Donahue's Second Affirmative
I appreciate the good job Steve has done. As I've said, I've had a number of debates and Steve does one of the best jobs of anybody I've faced. At least he tries to answer the arguments, make arguments. If you come to the debate tomorrow morning, I appreciate those folks, but they don't do nearly as well as Steve, to say the least. So I appreciate the good job Steve's doing. It doesn't mean I agree with him and we shall see what I have to say about what he said. He asked me, "what does it mean to be born again?" Or, to become a Christian? Steve, it means exactly what the Bible teaches it means. It means we were forgiven of our sins that we commit to becoming a new creature.
Okay, now let's turn to Romans six, because I had written down Romans six as a good passage to prove this and then Steve brought it up, talking about what the definition was. In Romans six he talks about water baptism. Steve probably doesn’t agree with that but that’s another debate. In verses 4-6 he says this is the point which we get “into Christ” and are forgiven of our sins. There’s the part about being born again – we’re forgiven of our sins. And, there’s a number of places here – really the main theme of this part of the passage is not baptism. He’s just saying, “look, when you were baptized you committed to live right,” and so Romans six is trying to say, “you need to live right.” That’s the second part of my definition. “You need to commit to becoming, you’ve committed to becoming a new creature, so you need to act like it.” Now it’s not something that’s “forced” upon us as Steve’s position has it. Look at verse 12 – he says “let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body that you should obey it in the lusts thereof.” So he’s not saying it’s impossible for you to "let sin reign in your mortal body" because you became a Christian and you were born again. He’s saying “because you were born again, that means this is what you OUGHT to do, to be consistent with what you said you would do when you became a Christian.”
I’ll get to this little later in Steve’s speech, while we’re here, he said in verse two, it says “God forbid: How shall we who are dead to sin live any longer therein?” Steve presented that as if it was saying it’s impossible, if you’ve become “dead to sin,” to live in sin any more. That’s not what it’s saying. If I said to my child, “If you love me, how could you do this to me?” Like he had a severe case of disobedience. Maybe he got caught getting on drugs at school. Let’s hope that never happens. But the saying, “How could you do this to me” doesn’t mean it’s impossible; it means it’s inconsistent with your professed love for me. That’s what he’s saying in Romans six. If you’re “dead to sin,” not that it’s impossible to “live any longer therein”; That’s not the point at all. The point’s the very opposite of that; That “if you love me” or become “dead to sin,” you shouldn’t “live any longer therein.” You can see that from verse one. The whole question of the chapter resolves around verse one, “shall we continue in sin that grace may abound.” Not that it’s impossible. But Paul’s trying to say the answer to that is “no.” You should not "continue in sin." It’s possible! And some of them were doing it and he says “you shouldn’t be doing that.” Don’t you know that when you were baptized, when you committed to become a Christian, you committed to live as a new creature, a different life? Verse twelve – “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body.” Not that it’s impossible! He says don’t do it. It is possible. You shouldn’t do it. So Romans six is a passage on my side of the equation.
There were a number of things that Steve said, and very quickly, that I won’t have time to get to, but let’s pick out one that he developed somewhat. Luke 8, the parable of the sower, let’s talk about some of the things he said.
First, he said that this good, honest and good hearted person is given a gift of perseverance. That’s not what Luke 8:15 says. It doesn’t say they are given a gift of perseverance or that God would force them to persevere. It says that they, these good and honest souls, having the word they got, “keep it, bring forth fruit with patience.” In other words, it’s up to them, they do it, not God. God doesn’t force them. Their not given this gift, that Steve’s talking about, meaning forced. They will do it. But, they can choose not to.
Now look back at something else Steve said. Steve said, “here’s the ones,” in verse 13, “they fell on the rock,” and he says “see, it says they for awhile believed and in time of temptation they fall away,” that shows, Steve says, that shows they were just professed believers, not real believers. That’s not what Jesus said. This passage proves my position. It says they “believed.” Now, Jesus ought to know if they believed or not. He didn’t say they professed belief, he said they did believe. And, either Jesus was wrong or he was right.
