In Defense of "Trying Harder"
Christians agree that those who come to Christ in faith and repentance are supposed to behave differently thereafter. We also agree that God’s plan for every believer is to remake him or her in the likeness of Christ. Most also understand that this is a process that continues throughout this earthly life and culminates when “we shall be like Him,” seeing Him “as He is” (NKJV, ). It is God’s great gospel purpose to graciously change sinners into saints.
But what responsibilities do believers have in that plan? What attitudes should dominate our thinking? How does grace relate to effort and struggle?
Some insist that “effort” has no role at all. Beyond preaching the gospel to ourselves, struggle and striving are incompatible with grace and draw our attention away from the gospel and from Christ. Others concede (with evident reluctance) that effort is required, but quickly emphasize tension in the opposite direction. To them, believers are in constant danger of lapsing into “performance based” thinking or, worse yet, “trying harder.”
Both of these views tend to favor language and emphases that are out of sync with the simplicity of the New Testament teaching regarding sanctification. What we find in the NT is that properly understood, “trying harder” (i.e., discipline, hard work, and old fashioned effort) is a vital part of God’s design for the remaking of His saints.
1. The NT puts a strong emphasis on trying harder.
Though it’s true that Jesus presented His lordship as an easy yoke and a light burden (), He also encouraged people to view following Him as a costly and demanding way of life. He warns listeners that those who follow Him must accept the prospect of homelessness () and alienation from family members (). He insists that the life of the Christ-follower involves renouncing all one has (). He demands that disciples hand over their very lives (, ).
How such a life constitutes an easy yoke and a light burden is a question for another study, but this much is clear: Jesus did not intend for His disciples to cherish any delusions that they would be spared from having to do hard things. He said the “way” is “difficult” (ESV, ).
The apostles make the same point, but with a slightly different nuance. Without downplaying the personal cost of following Christ, they place greater emphasis on the personal effort involved. The following is a sample.
- “strive together with me in your prayers” ()
- “that…you may abound in every good work” ()
- “strive to excel in building up the church” ()
- “your labor is not in vain” ()
- “Let your manner of life be worthy…striving side by side for the faith” ()
- “do so more and more” ()
- “To this end we toil and strive because we have our hope set on the living God” ()
- “Remind them…to be obedient, to be ready for every good work” ()
- “Strive for…the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” ()
What this small sample shows is that the NT calls us over and over to exert ourselves. It’s a constant refrain with occasional full orchestra bursts, such as these:
- “I discipline my body and keep it under control” ()
- “I press on toward the goal” ()
- “let us cleanse ourselves…perfecting holiness” ()
- “self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined” ()
- “train yourself for godliness” ()
- “add to your faith virtue…knowledge…self-control…perseverance” ()
- “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” ()
Whatever pitfalls may be involved in teaching believers that they should “try harder”—and there are some—the fact remains that the NT reveals no concern at all that believers might put too much effort into their pursuit of godliness.
2. “Reckoning” and “yielding” are forms of trying harder.
Let-go-let-God advocates (whether of Keswick or Reformed roots) tend to introduce unhelpful complexity into Romans 6, often using language that suggests passivity. But the argument of the passage is not difficult, and Paul is clearly calling on his audience, and on us, to do something. “Consider” (AV, “reckon”) in is an imperative, as is “yield” in 6:13 and 19b. The “know” references in the text are indicative, but our response is consistently imperative. We are commanded to act.
Every little boy who has ever sat still when he wanted to wiggle knows that yielding often requires “trying really hard.” It’s putting down what we want and instead choosing what another wants. Yielding is not fundamentally different from the putting off and putting on imperatives of .
3. Properly teaching “try harder” emphasizes the gospel and humbles us.
One argument goes that calling on believers to exert themselves increasingly in the pursuit of godliness de-emphasizes the gospel, fuels pride, breeds legalism, and robs the Christian life of the joy we’re intended to have in Christ.
But this cannot be the case. Though believers’ personal discipline can indeed go horribly wrong (e.g., , and most of Galatians) the problem cannot lie simply in calls to “try harder.” Two lines of evidence support this analysis.
First, appeals to work harder cannot be inherently anti-gospel and pro-pride because, as the passages above demonstrate, these calls to exert ourselves are the norm in the NT. Second, appeals to try harder cannot be anti-gospel because the gospel itself is repeatedly cited as the very reason for trying harder.
- Because we “know” we must “yield” ().
- Because God works in us, we must “work out our salvation” ().
- Because God has provided, in Christ, all we need, we are to “make every effort to supplement [our] faith” ().
- Because we have been saved “by grace…through faith,” we “should walk” in the “good works” God prepared for us ().
- Following Paul’s example, we should be “struggling” because of “[Christ’s] energy” that “powerfully works within” us ().
When we live the Christian dynamic, we pursue the imperatives in light of the indicatives, but we do not minimize the imperatives. In other words, we work hard and then harder, because we understand that we have been bought with a price for the very purpose of becoming holy and have been richly blessed with Spirit-fueled ability to do that very thing.
Properly understood and pursued, “trying harder” humbles us because we know every success is really a gift. Put in its proper context, “try harder” exalts the gospel because we are honoring it—and the Savior who is at its center—by making use of what He bought for us and has already done in us.
My parents once gave me a cordless drill for Christmas. In the days that followed I had some options. I could sit and admire the gift and feel genuine appreciation for the givers and their thoughtfulness and love. I could get to work using the gift and forget all about the heart behind it. Or I could admire the gift, appreciate the givers and also get to work. Which of these options honors both gift and givers most?
It is possible to “try harder” on a small number of superficial spiritual metrics and not really grow much. It’s also possible to “try harder” more comprehensively but do so with little reflection or awareness of why we’re trying, and Who rightly owns the credit for every successful step we take. But the solution to these errors is not to swing to the other extreme and proclaim a confusing, passivity-tinged version of the pursuit of holiness. The solution is to fully grasp the beauty of the gospel and the Savior and therefore try harder.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
[Jay]I think one of the bigger (biggest?) problems that someone touched on is that so often we present Christianity as an escape from Hell or God’s wrath (wrong start)
Not to quibble, but Jesus said that He came to give life (abundant life). and Paul uses this exact motivation in Romans 2: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
Life, eternal life - escape from hell - is always the goal of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. (See Deuteronomy 30:15-20: choose life by obedience or choose death by turning away from God’s commands.)
