paul wrote, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.""

Ah, here is the crux of the matter; what does "foreknew" mean? Clearly, the AG position is that God foresaw what those people would do (Jacob, the elect Peter addresses), and that this is the basis for God's choosing of them -- their foreseen faith and other activities. This is a common interpretation today -- and a common mistake. There are a couple of reasons I would like to discuss why this is a mistake in interpretation, and why it amounts to a mishandling of the Word of God. In fact, it teaches a salvation that is, at least in some way, based on works.

First, I'll address the works issue. Allow me to quote from Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--
Ephesians 2:9 not from works, so that no one can boast.

To say that God chose people on the basis of what they would do (and the "what they would do" is often called their faith) makes some kind of good work the basis of God's grace. The problem with this is critical, and may be obvious: if you add ANYTHING to grace, it CEASES to be grace. By definition, grace is "unmerited favor." That is, it is favor showed to someone that is completely unearned, and there is nothing in the object of this grace that would cause the giver of this grace to give it; it is completely unmerited. God is free to elect those He wants, and He does so (or rather, has done so already) based on His freedom only. Some of the verses that the AG cited in their paper were:

Romans 9:11 (for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to election might stand,
Romans 9:12 not from works but from the One who calls) she was told: The older will serve the younger.
Romans 9:13 As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

Note the difference here when compared to Ephesians 2:8-9 as cited above. Ephesians tells us not from works, but by faith and grace, and that this faith and grace are not from ourselves, not by works (see Hebrews 12:2; Jesus is the SOURCE of our faith). But what do we see in Romans 9? We have a similar phrase "not from works." Great! Knowing Ephesians 2, we would expect the reasoning to be "but from faith" right? But we don't see that -- we see "not from works but from the One who calls."

Why is that? The reason is this: salvation is dependent on faith (which has its source in Christ); election is dependant on NOTHING that man does. Christ gives faith, and we then put the faith He gives us in Him willingly; however, we have nothing to do with our election. It is solely an act of God that He does in His freedom, not depending on anything that man does, period. Those who receive the gift of faith to believe in Christ are those who God has elected from "before the foundation of the world" as we will see in another Ephesians passage in just a bit. For now, I'll move on to my second reason the AG's interpretation is a mistake.

Second, they use the term "foreknew" incorrectly. Remember how I addressed it above? I didn't use the term "foreknow" when talking about God looking at future events; I used the word "foresee." There is a difference here, and the Bible makes the distinction even though we often do not in our modern vernacular.

The word in Romans 8:29, "foreknow"(prognosko) {and the related word in 1 Peter 1:2, "foreknowledge (prognosis), does not only mean to look into the future and see something that is going to happen. Strong says it means "to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before)." Thayer indicates it means "
1) to have knowledge before hand
2) to foreknow
2a) of those whom God elected to salvation
3) to predestinate."

The word "foreknow" is a word that carries with it the meaning of "foresee," but it means much more than that. It is a word of relationship, similar to the Hebrew word in Genesis 4:1. In fact, the Greek word used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) is the root word of "proginosko", ("ginosko"). Therefore, for God to "foreknow" someone is for God to know them intimately beforehand. It has nothing to do with their "foreseen faith" as many would suggest; rather, as Thayer mentions in his last definition (and Strong when he says "ordain"), the word is a synonym for "predestinate." Those who God foreknew were the ones He elected, the ones He knew beforehand out of His freedom; they are the ones upon whom He chose to set His love. These He knew beforehand, these are the ones He chose to conform to the image of His Son, as the rest of the verse states clearly. They were NOT the ones who had part of Christ's character already, some work in them that God used as the basis for His choosing. God is not bound in ANY sense by man's works; He is completely free, doing things because He decided that they would be done, and not because He is responding to anything anyone else does.

"God determined beforehand the conditions on which He would show mercy."

Yes, He did, and we saw those conditions above. What are, rather, what is that condition? Romans 9 tells us: "the One who calls." The only condition is God's freedom, His sovereign choice.

