The Last Hundred Years, or so...

[JLR1300]

Avid... thank you for your patience. Here are some thoughts I have regarding what you said...

II Peter 2
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

In my opinion it is one thing to have knowledge about Christ and another thing to truly trust Him for salvation. Peter says that these men had KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior and that it would be better if they had not KNOWN the way of righteousness.

Knowledge is certainly a good thing but it falls a little bit short of what is required to be justified or saved in the first place. Even if we know enough about Christ that we understand His commandments about how to live morally, and even if we for a time we clean up our lives and temporarily live by those moral commandments and rules... that does not mean that we are truly justified. Lots of unsaved moralists do fairly well at following the morality that Jesus taught.

The problem is that since they don't have true faith in His sacrifice for sin they aren't really saved. Because of that they don't have the Holy Spirit. Since they don't have the Holy Spirit they cannot obey God's commandments for long and return to wallowing in the mud like a pig.

You see you can clean a pig up for a while, but if you don't change it's nature, pretty soon it will go back to wallowing in the mud. These people had enough knowledge to clean themselves up for a while but since they weren't really saved they didn't get regenerated and so they still had the nature of an unregenerate (pig) and so they returned to wallowing in the mud.

Now if Peter would have said that these men had faith in Jesus and were justified but then lost it, we would indeed have a theological problem. But he didn't say that. If they would have believed and trusted that Jesus' work on the cross delivered them personally and eternally from God's wrath apart from any of their works, then they would have been saved. Then the Spirit would have given them the new birth and so they would have had a new nature. With a new nature they would have not returned permanately to the mud.

Many people have enough knowledge to believe that Jesus is the Lord and Master and they committ themselves to living according to His moral precepts and commandments. However, that is really just a legalist. It is a person who is still trusting their ability to do good enough to be saved. Their faith is really in themselves and their works. So they never are justified and so don't get the Spirit... so later on they go back to the way they were.

In order to get saved you must understand that you are so sinful and evil that you cannot do a single thing to contribute in any way to your salvation. All your righteousness is as filthy rags. So you must come to Jesus and say Jesus I cannot do a single good thing... and so I totally abandon any effort to obtain salvation by my morality or by my cooperation with the law. Instead I now totally believe and trust that your death on the cross paid the penalty for all my sins and therefore I am personally, automatically and completely saved. I enturst the salvation of my soul into your hands and make no attempt to do anything else toward my salvation forever. I believe that your blood saves me from the penalty of my sin and I believe that your Spirit will make whatever changes in my life that He wishes. Amen.

If you do that you will actually get saved and then the Spirit will regenerate you and then you won't ever return permanetly to wallowing in the mud.

Then you point out the story about the Rich Young Ruler. Jesus never once explained the gospel to the man. The man was a legalist. Like most of the Pharisees he believed that He could keep the ten commandments well enough to be saved. In fact, the question he asked Jesus was "what shall I DO to obtain eternal life. He wanted to be given a list of things to DO. So Jesus went over the commandments with him... Don't commit adultery...don't kill... dont steal... etc. So the young man in His pride said that He had always kept all of the commandments.
So to prove him wrong Jesus went over two that He knew the young man wasn't keeping

1. He knew the young man wasn't keeping the 10th commandment which says do not covet. The man loved money. So to show him that he was a lawbreaker Jesus said go and sell everything you have. Of course, being a covetous man he wouldn't do that. So Jesus wasn't telling the man the gospel... He was just showing the man that he really hadn't kept all the commandments from his youth up.

2. Jesus knew the man wasn't keeping the 1st commandment which says not to have other gods before God. So to show the man that he was breaking the 1st commandment Jesus told him to leave everything and follow Him. The man wouldn't do it so that proved that he had other things in front of God.