To be clear - we cannot earn justification or salvation - just as we do not earn the favor of our spouse in marriage. However, in both salvation and in marriage, faithfulness to what we have promised is required if those covenants are to continue.
formerly known as Coach C
[Jay]I think one of the bigger (biggest?) problems that someone touched on is that so often we present Christianity as an escape from Hell or God’s wrath (wrong start) and then there’s all this stuff we do as a result (wrong outworkings). Then we read things like “Come unto me, for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”, and we think “What?” In short, we presented a works based salvation (predicated on a selfish desire to avoid hell) even though we claim we agree with Ephesians 2:8-9. What we should maybe present is that God loves us, but we ruined that relationship with Him and consequently are separated from Him as a result. I’m still chewing on this, but it’s taking me down all kinds of paths that I’d never thought about before. It’s some heavy lifting and thinking.
I haven’t much time b/c we are leaving for a wkend of rafting, but i wanted to say, I have come to a different conclusion, though i’m not sure how much of it is what I’ve come to understand as I mature, and how much i’d really use/say in an actual evangelism context.
but we don’t really, of ourselves, understand how much/easily we break the law, and how much we are utterly incapable of meeting God’s standards. I think we are so used to meeting a social standard.
ideally, perhaps, the unsaved/saved person has to come more and more to see that God’s standard is so high, His righteousness is only attainable by Christ. our good deeds/obediences are not righteous, in God’s standards. they cannot be.
and then, in Christ, it is attained. Christ is all.
we get so used to living according to society’s standards, our own expectations, our church’s standards. and we don’t realize God’s true standards, and how they are met in Christ and we follow in His steps.
one example i often think of is the “read your bible every day” or “read your bible through in a yr” standards of righteousness we have created. but if we stop and consider, even that is so very far from God’s standard for us in relating to His word. we could even be doing those things, and missing entirely God’s will for us towards His Word. we are to love it, delight in it, treasure it, live it, obey it, etc, etc etc. Do we acknowledge how far we fall from God’s standard, even if we read our Bible every day and through in a year, and how we can see, in Christ, perfect fulfillment of God’s desire for us to relate to His Word, and then follow that example as the Spirit leads us.
Whatever you do, do it enthusiastically, as something done for the Lord and not for men, knowing that you will receive the reward of an inheritance from the Lord. You serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism. Colossians 2:23 (Holman)
It could easily be added to the OP.
formerly known as Coach C
Tangential again, but a couple posts up, Jay seems to equate receiving salvation out of selfish desire to avoid Hell with salvation by works. But these are different issues.
1. A desire to avoid Hell may reflect self interest but it isn’t selfish in any sinful sense. We’re supposed to want to live rather than die and supposed to want blessing rather than wrath.
2. The reason a person seeks salvation is one thing, the means he uses (or thinks he uses) in order to obtain salvation is another thing. The first is motivation, the second method.
So the result is that while Scripture says it’s impossible to be saved by works, it does not say you can’t be saved “out of a selfish desire to avoid Hell.”
But none of this has much to do with the dynamic in a person who is already justified, regenerated, a new creation, indwelled with the Spirit, etc.
It really shouldn’t be surprising to us that life works differently after we born again than it does before, or even as we are born again. (Col. 2:6 notwithstanding. “As you have received…so walk in Him” is not meant to say works has no role in walking because it had no role in receiving. Even the word “walk” argues against that idea. But so do numerous other passages. See OP)
As for Col. 2:23, two observations.
1) Paul is probably talking about asceticism. 2) He is certainly talking about placing faith in severe treatment of the body itself. This is different from placing faith in God to empower obedience that includes some severe treatment of the body sometimes. It’s like the difference between saying “I trust my running ability to get me to Hawaii” and saying “I trust a jet to get me to Hawaii but sometimes I have to run through an airport in the process.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Joshua Caucutt] To be clear - we cannot earn justification or salvation - just as we do not earn the favor of our spouse in marriage. However, in both salvation and in marriage, faithfulness to what we have promised is required if those covenants are to continue.
We cannot earn it but we have to do things to keep it??
He that began the good work in you will be faithful to complete it. It is God that works in you, both to will and to do …
[DavidO]We cannot earn it but we have to do things to keep it??
He that began the good work in you will be faithful to complete it. It is God that works in you, both to will and to do …
Biblically speaking, yes. For instance, baptism does not save or earn salvation, but if you refuse it, will you be saved?
See John 15, Hebrews 10 … all kinds of references which speak of “keep yourselves in the love of God” “abide” “remain” etc. Parable of the soils, of the unforgiving slave, of the talents, so many more…
Remember also that context is critical here and your understanding of Philippians 1:6 cannot contradict what Paul says elsewhere: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” for example.
Remember that the marriage covenant is a picture of our covenant relationship with God. If you or I are unrepentantly unfaithful in marriage, that covenant will broken. That turn of events would make us no less married in the first place. It is possible to sin your way out of the covenant, but it all starts with the church - a biblical church. See Rev. 2, 3 for many allusions to this principle.
formerly known as Coach C
So these who are severed from Christ, are you saying they progress through the Romans 8 process of called, justified, but are cast away due to their unfaithfulness prior to glorification? Or are you saying they were never involved in that process at all?
Yes. They entered the state of justification - which God graciously granted to them on the basis of faith alone, but did not persevere - they reached a point where the cost of obeying Christ was outweighed by their desires for the world. “No man who puts his hand to the plow and turns back is fit for the kingdom of heaven.”