Steve says that Jesus should have meant they were professed believers and “fell away.” If they “fell away,” what did they fall away from? No, it says they believed, and Jesus knows what he’s talking about. He’s right. It says “they believed”; it didn’t say Jesus thinks they believed. It says they “believed.” Contrast that with verse twelve. Notice these persons, in verse twelve, he talks about the word being “taken away from the heart,” it says, “lest they should believe and be saved.” The implication is that, had they believed, they would have been saved. So, the one in verse thirteen, got closer. They didn’t get all the way to heaven but they got closer. Verse twelve talks about people that heard the word but they didn’t, the word was “taken out” before they believed and were saved. Verse thirteen’s talking about those who did believe, Steve, and according to the implication, they would have been saved. But, then they “fell away.” That proves my position. Then, verse fifteen, it’s talking about those who believe, and were saved, and persevered. Verse thirteen is talking about what we’re talking about tonight – those who believed, were saved, and did not persevere. Do you see that?
Now, Steve, as far as the heart is concerned. He thought – these had a good and honest heart and they persevered. They did persevere. That, people that have a good and honest heart will persevere as long as they continue to have a good and honest heart. Like a sheep is a follower of Christ, but when he ceases to follow Christ, he ceases to be a sheep. John 10. When a person ceases to have a good and honest heart, then he ceases, he will cease to persevere. Now, can I prove that a person can have a good heart and then turn to a bad heart? Sure, the Bible teaches that. Do you remember Solomon? It talks about his heart. Remember when he chose, Andrew, he could have chosen riches or women, he chose to have wisdom. God compliments his heart because he didn’t choose those things. He chose wisdom. But, later it said, about Solomon, that his “heart was turned from the Lord” by his wives. So you see his heart was good and then his heart was “turned from the Lord.” These wives, idolatrous people, “turned his heart.” So, you can have a “good and honest heart” and be changed and have a bad heart as Solomon did, and therefore, verse fifteen of Luke 8, were not described any more.
Let’s notice some other mistakes that, with all due respect, Steve is making. This is a glaring mistake. He made an argument based upon an illustration that we’re “joined to Christ,” that we’re “glued,” as if you couldn’t become unglued from Christ. Boy, I try to glue a lot of things around my house and they, more than about half the time they become unglued, Steve. But I want you to notice what Steve said about Matthew nineteen verse six. This is talking about marriage, but I suspect it could be applied to other things, being larger than that, he says, it says, “what God has joined together in Christ," he added that, “will not be put asunder.” What God has joined together will not be put asunder! That’s not what it says! Now, he used that to prove, he says it says, “What God has joined together will not be put asunder,” as if, if God joins it together, it can’t be “put asunder.” Impossible! But it says the very opposite of that, Steve. It says, “what God has joined together LET NOT man put asunder,” which means man can put is asunder. So, it teaches the very opposite. “What God has glued together, let not man unglue it,” which means he can unglue it. So, it defeats your point. And then he says Christians are “addicted to Christ,” and we talked about this at the supper table tonight, and he agreed with me that addictions can be broken, so his point is incorrect. Yes, we ought to be addicted to Christ. That’s a good thing. And, a matter of fact, I’ll go so as far as to say we should be fanatics for Christ, in the right way. But, we can lose our addiction, just like you can overcome the addiction to cigarettes, it’s possible, and I gave you many examples of that. One of those is Hebrews 3:12, remember it’s talking about “brethren,” “holy brethren,” so if they’re “holy brethren,” wouldn’t you say they had an addiction to Christ? Certainly. He said “lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief.” Now, they changed to unbelief. Did they still have addiction to Christ? Obviously not. In “departing from the living God,” they became unglued, didn’t they? They certainly did. You know the verse is teaching exactly what I am saying. It directly contradicts Steve’s position. He turned to the “glue” passage that says the opposite of what Steve is saying. Verse three shows the very opposite of what he is saying. Do you see that? You can lose that addiction.