"And on the basis of His foreknowledge believers are chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:4)."

I agree, on the basis of His foreknowledge. However, that doesn't mean what they are saying it means. We biblically defined foreknowledge above, using language analysis and some context.

It is interesting that they talk about Ephesians 1:4 and not the following verses. As we know, context is the king of interpretation. So then, let's get it! (I'll be brief since I'm also working on an Exegesis of Ephesians that is currently saved as a draft)

Ephesians 1:4 for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love
Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will,
Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

First, I want to address the issue of the word "chose." Some say in Ephesians 1:4 that God chose Christ, and that those who come to Him would be a group of people who would then be called the elect. There is more to this belief, but that is the root of the matter. The correct interpretation is that God chose us to be in Christ; not that He chose Christ here! The object of the word "chose" (eklegomai) is US and NOT Christ; the grammar you learn in school is helpful! :) Not only that, but the word for "chose" means to "pick out of a group." The world, past and present, is a big group of people -- who else is in the group with Christ? There is only ONE Christ; so then, the word MUST be talking about individuals being chosen.

Furthermore, what does the Bible here give us as the reason for God's election, predestination and adoption of the elect? It was "according to His favor and will"! Not surprisingly, this is the same reason that is given in Romans 9 -- the One who calls decided it would be! The ONLY basis for God's election is His favor and will, His freedom, His sovereign choice! He does it according to His favor and will so that we will "praise His glorious grace" as verse six tells us. God pardons us for the same reason He, in some sense, decided to pardon Israel:

Isaiah 43:25 "It is I who sweep away your transgressions for My own sake and remember your sins no more.

Though we certainly benefit when God chooses and saves us and loves us, He acts for His own sake. Our salvation, from first to last, is about our awesome, wonderful, holy, loving, perfect, indescribable God, and not ultimately about us. He is the focus; we are not.

"Thus God in His sovereignty has provided the plan of salvation whereby all can be saved."

No, God has provided the plan where all the elect can and WILL be saved. Only they will be, and not every person who will ever live. It was His freedom to do this, and He is completely just in doing so, since we all deserve Hell. God chose to pardon some, and it was all an act of grace.

"In this plan man's will is taken into consideration."

Well, as I said before, man does willingly trust Christ. However, relating to election, no, we do NOT see man's will taken into consideration. God did His electing "before the foundation of the world" and it had nothing to do with any good we would have had in the future, lest salvation become not entirely of grace, but of works, which, in reality, is not by grace at all; anything + grace is NOT grace.

"Salvation is available to 'whosoever will.'"

I agree! However, the only ones who "will" or will want to, are the elect. The rest will always hate the idea for the reasons that John gives in chapter three of his Gospel that I referenced near the beginning of this post.

Parts 3 and following to come shortly.

Analyzing the Position of the Assemblies of God on Security, part one

This is something I've been considering for a while, especially given recent conversations I've had with some students in our youth ministry. It's been a hot topic, and they've been asking some good questions, digging into the Bible text; for that reason, I commend them.

One of them has a good friend who is part of an Assembly of God church who, of course, was brought up to believe that someone can lose his/her salvation. This is the official position of the Assemblies of God churches, and the document stating such can be found at this link. However, and I say this to her credit (the friend of our student); she has been searching through the Scriptures, desiring to find an answer to the matter, and not just accepting what she's been told.

I've read through most of the paper at the link posted above, and there are many errors in it. The thing is, I am not just saying that because I've been raised different; I 've had my bouts with full Arminianism in the past. God saw fit to bring me out of it, thankfully, and I now embrace the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) and the absolute sovereignty of God.

This isn't a result of just thinking that one side is better than the other; no, anything that we believe about God and the Scriptures must be based on a solid exegesis of the Scriptures, using proper language analysis, but most importantly, using the context of the passage(s) in question. The Assemblies of God has failed to do this (as all Arminians do), and I will demonstrate this, and pray that I will be loving yet thorough at the same time. May God grant me wisdom.