From a Calvinist point of view, we might say that they were granted repentance for a time, but not to the end. 2 Tim. 2:25 Again, think of all of the examples in Scripture, read 1 Cor. 10 and Hebrews 4 - nearly parallel texts which warn about this possibility.
These received the grace of God in vain.
formerly known as Coach C
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Doesn’t the natural reading of this indicate that the all members of the first “these” (actually a “whom”) are members of the final “these”? Without exception?
Seems simpler (and more consistent with the witness of scripture) to me to class those who fall away with those Christ never knew, those who departed from us because they were not [ever] of us, although from all outward appearance and testimony the seemed to be of us.
But some will enter justification who were never predestined for glorification. Look at Hebrews 3:12-19, note especially the use of the word “brother.”
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. As it is said,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”
For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Also, the warning given by Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-5 and following:
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
What is Paul saying here? The plain sense is that a person can be a brother, can be in Christ, but it is possible for that one to be severed (Gal. 5:4), to be unforgiven (Matt. 18), to be removed from the vine (John 15) and for one’s name to be at one point written in the book, but then blotted out (Revelation).
formerly known as Coach C
Hi Josh,
Here’s my problem. I think there are clear passages of scripture that inform us that the outcome (the falling away or departure) indicates what the reality was all along. The apostate’s faith was never genuine; their membership in the body was superficial, real only from an earthly perspective. They did not in any way undergo the justification in the sequence described in Romans 8, else they would one day be glorified. In other words, the passages you cite are qualified by those I cite, rather than vice versa.
It may seem a fine distinction between what I’m saying and what you’re saying, but I believe it is the distinction between true doctrine and error. I’m sure that assessment is mutual.
Dave, I think that solution (one that I held to in the past) is lacking for a number of reasons:
It either adds something to sola fide (justification by faith alone) or it makes God a liar - meaning that there will be people who express faith and are baptized into the church, yet God refuses to justify them.
Additionally, the biblical evidence is just so vast and does not contradict Romans 8:30 - those who are predestined will indeed be justified, glorified, etc.
This does not contradict that there will be some who are justified, but who were never predestined for glorification. Look at the verses above - Paul is talking to people who are justified - they are brothers, they are in the faith. Also, Jesus and the parable of the servant what was at one point forgiven and then later on that forgiveness was removed. Was the initial forgiveness somehow “fake”?
Also, “severed from Christ” also, branched removed from the Vine also “blotted out” also the idea that a person can try to “crucify Christ again” in Hebrews 6. These are all references to the fact that a person who was once truly justified (via faith) and who is now no longer justified.
formerly known as Coach C
[DavidO]Hi Josh,
Here’s my problem. I think there are clear passages of scripture that inform us that the outcome (the falling away or departure) indicates what the reality was all along. The apostate’s faith was never genuine; their membership in the body was superficial, real only from an earthly perspective. They did not in any way undergo the justification in the sequence described in Romans 8, else they would one day be glorified. In other words, the passages you cite are qualified by those I cite, rather than vice versa.
It may seem a fine distinction between what I’m saying and what you’re saying, but I believe it is the distinction between true doctrine and error. I’m sure that assessment is mutual.
Even your use of the word “apostate” implies that a person was once in the faith and is now out of the faith. Apostacy is real, but we don’t call people who were never in the faith by the term “apostate.” Membership in the true Body of Christ IS real from an earthly and heavenly perspective. Or else excommunication would mean nothing and membership in a false church would mean nothing. Additionally, the use of the term “falling away” is a misnomer unless that person is falling away from something.
The constant and repeated biblical warnings about falling away are not empty threats. This is a real, literal possibility and as it is recorded, it has happened more than once. Adam and Even lost their justification, Saul, Titus, Alexander, Judas, David and Paul both feared losing their justification.
The modern idea that justification is a one-time immutable act gives false hope to some, uncertain hope to others and license to most. Paul never told anyone to “rest” in the assumption of their justification. Justification is a present reality or it isn’t.
formerly known as Coach C
Who said anything about resting? Aaron’s original post is about laboring, working out one’s salvation. One must labor to ensure one is truly in the faith not merely assume one has been justified. That in no way negates my points above.
[DavidO]Who said anything about resting? Aaron’s original post is about laboring, working out one’s salvation. One must labor to ensure one is truly in the faith not merely assume one has been justified. That in no way negates my points above.
No one did here - but it is a common phrase nowadays.
But if it is impossible to fall away, what is the point?
You have implied that a person can express faith and be baptized into the church, but not necessarily be justfied. What more is needed? In other words, when a person expresses faith, is baptized into the Body of Christ and is presently in good standing with that church - can he assume that he is justified at that moment?
formerly known as Coach C
I’ll answer your question(s) with a question. Does everyone who expresses faith and is baptized converted?
EDIT: In one of your posts above (which I previously missed), you seem to indicate your answer is yes, ignoring the possibility that one may express faith without really possessing it. I believe it is possible to express what sounds like orthodox faith, be baptized, mimic a christian life to the best of one’s ability, but never truly trust in Christ alone for salvation. I myself did it for many years.
Initial justification - being born again/conversion - is on the basis of simple faith alone. That person receives the Spirit and becomes a child of God.
I don’t see any evidence that the Bible teaches different types or levels of faith. This isn’t Star Wars or Disney or the Wizard of Oz where wonderful things happen if you really, really, really believe. There isn’t “faith” versus “super-secret-really-truly faith.” Christ, Paul and the rest of the Apostles never question whether or not a person “has genuine faith,” they question whether or not a person is willing to walk in obedience - that’s where the rubber meets the road. That is how we “work out our own salvation.” Obedience, submission to the law of Christ is how we abide in the Vine. Keeping His commandment is how we love Christ. John 15 Caring for the needs of the members of the Body is one of the ways in which we serve Christ Matthew 25:31-46.
I’m curious, how do you see the parable of the soils?
formerly known as Coach C
how do you see the parable of the soils?
Three scenarios of non- or false conversion, one of true.