So the point is .... Jesus never explained the gospel to the man. Instead, he showed the man that if he wanted to obtain eternal life by DOING what the law required he had already messed up. Salvation by the law was no longer a possiblilty for Him. Now Jesus was just preparing the man to understand that salvation is not by the law so that after His death and resurrection when the gospel was finally preached the man would be eager to hear about how sinners can be saved by faith in the blood of Christ rather than by works.

Now Peter was a believer in Jesus. So He was saved. Since he was saved He was willing to give up all to follow Jesus. And Jesus told him that he had eternal life and would be given many rewards for faithfully following Christ. But Jesus was not teaching Peter that by making sacrifices for Christ and the gospel we earn and deserve eternal life... he was simply affirming the fact that when believers follow Christ, they not only have eternal life since they are believers, but that they also have lots of rewards awaiting them.

Finally when Jesus says if any one will come after me let him deny himself etc. Notice that it says that Jesus said to his DISCIPLES if any man will come after me... etc. Jesus was challenging believers to be better disciples. He wasn't preaching the gospel. He said nothing of His death for sin and resurrection for our justification and of the need for faith in His blood. This isn't the gospel this is what He expects from disciples... and if they don't do those things their lives will be wasted (lost) and they will get no rewards on the day that Jesus rewards believers.

 

[Avid]

...Notice that it says that Jesus said to his DISCIPLES if any man will come after me... etc. Jesus was challenging believers to be better disciples...

There is a large problem highlighted here. It has to do with a tendency to pigeonhole people as "Christians" when there is little evidence of their commitment to the LORD, and to pigeonhole others as not Christian, who may be more awakened, or more open to the truth of God, than the other bunch.

This confusion of terms is something I have seen often. It seems to lump anyone who is not hostile, and actively working to destroy the Church, as being a "Christian." Many times over the centuries, and even as the apostles had stated, that these people are not what they appear. Many great men of God would call them "Christian Professors," those who profess Christianity, or those who profess to know Christ. In past centuries, a distinction has been made between these people and the true believers in the LORD.

Peter's words are to people who are around things of the LORD, pretend to be of one accord with the people of God, and go a certain distance in serving our LORD, but they have not done it with their whole heart. Your point that the Disciples were all believers was proven wrong in Judas Iscariot. He was even called an apostle. The same was shown with Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) when he "believed," but later, Peter told him to take his money to Hell with him. We have the couple in Acts 5, that agreed to lie to the Holy Spirit of God while pretending to be "Christians." God killed them where they stood.

The Old Testament denounced the whole idea of presumptuous sin being forgiven. That is why I included the passage from II Peter. These people were in the group, and had enough knowledge to see the difference of what I am saying, but their wicked hearts never would close with Christ. These people stand as examples of what not to do with the precious things of God when you have knowledge of them. It is their slight of God's truth, and craving for the things of this world that caused them to be out-of-reach of the sacrifice of the LORD. They would have been better off not playing around with "Church" than to take lightly the gift of the LORD.

Exodus 21
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

Numbers 15
30 ¶ But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Deuteronomy 17
12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.​

Let us not think we can pretend with God, and get away with doing what knowledge has shown us is wrong before the LORD.

...the story about the Rich Young Ruler. Jesus never once explained the gospel to the man.

This is a huge assumption. There is much, according to the Apostle John, that Jesus said and did that has not been written, because the world could not hold the books if all such were written that He had done. We might hear how it is assumed that John and his brother had never heard of Jesus Christ until Jesus walked up to their boat, and said, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Thousands attended at a number of times and places where Jesus spoke. Notice something seldom mentioned. This was said about few people specifically by Jesus, but was said about the Apostle John. Jesus loved him (the Rich Young Ruler) and gave such a call to him as can easily be construed to be like what you have said about Peter!

It may take a long while to answer all the problems with what you have written, so your patience may be required. These things take time to explain, and we need to understand how to read the scriptures while putting aside all this stuff we hear in churches these days.