The main error of the line of thinking that we can lose our salvation is that salvation is up to us, ultimately. The truth of Scripture is that, from beginning to end, salvation is of the LORD. He is the one who initiates it, and He is the one who sustains it. I do hope and pray that becomes extremely clear as these posts continue, and that God would get the glory He deserves.

This will be a five part post. I'll tackle their introduction first, and then each of the four points the mention in their introduction in subsequent posts with quoted from their material in bold. May the truth of Scripture come out from the Whole Counsel of His Word.

"The Assemblies of God has declared itself regarding the security of the believer in its bylaws (Article VIII, Section 1):"

Well, it is good to know they've at least articulated their position and don't leave people to wonder. I commend them for that, and I'll look hard to commend them for something else as I proceed through their paper. :)

"In view of the Biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6), in view of the Bible's call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.

Immediately we have issues. Even without looking up any of the passages they use to support their view, the fact that they have only cited a single verse without the surrounding contexts should make us, at the very least, raise an eyebrow. Not only that, but the statements in Revelation 22 and Luke 8 are not as cut and dry as they say they are, with the word "part" in Rev 22:19 and the word "root" in Luke 8:13 having a lot to do with how the verses must be interpreted. I'll address those verses in more detail later, since the AG paper repeats them in one of its later points. However, from what I can tell, the issue of John 15:6 isn't addressed more fully. Therefore, I'll hit on it here really quick:

John 15:2 Every branch in Me that does not produce fruit He removes, and He prunes every branch that produces fruit so that it will produce more fruit.
John 15:3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.
John 15:4 Remain in Me, and I in you. Just as a branch is unable to produce fruit by itself unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in Me.
John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without Me.
John 15:6 If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
John 15:7 If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you.
John 15:8 My Father is glorified by this: that you produce much fruit and prove to be My disciples.

The main issue is in verse eight, which they didn't cite. The phrase I want to focus on is the last part of the sentence, which says "...and PROVE to be My disciples." (my emphasis) The Greek word is ginomai, which carries with it the idea of "being found" to be something, "be showed" to be (Strong), or "to be made, finished." (Thayer) What then are we "shown to be"? The verse tells us -- His disciples. What shows us to be "His disciples"? The answer is also in the verse: that we produce much fruit. So then, those that prove to be Jesus's disciples show that they were producing fruit. Those that fail to do so prove that they were NOT His disciples.

What is helpful here is to cross-reference these verses:

John 8:30 As He was saying these things, many believed in Him.
John 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, you really are My disciples.

The word for "believe" in verse 30 is an important word, but more important that the word itself is the tense in which it is used. It appears in the aorist active indicative, rather than the present active indicative. The reason this is important is that the aorist tense conveys the idea of an action that is completed (happens then is done) rather than an ongoing action, which is the present tense (as in John 3:16). What Jesus does here is confront the supposed belief of the "many who believed in Him" and challenged the genuineness of it. I think AT Robertson puts it well in his Word Pictures:

"Your future loyalty to my teaching will prove the reality of your present profession. So the conclusion of this future condition is put in the present tense. As then, so now. We accept church members on profession of trust in Christ. Continuance in the word (teaching) proves the sincerity or insincerity of the profession. It is the acid test of life."

Thus, understanding this, we can move back to the passage in John 15 and arrive at the conclusion that those who Jesus were talking about who were "branches in Him" that were burned were not truly believers, as in, true followers of Christ. They were superficial, only giving lip service to Him that never amounted to saving faith. This will come out more when I talk about the Luke passage, and it helps establish a doctrine called Perseverance of the Saints (the "P" in the TULIP). This doctrine is NOT to be confused with the watered down doctrine commonly referred to as "eternal security." They have their similarities, but there are important differences that I'll discuss later. I share some of the concern my Assembly of God brothers have about this latter doctrine, and that concern will come out in this series.
Hermeneutical (interpretive) principles used: Context (passage, book, and author), theological corroboration (let Scripture interpret Scripture), word studies.

"This paper seeks to explain further why this position has been taken."