[Joshua Caucutt] Even your use of the word “apostate” implies that a person was once in the faith and is now out of the faith. Apostacy is real, but we don’t call people who were never in the faith by the term “apostate.” Membership in the true Body of Christ IS real from an earthly and heavenly perspective. Or else excommunication would mean nothing and membership in a false church would mean nothing. Additionally, the use of the term “falling away” is a misnomer unless that person is falling away from something.The constant and repeated biblical warnings about falling away are not empty threats. This is a real, literal possibility and as it is recorded, it has happened more than once. Adam and Even lost their justification, Saul, Titus, Alexander, Judas, David and Paul both feared losing their justification.
Hi Josh-
I’m not sure what you mean there because of the grammar, but I think you meant to put a period in between Judas and David. Which would separate the list of ‘fallen away’ ones from David and Paul. Is that correct? I don’t know which Titus you are referring to, but I’m fairly sure that you’re not talking about the epistle’s namesake. Did you mean Demas instead?
I’m not sure how you get Adam and Eve as “losing their justification”. Where do you see that taught in Scripture? Falling from grace and innocence, yes. Losing their justification - something that God explicitly mentions to them in Genesis 3:15, 21-24 - is a totally different matter. Furthermore, I don’t know that anyone here would say that either Alexander or Judas were regenerate at any time.
It also seems to me that you have to deal with the passage that Jesus promises that “none of his…can be removed from his hand” (John 10:25-30). It does not make sense that God loves us so much that He would send His Son to die for us, only to cast us from His presence because we screwed up.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]Hi Josh-
I’m not sure what you mean there because of the grammar, but I think you meant to put a period in between Judas and David. Which would separate the list of ‘fallen away’ ones from David and Paul. Is that correct? I don’t know which Titus you are referring to, but I’m fairly sure that you’re not talking about the epistle’s namesake. Did you mean Demas instead?
You are correct about David and Paul (Psalm 51, 1 Corinthians 9:270 - they feared it, but it did not happen to them. As for Titus, it is pretty clear from this statement, unless it is completely removed from it’s context that Titus fell away: “For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.” Paul included Titus in a list of people who had fallen away. He contrasts Demas, Crescens and Titus with the others who had not fallen away, but were still faithful.
I think there may be a little doubt about exactly what happened with Titus, but that does not disprove the idea.
[Jay] I’m not sure how you get Adam and Eve as “losing their justification”. Where do you see that taught in Scripture? Falling from grace and innocence, yes. Losing their justification - something that God explicitly mentions to them in Genesis 3:15, 21-24 - is a totally different matter. Furthermore, I don’t know that anyone here would say that either Alexander or Judas were regenerate at any time.It also seems to me that you have to deal with the passage that Jesus promises that “none of his…can be removed from his hand” (John 10:25-30). It does not make sense that God loves us so much that He would send His Son to die for us, only to cast us from His presence because we screwed up.
Adam and Eve were created in a state of justification - a right standing before God. They fell from that state via sin. Justification is a right standing with God … not sure what is difficult about that … God instituted a covenant where He accepted animal sacrifice as a means (temporary) of justification.
Alexander was the pastor of the church at Ephesus per Paul himself. Judas did miracles by the Spirit - unless you say he did miracles through the power of Satan …? The Spirit does not indwell individuals who are not justified. But justified people can grieve the Holy Spirit.
What does not make sense is that we would resist faithful obedience, it is our obligation. Have you read 1 Corinthians 10? Hebrews 3 and 4? How God redeemed His people and then destroyed them because of disobedience? And how this happened as an example for us? Yes, Jesus is the source of salvation, eternal life, then why would we find excuses and ways around walking in faithful obedience when He tells us plainly that He is the source of salvation to those who obey Him (Heb. 5:9) and “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him”? John 3:36
What does not make sense is that some will profane “the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” and outrage “the Spirit of grace? “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” Hebrews 10
Even greater still than all of that evidence is Revelation 2,3 - the letters to the churches (these were not false churches, else no letter would have been written) where the churches are all warned of the possibility of losing their justification, right standing before God. In the case of one church, there were some who still wore “unstained garments” but they were told to keep those garments clean.
If you want to know more about what those garments symbolize, I recommend reading Matthew 22 (garment of the wedding guest), Revelation 14, 16 and 19 (linen worn by the saints) that was initially was in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14). The implications of all of these passages are immense.
You say “It does not make sense that God loves us so much that He would send His Son to die for us, only to cast us from His presence because we screwed up.” I say, “it does not make sense that God would give so many strong warnings about falling away if it were impossible.”
formerly known as Coach C
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 makes its way into Romans 10
[ChrisC]Deuteronomy 30:11-14 makes its way into Romans 10
Absolutely. This is an encouragement that we can faithfully (not perfectly) keep the covenant!
And we are not in this alone. We have the Spirit (Romans 8), we have the covenant community to “provoke us to love and good works” (Hebrews 10), we can confess sin and ask forgiveness (1 John 1:9 - by the way, if it were impossible to fall away, what is the purpose/use of the confession of sin?). Hebrews 12 is all about how discipline from God will help us to maintain the “holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
However, “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in [by] the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:19
This is the Gospel that we have had since the beginning.
formerly known as Coach C
You really think Adam and Eve were “justified”? I’ve never heard anyone assert that.
You seem to interpret crystal clear passages of Scripture (Romans 8, the Galatians passages that Paul has cited, etc.) in light of much less clear passages in Hebrews that have engendered much debate among theologians. It seems to me that Hebrews 6 adresses Jews who professed faith in Christ but were never truly justified/regenerated (notice the typical terms like salvation, jusification, regeneration, etc. are not used in v. 4-5) and wanted to return to the Jewish beliefs and rituals (v. 1-3, in which there is no mention of Christ).
Some would disagree with this interpretation, but other interpretations do not require your view that justification can be lost.
If justification can be lost, it depends on us and our work and not on God.
Joshua, I’m just curious…what church do you attend? Are you a member there? Does your church teach a similar view as what you are espousing here? This is all new to me.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] Joshua, I’m just curious…what church do you attend? Are you a member there? Does your church teach a similar view as what you are espousing here? This is all new to me.