 

[JLR1300]

I will try to be brief... It is easy for either side to make assumptions... we can assume that when Jesus spoke to his disciples he was speaking primarily to unbelievers simply because he had chosen one who was "a devil" (Judas I.) so that he could be betrayed and crucified for our sins. Or we can assume that when He was speaking to His disciples he primarily had believers in mind (that would seem to make more sense) And we can assume that Peter was speaking of true believers losing their salvation in the case of those who returned to walloing in the mire. Or since it is quite possible that the way I explained it is the correct way we can assume that they were just moralists with knowledge but not true believers.

However, we don't want to make the Bible contradict itself. If we take my assumptions these texts harmonize with the teachings from Romans and Galatians and Philippians about how justification is by faith apart from the deeds of the law and apart from works. If we take your assumptions then we end up with one set of scriptures saying that we are justified by faith alone and another set which say that we are justified (obtain eternal life in the first place) by works such as selling everything we have and giving it to the poor.

I just have too much faith in the scriptures to think that they contradict themselves and so I have to interpret the passages we just discussed in the way I did.

If we go with your understanding we end up with all kinds of logical contradictions.

Here are some....
Your understanding of the Gospel teaches that BEFORE we can be justified (forgiven) we have to Put Jesus first in our lives, which is to say, we must not love other things more than Him but must love Him supremely.

Now, Paul says in Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith APART FROM the deeds of the law."

Now when a lawyer came to Jesus and asked Him what was the greatest COMMAND IN THE LAW Jesus agreed that it was to Love the Lord with all your heart etc.

So Paul teaches that we are justified by faith APART FROM the deeds of the law... but you say that we must love the Lord and put him first to be justified... so you are saying that we must keep the greatest commandment in the Law to be saved. How can it be possible that we must keep the greatest commandment in the law to be saved and yet we are justified by faith APART FROM the deeds of the law?

Now the Lawyer was just like the rich young ruler... he asked what good thing he had to do to inherit life and Jesus asked him how he understood it.... and he said that the law required him to Love the Lord with all his heart, all his soul, all his mind, and all his strength and to love his neighbor as much as he loved himself. Jesus agreed that if he could do that then he would live. The man had so much arrogance that he didn't pause for one moment to wonder if he could really love both God and neighbor so perfectly. Since he was so self-righteous as to believe he could live up to all of the deeds that the law demanded in order to be justified...Jesus didn't bother to explain the Gospel to him either. He obviously wasn't ready. The law is meant to be a school-master to bring us to Christ. It is meant to show us how sinful we are so that we will look to Christ for mercy. We are not to try to keep it for salvation.

Here is another big logical contradiction in the theological position you are setting forth... We are told that in order to be saved we must repent of all our sins before we can be justified. Now 1st John 3:4 says that "sin is the transgression of the law" So we supposedly must repent of sin and since sin is the transgression of the law we are saying that we must decide not to transgress the law to be saved. Now to decide not to transgress the law is to decide to keep the law. So according to your theology, to be saved we must decide to keep the law. And yet Paul says that we are justified by faith APART FROM the deeds of the law. What a total contradiction.

Another contridiction is that you say that we must mortify the deeds of the flesh before we can be justified. Now to mortify the deeds of the flesh is to turn from evil. Yet, as I pointed out, Jonah 3:10 says that turning from evil is a work. "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil ways" And yet Paul says that "by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT BY WORKS, lest any man should boast."

So the point to all of this is... we all make some assumptions about how to interpret some of the things Jesus said in the gospels... but let's make assumptions that harmonize with other things in the scriptures and not make assumptions that make scripture contradict itself.

I used to read Puritan stuff like you (I am assuming you have because you spoke of "closing with Christ" which is a phrase theologians used a lot back in the 16 and 1700's. But there finally were so many logical contradictions with that Lordship justification view that I finally had to give it up. Like for instance, why did Jesus insist on people doing works for salvation like selling all they had but then later with the thief on the cross all the thief had to do was look to Christ for mercy in faith? Abraham was justified just by believing God's promise but others have to mortify the flesh?