Then he said the New Testament epistles were written to professed Christians. Not all of them were good. Okay. Let’s deal with that. What he’s saying is, that when you see a book, like Hebrews, and I quoted Hebrews 3:12, it says “brethren,” that’s really professed believers, and some of them may not be true believers. Like, if Steve and I were preaching, we would say “brethren,” but we wouldn’t know for sure that all of them were truly brethren. Somebody there, who believed and was baptized, and looks like they became a brother, might have done it for the wrong reason. But, we have to assume the best because we can’t read their heart unless they tell us, and that’s right. But see, that’s because we’re not inspired. We don’t know for sure if a person had become a brother. Right? We’re not that inspired, so we have to assume they did, if their fruit shows that they did, they tell us. If a person comes to you and repents, we have to assume their truly repenting and forgive them. Right? But Paul was inspired. Jesus was inspired. When Jesus said, in Luke 8, is it verse 12, that they “believed,” he would know whether or not if they believed. He’s not like you and me preaching from the pulpit calling somebody a “brother,” he knows! He always 100%, he’s omnipotent and omniscient, is the word I should think of, and Paul is the same way, in that he was inspired. He wasn’t omniscient, but anything he was inspired to say as a prophet, or write, it was in effect omniscient, because God said it, in other words, it would not be wrong. So, when Paul calls somebody a “brother,” he’s not wrong, not when it’s in the Bible, for that’s inspired of God. Now, really, we’re getting down to whether we believe the inspiration of the Bible here. Now Steve does believe the inspiration of the Bible. He believes it’s inerrant, but his position is denying the inerrancy and inspiration of God, because he’s saying it calls them “brethren” in the Bible but they weren’t really brethren. So, he’s saying it was wrong, Hebrews 3:12 is wrong. Now, let’s go on beyond that point, the fact that they were called “brethren” by inspired, let’s go beyond that point. Did you notice I was careful in many of these passages, I didn’t just say they were called “brother,” it had further adjectives, to prove that they were true brethren, not just professed brethren, what did I do in Hebrews chapter three? Does anybody remember? Any man remember how I did that in Hebrews three? What I say? It says “brethren,” verse twelve, but what showed that they were true brethren? Verse one. “Holy brethren.” Now you can’t be a “holy brethren” if you’re not really a brother if you just did it because your wife wanted you to be baptized. Your not a “holy” brother, you may, some man, some uninspired man, may think you’re a brother – see how I did that Steve? That answers your argument right there. Now, let’s see how it works in John 15. Remember how it talks these people, they were the “branches,” and then it says “If you don’t bear fruit, I’m going to “prune” you, and an analogy is pruning, like in apples or something, and will take you out and “burn” you. Well, the point spiritually is, the spiritual part of the analogy, the **** is, if you don’t abide in me, and you don’t bear fruit, then you’re going to be burned – everlasting punishment. What did I say about that?
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Garrett's First Negative
Welcome, brothers and sisters in Christ, ladies and gentlemen, my friend Mr. Donahue. We are here to discuss the eternal security of a believer. I am here to "give a reason of the hope that I have in Christ," based on I Peter 3:15. We are all under apostolic command to “examine” ourselves whether we are “in the faith,” II Cor. 13:3, and to “prove all things” (I Thess. 5:21). We are not here for any personal victories, as Pat said.
Now I don’t have to prove anything. Presumption in debate is with the negative. Pat must therefore prove his proposition by the Scriptures. It will be my duty to show that the Scriptures he cites, and the interpretations he gives to them, do not teach his proposition as he imagines. I will also offer counter arguments, that if true, will refute the validity and truthfulness of Pat’s proposition.
Now, let me talk about definitions. I insist that Pat define what it means to be born again, to be regenerated, to become a Christian. I firmly believe that if he understood what it means to be born again, regenerated, that he would not be taking the position that he does relative to whether such can lose salvation. I will, therefore, since he did not, define these terms from the Scriptures. Those who are saved, born again, regenerated, made new creatures in Christ, have been given certain gifts, as part of their calling. In regeneration God gives to, or creates in sinners, certain qualities and attributes. These they receive and continually possess. Among these necessary and precious gifts are,
1. The Divine Nature (II Peter 1:4)
2. The Love of God (Romans 5:5)
3. The Knowledge of God and Christ (Matt. 11:27)
4. Faith (Philippians 1:29)
5. Repentance (II Tim. 2:25)
They are given the gift of 6. Perseverance (Luke 8:15). They are given the gift of a 7. Steadfast hope (I John 3:3) And finally the gift of 8. Truth itself (I John 2:27)
Thus, a man who, is regenerated, has a nature that guarantees its perseverance and ultimate triumph, a nature and conversion that cannot be reversed.