Josh is a member here. On staff actually. Interestingly, their tagline is “A Marriage Covenant Community”. They seem to see the illustration of marriage/divorce in OT and NT as controlling the understanding of the covenants rather than illuminating the understanding of aspects. (Citation).
And Josh has posted extensively on their website about his views of justification. It appears they went through all this last fall.
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14)
Josh,
How do you interpret this passage, which I just happened to read this morning?
I’ll be honest with you…I think that your position is a terrific example of eisegesis. There is no clear statement on the final state of Adam, Eve, Saul, Titus, or Alexander. Judas we can speak authoritatively on, but only because we have clear Scriptural argument to do so (Matthew 26:24 and Acts 1:25). To argue authoritatively that any of the aforementioned men “lost their salvation” is to argue one’s opinion based on silence in Scripture.
David struggled mightily with sin, but his prayers as recorded in Psalms indicate that he is struggling, not that he had become apostate and beyond the reach of God (Psalm 51 is the classic passage, but see also David’s comments in I Kings 2:1-4).
Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 9 should be understood as being set aside in ministry, not losing his salvation. To take verse 27 and into that and make it a comment on Paul’s potential falling away from the Lord is terrible exegesis and to ignore just about the entire context of chapter 9.
To argue that Christians can lose their salvation is to defame the work of Christ. Either Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save to the uttermost or it’s not. To argue that someone can escape God’s atonement implies that His atonement is not ‘perfect’, as the writer of Hebrews repeatedly testifies. You might disagree with me, but you have to accept and agree with a position that there are some sins that God cannot atone for. That’s a heretical position.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Thanks David and Brenda. It can never be said that I don’t learn things here on SI! :)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I ran across an interesting Q&A at a oneness Pentecostalism website.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/losejustification.htm
Q: You believe that one is justified at the point of faith, and not through the new birth; that justification is just one aspect of salvation, but not the totality of salvation. But what will become of one who has been justified and dies without having been water and Spirit baptized?
A: It would seem that if one is declared “not guilty” of sin before God at justification, that this person is saved and cannot be lost. After all, how could God condemn an innocent person? If a person is not saved, however, until they have been born again, and they never are born again, but were justified at faith, how can God still condemn them to hell? How could they lose their status of a right relationship with God?There are several answers that could be given from various viewpoints. It could be argued that it is not possible that one can lose their justified status with God, but if we believe that a justified person must be saved simply because they are justified, and they cannot be lost because they have been brought into a right relationship to God, then we are espousing an eternal security concept of salvation. If one put their faith in Christ and was baptized, but did not receive the Spirit, we have no problem saying that they are not Christ’s (Rom 8:9), and therefore are not saved. So if one’s baptism could be counted as null because someone did not continue in obedience to faith, why could one’s justification not be counted as null also? If we believe that a person who is born again (and therefore justified) can lose their salvation by unbelief, then why can we not conceive of someone losing their justification because they were not born again due to their lack of faith/obedience? If one can be lost even after being regenerated, then surely they can be lost even after being justified.
[Jay]But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14)Josh,
How do you interpret this passage, which I just happened to read this morning?
Did you read to the end of the chapter? Specifically v. 26? I trust that you did and I just need to point out that your interpretation of v. 11-14 cannot contradict v. 26 and unless I am missing something, it seems to. The position that I am advocating does not contradict either verse, therefore, my position is the most likely to be correct - at least as far as this chapter is concerned.
[Jay]I’ll be honest with you…I think that your position is a terrific example of eisegesis. There is no clear statement on the final state of Adam, Eve, Saul, Titus, or Alexander. Judas we can speak authoritatively on, but only because we have clear Scriptural argument to do so (Matthew 26:24 and Acts 1:25). To argue authoritatively that any of the aforementioned men “lost their salvation” is to argue one’s opinion based on silence in Scripture.
The final states of Saul, Titus and Alexander are fairly clear, but even if their final state were in doubt - at minimum, they fell away and lost the Spirit. I believe that Adam and Eve were faithful to the covenant that followed the Garden and they will be in heaven. For certain, though, they did lose their justification - at least for a time.
Furthermore, as you say, the final state of Judas is without doubt - doesn’t that at least show that falling away is a real possibility?
But I will make the strongest argument - the same as the one Paul makes in 1 Corinthans 10:1-14. God saved Israel - they even drank from the rock that is Christ - but afterward, He destroyed them for disobedience. Paul is stating plainly to the church at Corinth: get your house in order or God will destroy you, just like He destroyed the Israelites. What else could he possibly be saying?
[Jay]David struggled mightily with sin, but his prayers as recorded in Psalms indicate that he is struggling, not that he had become apostate and beyond the reach of God (Psalm 51 is the classic passage, but see also David’s comments in I Kings 2:1-4).
Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 9 should be understood as being set aside in ministry, not losing his salvation. To take verse 27 and into that and make it a comment on Paul’s potential falling away from the Lord is terrible exegesis and to ignore just about the entire context of chapter 9.
David did not fall away, that is true, but he was in danger of it and feared it. He repented and turned - which is available to all of us. What would have happened if he persisted in unrepentant disobedience? You reference 1 Kings 2:1-4, look at the warnings that David gives to Solomon, specifically the words that follow “if.”
It is most likely that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:27 are a reference to condemnation - the other places where this word is used, it is most commonly translated as “reprobate” - Romans 1:28 and 1 Corinthians 13:5-7 (among others) which is in close proximity. However, a better argument for the meaning of this word is in the immediate context: Paul is contrasting “castaway” with eternal life (see v. 2-26). Thereby implying that “castaway” is a reference to eternal death.
[jay] To argue that Christians can lose their salvation is to defame the work of Christ. Either Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to save to the uttermost or it’s not. To argue that someone can escape God’s atonement implies that His atonement is not ‘perfect’, as the writer of Hebrews repeatedly testifies. You might disagree with me, but you have to accept and agree with a position that there are some sins that God cannot atone for. That’s a heretical position.