Your view is just to complicated and it interjects works into justification. I used to preach your view for a long time... so I certainly understand where you are coming from...

 

[1watchman]

Those six points of decline in the world is right on as truth. We see it everywhere in christendom. The majority of religious type people disdain the Bible-only position, so that is what they get --spiritual loss.

 

[Avid]

Those six points of decline in the world is right on as truth. We see it everywhere in christendom...

This is true, and the concern that suggested this would be a good topic. It is this way in the "Church," and thus it shows in the world around us:

I Peter 4
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
​

The problems show where the truth is distilled to a few points that are not so odious to the world, they file in to the assembly of believers, the body is corrupted, and we are left wondering how all of it came about!

The offence of the Cross never has ceased, and never can cease. To suppose it to have ceased is folly. The religion of Jesus is most peaceful, mild and benevolent. Yet its history shows it to have been assailed with bitterest hate all along. It is clearly offensive to the unregenerate mind. There is no reason to believe that it is one jot more palatable to the world than it used to be. The world and the Gospel are both unchanged.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834−1892)
​

Let us be watchful and vigilant, as we know not the the hour our LORD cometh.

 

[Bohemond]

Hi Mwood

You said, "Don't worry yourself about your sins. Focus on your witness for Jesus. When we are in Jesus He is also in us. We are ambassadors of Jesus, we need to go about our work as an ambassador and quit worrying about the things that we can do nothing about."

Yikes! Say what??? Let's clarify some things.

We had better worry about our sins and confess them and repent of them. Sin is serious to God. Our sins put His only begotten son on the cross.

If we have sin in our lives, we need to worry about them and get right with God.

"If we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27).

"Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:7-9).

There is a heretical teaching called, "hyper-grace" which claims that all our sins past, present and future are paid for and covered -- no matter how we live. But, it presumes upon the grace and mercy of God as if God turns a blind eye to our behavior now.

To be clear: yes, our confessed & repented of sins are washed away.

But, salvation does not give us a blank check to live as we choose. In fact, authentic salvation causes us to choose NOT TO SIN.

If, Mwood, you are referring to past sins which the Holy Spirit has not yet brought to mind, then yes, we need not carry a false guilt and give Satan a club to beat us with. We can claim the blood of Jesus. Period.

But, we do not have God's "favor" in order that we might live lives as we please. As redeemed Children of God, we hate sin.

Before we were saved, we loved sin and jumped into it. But, after we are saved, we loathe sin. We may lapse into it, but we hate it and don't live there.

God says, "Be holy, for I am holy." He doesn't say, "I understand, you have a sin nature and you are just a sinner saved by grace. Do the best you can." No, He expects us to "put on the new man, created in Christ Jesus" and to "flee youthful lusts."

Our witness is tarnished by the degree to which we have unconfessed sin in our lives. We lose our power to live as authentic Christians if we just "name and claim it" but disregard what God has said. "Obedience is better than sacrifice" (1 Samuel 15:22).

Hyper-grace is a slippery slope. And, we quench the Holy Spirit by not listening to Him. He calls us to a life of holiness.

Very good post, thank you.

 

[Avid]

Much of what you have stated here is from somewhere other than what I wrote! You should quote where I said something with which you disagree, as I have done with what you said. If the quote feature does not work properly, there are other ways to do it. Just select the text in my post, and copy & paste it into your reply.

I am not sure if you are promoting a Calvinist position, or some other thing. My concern is that these assumptions of what NEVER happened, or of who in the scriptures were actually saved or not, when they were saved or not, should be put aside for the truth of what God said in His word.

You are mistaken to think one must be JUSTIFIED before he can REPENT. There are attempts to repent that are NOT repentance, as was the case with Esau. (Heb.12:16-17) There are attempts to get credit for repenting that are not repentance, as I had shown with people who came to John's Baptism.