I would expect so. :)

"In the matter of the security of the believer, The General Council of the Assemblies of God stands between the extreme positions of Calvinism and Arminianism. It accepts the scriptural elements found in both teachings.
The Calvinist stresses, rightly, God's sovereignty and divine prerogative, while the Arminian stresses, also rightly, man's free will and responsibility. The two positions, however, must be considered together if they are to be properly understood. The General Council of the Assemblies of God believes in the sovereignty and divine prerogative of God untainted by arbitrariness or caprice. It also believes in the free will and responsibility of man."


First of all, the AG church takes a common stance here -- and falls into a common misunderstanding. What they appear to be implying is that Calvinists don't emphasize man's responsibility; the reality is, nothing could be further from the truth. All stand guilty before God because of our sin, and we wholly responsible for that sin. What the Calvinist really does is emphasize both God's absolute soverignty over all actions and man's total responsibility for his actions. Both of those can be seen in ONE verse, though the doctrines are found throughout Scripture:

Luke 22:22 For the Son of Man will go away as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!

Can you see it? In one verse, Jesus declare that God determined that this would happen (giving the cause of His betrayal to be the Sovereignty of God, See Isaiah 53), and that Judas was held responsible for his action, because he'd be punished for his sin (holding Judas responsible for his action). Both are present in Scripture and both must be accepted. There is SOME resolution to this mystery that the Bible provides for us, but some of it remains just that -- mystery.

To help further in this matter, I VERY STRONGLY suggest reading this artcile by Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders ministries. He explains the non-biblical positions of hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism and then addresses the issue of where Calvinism stands on it. I carry a copy of it around with me in my Bible to answer this issue when I need to. :)

Second, the Arminian position of "free-will" is a dangerous heresy. Notice I said the "Arminian position." I'll readily agree that we are free to do what we want to do. An unsaved man is free to sin, but passages like John 3:19-20 and Romans 3:10-18 indicate clearly that he is not free to obey God, nor does he even seek Him on his own. The bottom line is this: we do not seek God; HE seeks US. If we are seeking after Him it is because He has sought us, and only THEN do we willingly follow Him and continue to do so.

The Assemblies of God tries to take the middle ground between the debate, as I once did too, and as many others do. The truth of the matter is that these positions are completely opposed to each other; that is, they are contradictory. Man is either totally depraved or partially depraved. We're either chosen by God unconditionally or we have some merit that makes Him choose us (conditionally). Scripture either limits the power of the atonement, or it limits its intent; God's action in saving us either is always effective (irresistable), or we can thwart the ultimate purpose of God (resist), and last (this being the subject of this post), we either are secure in Christ and will persever until the end (Perseverance of the saints), or we can be lost after being truly saved. These positions are opposite each other, and each set of doctrines hangs together, supported by the other doctrines in the given set. That is, if one collapses, the others fall too. One of these sets is biblical, and the other is not, and we must consider the WHOLE COUNSEL of Scripture to determine which is. May God grant us wisdom as we do, and may He receive all the glory for it!

"In order to explain the position taken by the Assemblies of God on the security of the believer, four points need to be emphasized:
1.) Salvation is available for every man (2 Peter 3:9; John 3:16; Romans 10:11-13).
2.) Salvation is received and kept by faith (Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; Hebrews 10:38; 1 Peter 1:5; Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:20, 21).
3.) Continued sin will adversely affect the believer's faith (1 John 1:8; 3:8; Romans 3:5-8; 1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Hebrews 3:12-14; 12:1).
4.) The believer's salvation is forfeited by rejecting Christ (John 17:12; Hebrews 10:38; 1 Timothy 4:1; 5:12, 15; 1 John 5:16; 2 Peter 2:20; Hebrews 10:26, 27; 6:4-6)."

I will address each of these four points in my next four blog entries on the topic, and as before, I'll quote the AG statement in its entirety in bold, and any Scriptures I use wil, like here, be from the HCSB unless otherwise noted.

To God Alone be the Glory.