Christ’s atonement was a one-time act that is sufficient for all of the “elect” (all of the church Eph. 5:25). It is perfect. That does not mean that all who begin the race will finish it, that does not mean that the Sacrifice will be efficacious for all. The writer of Hebrews - a justified, indwelt Christian said “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth and “no longer [have] a sacrifice for sins” Hebrews 10:26 It is possible to “shrink back and be destroyed” Hebrews 10:39. Hebrews 5:9: says that Jesus is the source of eternal life for all those who obey Him. James writes the following - to justified, believers - “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” Why did he warn believers of death if there was no possibility of it?
How many passages that imply, reference or directly teach the real possibility of falling away do you need before you recognize it as truth? Give me a number and I can probably supply it - this truth is in every book of the NT (although I’d have to think about Philemon for a bit). Yes, Christ died for the elect, yes, His Work is complete and perfect, but not all men will be saved in the end and some will benefit from the Sacrifice for a time, but not all the way to the end. It is possible to “have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away. Hebrews 6:4-6
Again, the elect, foreordained before the foundation of the world will persevere to glorification. But there will be some “who one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven.” Deuteronomy 29:19-20 There will be some who call Jesus, “Lord” but who do not do the will of the Father - Matthew 7:21. These who call Him “Lord” (they have faith, they accomplish great things for God), but they are called “lawless” and damned.
formerly known as Coach C
A few points you must address:
But I will make the strongest argument - the same as the one Paul makes in 1 Corinthans 10:1-14. God saved Israel - they even drank from the rock that is Christ - but afterward, He destroyed them for disobedience. Paul is stating plainly to the church at Corinth: get your house in order or God will destroy you, just like He destroyed the Israelites. What else could he possibly be saying?
God did not destroy Israel. They are undergoing punishment for sin (see the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27). He promised, repeatedly, that He would be faithful to the covenant He made with them. In Ezekiel 16, for example, He went so far as to compare Israel to a prostitute (Eze 16:15,35), but concluded with a promise to remember His covenant (Eze 16:59-63). Actually, He said Israel was worse than a prostitute - at least they receive payment for services (Eze 16:30-34).
I would also argue that clear statements in Eze 36:22-24 make it clear that God’s promises are rooted in Himself, not in our “faithfulness.” It is not for Israel’s sake that God will restore her, but for His name’s sake. In other words, Israel’s coming re-constitution is not grounded in her own faithfulness, but in His holy name and His promises to her. On this point, I draw your attention to the covenant in Gen 15, specifically where God makes Himself the weaker party by passing between the pieces of the offerings (Gen 15:17).
Another point:
Furthermore, as you say, the final state of Judas is without doubt - doesn’t that at least show that falling away is a real possibility?
Again, Joshua - it does nothing of the sort. It merely proved Judas was never saved in the first place (1 Jn 2:19).
I also encourage you to produce a Biblical Theology of your scheme of sanctification in the NT. Barring that, at least trace it through the Gospels, Paul, Peter or John’s writings. Unless you can successfully trace your theme, in context, through a NT book or an author, I will continue to discount it. I made this point elsewhere to you - important matters will not be solved by random verse citations. They will be solved by rigorous exposition of Scripture in context. Give us a Biblical Theology, put it on your blog, and direct us where to take a look.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Joshua Caucutt]Christ’s atonement was a one-time act that is sufficient for all of the “elect” (all of the church Eph. 5:25). It is perfect. That does not mean that all who begin the race will finish it, that does not mean that the Sacrifice will be efficacious for all.
Ronald Reagan had a great line I’m going to borrow - “There you go again”
You’re taking a Bible verse in Ephesians (which has absolutely no bearing on salvation, by the way - Paul is explicitly talking about marriage there), and then you are adding more to it without any basis for doing so (I suspect based on the position that your church teaches). I do not disagree with you that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for the elect or that it is not efficacious for all (I believe that some will hear the Gospel and reject it, but that’s a different matter entirely).
You can’t, however, argue Ephesians 5:25 teaches that some will ‘fall away’ from the faith and be accurate or fair with the text. I don’t even think that a straightforward exegesis of 1 Timothy 4’s famous ‘fall away’ passage teaches that - those who ‘fall away’ do so because they are ‘not of us’, to reference 1 John, as someone else noted. Likewise with Matthew 24:3-28 - note that the passage is talking about the end of the age, not just believers.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’m not going to spend too much more time here, but if you are interested in reading/studying more. I can recommend these resources:
http://www.denversoundchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Marriage-Co…
http://www.denversoundchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Justificati…
Paul tells us what he is talking about in Ephesians 5: “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Israel used to be “God’s wife,” but now the Church is His Bride. Scripture reveals that God’s relationship with His covenant people is always a marriage covenant - from Adam and Eve to the Church.
Jude 5 says that God destroyed Israel … at least the one’s who were saved out of Egypt. Hebrews 4 says that some will “fail to enter” rest because of disobedience. 1 Corinthians 10 says that the Israelites were overthrown and destroyed. I guess I have to stick with Jude, the writer of Hebrews and Paul to conclude that they were destroyed for a lack of obedience. I will admit, however, that the final destruction of Israel as the people of God did not occur until 70 AD, though they were threatened with divorce on many occasions.
Paul specifically says that when viewing the example of Israel, we must “take heed lest we fall.” The instruction here really could not be more clear: submit to the commandments of God or you will fall. You have been graciously and freely granted a place of righteousness based on faith alone and the perfect Sacrifice of Christ, but if you are not faithful, you will be divorced.
You continue to say that a person who “falls away” was never “in.” How then can it be accurate for Scripture to say that a person can “[be] severed from Christ”? be removed from the Branch? or “crucify once again the Son of God”? Are you reading these words with respect to verbal, plenary revelation?
But, Jay, for sake of argument, let us assume that you are correct. What does that mean in real terms? Do you say that “no obedience is required” for salvation? That a doulos (slave) of Christ can pretty much pick and choose the things that he will/will not obey? That once a person “has faith,” his justification is immutable forever with no repercussion for unrepentant sin, for hypocrisy, for excommunication?