You are mistaken to think I have said these various things are required for JUSTIFICATION. When I read something that says people who pray a certain prayer are Christians, and then compare it to someone who takes the very warnings given by Jesus, and expounds them, I must side with the latter.

... Your understanding of the Gospel teaches that BEFORE we can be justified (forgiven) we have to Put Jesus first in our lives, which is to say, we must not love other things more than Him but must love Him supremely... ... Another contridiction is that you say that we must mortify the deeds of the flesh before we can be justified...

Quote me saying any of that. It will help further the discussion.

Yours seems to be an oversimplified way of presenting the whole of scripture that leaves out way too much. If Calvinist or Arminian, there are groups that attempt to reduce all of scripture into 5 points, or only 1 verse, or some other convenient encapsulated version of the truth, we have a great lack of understanding we should confront.

The Apostles had much time with the LORD, and some were still full of self, and the Jewish religion while they walked with Him here. Peter boasted of what he would or would not do. People like to say Peter was a "Christian" because he had some things revealed to his heart in preparation for what he should do. No one qualifies as what our LORD expected until Pentecost. Then it was 120, and soon became well over 3,000.

Matthew 11
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
​

We need to see the stark difference between people in the flesh, and people who God has made into a new creation. John the Baptist was in between that for a couple of reasons that were stated in the scriptures, and this was even noted by our LORD Jesus Christ. Most of what we hear in churches these days does not display either an understanding, nor does it teach these differences, so as not to "discourage" people who wish to be seen as seeking the LORD, while not giving up any of their fleshly pursuits in the process.

 

[mikedsjr]

To the opening, I have one rhetorical question: Is the grass greener on booth's side of this 100 years?

No. No it isn't.

If push comes to, I would venture in the realm of challenging Booth's theology.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

All that you have said is right and good. But, you have not yet accepted the fact that the shed blood on the Cross was for all the sins of the whole world, past, present, and future. There is no forgiving of sins without the shedding of blood. There is no blood that you or I can shed that will be acceptable to God. And Jesus will not shed His blood again. He has died once for the sins and He will not die anymore.

I have mentioned before, that as long as we are in this body of flesh we will sin, try as hard as we might we cannot escape sin. If we can strive to be perfect, and achieve perfection, as Jesus was perfect, then He would not have had to die on the Cross. But, that is impossible for flesh.

As for Hyper-grace, if you understood the Gospel of Grace that was revealed to the Apostle Paul, you would not think of it as a slippery slope, or hyper-grace. You would know the difference between the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus and the Twelve were preaching, and the Gospel of Grace that was revealed to Paul by Jesus. They are as different as sand and soap. Paul is the Jew that God has chosen to be the Jewish Priest to go to the Gentiles since the Nation of Israel would not be the Nation of Priest that God told Moses He wanted.

Read and study this Gospel of Grace that Paul has written about. It will open your eyes to a whole new world of the complete truth of Gods word. Its not a slippery slope.

Can you show in the Bible where the gospel is anything other than the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? I thought it was the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Gospel of Grace. Isn't calling the gospel of Jesus Christ the Gospel of Grace adding doctrinal twists with unclear implications? Is that a different gospel? It sounds like somebody is trying to claim some kind of special awareness or understanding by changing the gospel of Jesus Christ into the Gospel of Grace, and that usage of capitalization makes me suspicious of the underlying doctrine. That sounds to me like a strange gospel, a different gospel which the Bible warns against. Teaching about God's grace is one thing, but changing the gospel into the Gospel of Grace is ground I'm not going to be walking on.

I never heard of any thing other than one gospel, and that is the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. There is a strong overemphasis on "grace" in modern churches, Christians making excuses for ungodly things because they claim to be under grace and not law so it's ok if they appear to be unholy in what they are doing or saying.

"let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth". Why do I seem to smell corruption in this Gospel of Grace stuff?