Now, we have not addressed the question of how do we know if we are faithful or what does faithful obedience look like or how we can have assurance. Those questions are for another thread. The question that I raised at the beginning and attempted to draw from the Scriptures throughout this thread is “why try harder?” This gets us back to the OP:
Personally, I think Hebrews 6:9-12 answers that question - immediately after warning about the dire, eternal consequences for falling away - the writer says:
Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
formerly known as Coach C
I’d like to suggest that there are some huge flaws in the view being espoused by Scott Jarrett here at least the first document linked above. The first sign that this is homemade theology should be the artificial categories created (e.g., Passover Justification vs. Payment Justification). The second sign would be the website’s claim that Scott has had extensive theological education because he has a MDiv and some other MA. Whenever someone has to toot their own horn like that it gives me the willies (even more than than men who trumpet their honorary doctorates as some special qualification). The third sign was the very clear appearance of a pre-fabricated system that is being laid down on texts in order to create the sizzle of some new way of seeing things that everybody else has missed though the years.
There are much better and biblical ways to account for professing believers that fall away than this. In fact, as others have noted, this one is so unbiblical as to undercut the gospel. It tries to suggest that it makes justification hinge on faith, but it: (a) actually denies this regarding Abraham in contradiction to Romans 4 and Galatians 3; and (b) practically denies it by making treating justification as a state that can be lost. I don’t have a vote, but if I did I’d vote that the door for heresy to be advocated here be closed.DMD
Dr. Doran, ironically, my journey out of dispensationalism started while taking a class on Dispensationalism at your seminary. In fact, the holes that began to be created in that paradigm only grew larger and more troublesome as I asked questions of the profs at DTBS and MBBC and as I looked at the text of Scripture. I found more discontinuity than continuity, more tension than resolution, more contradictions and paradoxes. More interest in defending the system of Dispensationalism than actually seeking to find out what Scripture says.
One of those questions comes up in regards to Abraham. 1) Scripture proclaims Abraham to be justified not once, but on two different occasions. At the time of his circumcision (Romans 4:11) and later after offering Isaac. (James 2:21) What are the implications of that fact for immutable, one-time justification? 2) What if Abraham had ceased at any point to obey God? Would he have remained justified and of the faith? What if he had failed to circumcise all those of his household?
Do I really need to point out the hundreds of verses that allude or teach directly that God’s relationship with his covenant people is structured according to a marriage covenant? It is everywhere in the prophets and the New Testament. I thought all evangelical Christians believed that the Church was the Bride of Christ. This isn’t pre-fabricated, we see marriage terminology all over.
Passover Justification v Payment Justification may certainly be new terms (but so was dispensationalism once upon a time and calvinism and soteriology and the rapture and active obedience and a whole host of terms that we still use today). The term “passover” justification comes from Romans 3:25 where God “passed over” OC sin on the basis of animal sacrifice. We later learn that such sacrifices could never take away sin in Hebrews 9. Payment justification comes from the fact that the Sacrifice of Christ really did atone for sin, it is through Him that we are redeemed.
So unless you believe that the blood of bulls and goats really did take away sin or that the blood of Christ does not truly take away sin, you at least have to agree with the categories, even though you may not recognize the terms.
The only serious attempt at explaining the falling away passages that I can see on this thread is the theory that a person who falls away was never really “in.” As I have repeatedly pointed out, this cannot be the correct solution because it contradicts the very term “falling away” and other terms/phrases such as “severed from Christ” “crucifying Christ again” removal from the Vine, blotting out, casting away, etc. “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left.” Hebrews 10:26 Are we to truly believe that a person can “taste of the Holy Spirit” without faith/justification as in Hebrews 6? That the person who “receives the Word with joy” is not exercising faith Luke 18? Based all logic and sound reasoning starting with these propositional truths found throughout Scripture we must conclude, at minimum, that it is possible for a person to be in union with Christ and then removed from that union. The how, where, etc. can be discussed elsewhere, but the possibility is there, isn’t it?
That said, while I have found a much greater understanding of Scripture through this biblical theology and I see the practical outworking of it every day, I pretty much expected this type of reception and am not surprised by it. I am well aware that this is out of step with the vast majority of evangelical Christianity. You can denigrate me - I’m a nobody - you can discredit Scott Jarrett - whatever - all I ask is that you do so with Scripture and give the Word a full hearing on this.
formerly known as Coach C
Sigh! I really tried to be compliant, and taking a hint, made no more comment or explanation about “Fear” as it was a side-issue, and not the main one Aaron was trying to deal with. So, instead we all debate with Josh for the 3rd or 4th time about losing your justification. ;-)
Josh, you have been making quite a journey. That is interesting. IMO, there must be 100 new denominations that have formed in the US in the past 10 years (not because they call themselves denominations, but because they have the traits of a denomination). Your church certainly has its own theology.
To say that Abraham was justified twice is a new one. It just really is.
It appears to me that the theology of your church is centered around the concept of marriage. Every redeeming relationship of men to God is a marriage relationship. Most other things fit into this scheme. Am I right? Christians are married to Christ. He has divorced Israel. The statements of your church on Israel are quite hard (if not downright offensive to Jewish Christians). And no, I do not believe God’s Word teaches God has divorced Israel for eternity, nor has God destroyed them. One can only substantiate this by placing his own theological system over the Bible en masse, and then interpret accordingly. And what is to keep God from divorcing the Church forever? It is pretty clear to me from what you and your church say, that if you don’t keep in line, God is sure to divorce you.
So everything, as I try to understand your theology, fits into this scheme. And interpretations - forgive my expression - seem to get quirky.
I know, I will be answered by a flurry of Bible verses. But they all are just picked from here and there, and don’t really teach what you are saying. God destroyed Israel in the wilderness according to Jude 5? Please read again. God destroyed those who did not believe in the wilderness. Read Amos and you will find out that they had been carrying around their gods with their shrines since they had left Egypt. Quite a few, however, managed to survive (Caleb, Joshua, and all those under 20).
You are convinced, but you are not convincing us, because the Scriptures you cite frequently do not say what you purport them to say. That is often plain at a casual reading.
Josh, I sincerely hope you rethink much of what you have been saying, because I feel that your church is taking its own course. I am not sure it is right.
[Marsilius]To say that Abraham was justified twice is a new one. It just really is.
It has appeared in Romans and James for quite some time now.
[Marsilius] It appears to me that the theology of your church is centered around the concept of marriage. Every redeeming relationship of men to God is a marriage relationship. Most other things fit into this scheme. Am I right? Christians are married to Christ. He has divorced Israel. The statements of your church on Israel are quite hard (if not downright offensive to Jewish Christians). And no, I do not believe God’s Word teaches God has divorced Israel for eternity, nor has God destroyed them. One can only substantiate this by placing his own theological system over the Bible en masse, and then interpret accordingly. And what is to keep God from divorcing the Church forever? It is pretty clear to me from what you and your church say, that if you don’t keep in line, God is sure to divorce you.
If Jewish Christians believe that their “Jewishness” or practice of Jewish clean laws (circumcisions, etc.) give them any advantage, then they are not Christians, though they may have zeal. Paul leaves no doubt about this in Galatians. If they come to God through Christ, then they are my Christian brothers.
So everything, as I try to understand your theology, fits into this scheme. And interpretations - forgive my expression - seem to get quirky.
[Marsilius] I know, I will be answered by a flurry of Bible verses. But they all are just picked from here and there, and don’t really teach what you are saying. God destroyed Israel in the wilderness according to Jude 5? Please read again. God destroyed those who did not believe in the wilderness. Read Amos and you will find out that they had been carrying around their gods with their shrines since they had left Egypt. Quite a few, however, managed to survive (Caleb, Joshua, and all those under 20).
Thus, they were revealed to be idolaters, breaking several of the commandments … and were destroyed, correct? God redeemed them out of Egypt, but because of their disobedience - which is also a lack of belief - they were destroyed. Similar passages are found in 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 3, 4. I apologize for my appealing to Scripture, I wish I could quote Calvin, Luther, Schofield or Ryrie… but Christ said to the Jews: Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” in Matthew 21:43. I’m not sure that I have ever heard a dispensationalist take that verse head on.
[Marsilius] And what is to keep God from divorcing the Church forever? It is pretty clear to me from what you and your church say, that if you don’t keep in line, God is sure to divorce you.
I apologize in advance for the flurry of Bible verses, but I know no other way to answer you other than to cite Scripture: God can, will and has divorced churches who were once true church: Revelation 2,3. I consider these warnings to be as true for the churches of today as they were in the first century.
“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”
“Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.”
“Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.”
“and I will give to each of you according to your works.
“The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations,”
“Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”
“Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life.”
Note: the possibility of soiling the garment, the same one that was cleansed in the blood of the Lamb and which is made up of the deeds of the saints (Revelation 19)
“Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God.”
“I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
[Marsilius] You are convinced, but you are not convincing us, because the Scriptures you cite frequently do not say what you purport them to say. That is often plain at a casual reading.
Hopefully, you are interested in more than just a casual reading.
formerly known as Coach C
Joshua, you wrote:
I apologize for my appealing to Scripture, I wish I could quote Calvin, Luther, Schofield or Ryrie… but Christ said to the Jews: Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” in Matthew 21:43. I’m not sure that I have ever heard a dispensationalist take that verse head on.
That is the most ignorant statement you have made thus far. I beg of you to stop, sir, or start your own thread. This is ridiculous.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Regarding infant baptism, Charles Spurgeon said something like this: “When one studies the texts used to defend infant baptism, they fall into three categories. 1) The verses that mention water but no children. 2) The verses that mention children but no water. 3) The verses that mention neither water nor children.”
Regarding the present discussion, Spurgeon might say that the verses being used to support a believer being justified, then losing his justification are void of any mention of justification.
G. N. Barkman
Joshua,
Given the doctrinal trail you’ve taken I don’t find it that shocking that you began it the way you did. I don’t suppose that really matters, though. I think my attempt to set these new and strange teachings in some kind of context (the one provided by your link) did come across as negative toward Scott Jarrett. I don’t think I would say citing the website’s accolade of him is really discrediting him. I made my point fairly clear—when people make pains to tell you how educated they are it makes me nervous. I didn’t say that they are stupid because of it. I said it makes me nervous.
Let me just rifle through some answers to your questions posed to me: (1) as a point of fact, Abraham did disobey God after he was declared justified, but he did not lose his justification; (2) yes, I would like to see the hundreds of verses that speak of God’s covenants with His people as a marriage covenant since I don’t think you can actually provide that (esp proof that the Noahic covenant was a marriage covenant); (3) yes, I do believe that unregenerate people can taste the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6), but we probably disagree on what those mean; (4) no, I don’t think that the person who received the Word with joy was exercising genuine saving faith since the text says he “has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary” (Mt 13:21); and (5) no, I do not think the possibility is there that a person can be in union with Christ and then be removed, but again we have definitional differences on what union with Christ means as over against a part of those who profess to know Him; and that said, there are ways of dealing with this issue which do not distort justification as you have done.
At least part of the tension in following your arguments is that you seem to jump rapidly from forensic/imputation truth to experiential truth (e.g., speaking of justification [forensic] as conversion [experiential] ). You toss together texts which are not referring to the same thing as if they are.
I doubt we’ll get very far in this kind of format, especially given the approach which we are taking. It sounds like you’ve made up your mind, and ultimately you need to that since you will give account to God, not me. I, though, am a pastor who serves a congregation from which some folks read what you have written and I have an obligation to speak out so that nobody from the flock which I serve is led astray by your very strange teachings. And I have learned over the years that often it is the very strangeness which often attracts an interest. I hope and pray it passes as quickly as it has arisen.
DMD
Featured Resource
Discussion