Now, I exclude, from the definition, all hypocrites, pretenders, presumers, yea, all deceived and deluded souls. I exclude all wayside ground hearers. I exclude from the definition all shallow ground hearers, all thorny ground hearers. I also exclude from the definition all “false brothers” as Judas, Annanias, Simon Magus (that he brought up from Acts 8), the Judaizers, and such like. (See II Cor. 11:26 & Gal. 2:4).
In further defining what it means to be regenerated and born again, I have these seven further characteristics:
1. A truly saved man is a man “possessed” by Christ and the Holy Spirit. He is as much controlled by Christ’s presence and Holy Spirit as a man possessed of a demon and evil spirit. Just as one possessed of Satan and his spirit, is enslaved to him (II Tim. 2:24), and so does the will of Satan, so one possessed of Christ and his Spirit, is enslaved to Christ and so does the will of Christ. As the slaves of sin and Satan “cannot cease from sin” (II Peter 2: 14), so those who are slaves to Christ and righteousness, “cannot cease” from following Christ or “cease from” righteousness.
Secondly, a truly saved man is “glued” to Christ, “attached” or “joined” to him in a manner that makes it impossible to become “unglued.” The meaning of the word “joined” in the Greek literally means “glued to.” We are “super glued” to Christ. Christians can say of Christ “I’m stuck on you,” and Christ can say to the believer, “I’m stuck on you.” There is a “bond” created between a believer and Jesus, in the new birth, that is more powerful than any bond in nature, be it natural as in the bonding of atoms, or in the social realm as a mother’s bonding with her baby. What God has “joined together” in Christ will not be “put asunder.” Through conversion we are “joined to Christ” (I Cor. 6:17), and as I said, the Greek word there has the sense of “glued.” The “bond” is strong and enduring.
Thirdly, a truly saved man is a man who is “addicted to” Christ. Men become addicted to sin; thus, it is said of them, that they “cannot cease from sin” – That they are “hooked on sin” as a man “hooked” on heroin. When one becomes addicted to Christ they are “hooked” on him and cannot but forever be devoted to him and forever realize their need of him each day. They, in a sense, get their “highs” and their “fixes” on Christ. Christ asked Peter and the apostles after the defection of some seeming disciples, “will you also go away?” Peter expressed his addiction to Christ, saying “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” There is a popular song called “addicted to love.” Christians are addicted to the love of Christ, a love from which they shall never be separated. Just as there is in human behavior that which is called “compulsive behavior,” so there is too in the life of a Christian. He is "compelled" by the love and grace of Christ. So Paul says, “the love of Christ constrains us,” that is, it “compels” us (II Cor. 5:14)
We came into the realm of salvation initially by being “compelled,” and we are continuously "compelled." Luke 14:23 says that.
Number four, a truly saved man recognizes himself as clay in God’s hands, is a man who has God as his potter creating him into a “vessel of mercy.” He recognizes that all he becomes, in Christ is the sole work of the Potter and he can therefore claim no credit for any part of his salvation, nor for any good deed that he does. If (there’s an “if” statement. We will talk more about that), if we are “new creatures in Christ” (II Cor. 5:17), it is because “he has made us, and not we ourselves.” (Psalm 100:3)
Fifthly, by way of further definition, a saved man, a truly saved man, has in regeneration, a life and nature that is immortal and incapable of corruption. This is signified by the language the following scriptures.
I Peter 1:23 – “Being born again...of incorruptible seed, by the word of God.” And then, in I Peter 3:4 , Peter speaks of “that hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible.” And then finally in I John 3:9 the apostle John says, “whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him...” Grace in the heart is here represented as “incorruptible” and “abiding” and that which absolutely assures its possessor from a life of sin.
Regeneration thus produces a drastic change in a sinner’s heart and life. My opponent believes that regeneration is nothing but water baptism, an external rite, something that does not produce any inward or radical change.
In regeneration God imparts to the elect indestructible spiritual life, transforming the very nature and dispositions of their hearts. Since this spiritual life is indestructible, it means that regeneration is irreversible. Therefore, once regenerated, one cannot truly or finally turn away from God or denounce Christ. This means that all those who are regenerated will also persevere. Any doctrine that denies this contradicts the very meaning of regeneration.
All this is clear from rhetorical question in Romans 6:2; Pat, listen to this. “How shall we who died to sin, live any longer therein?” The obvious truth, being upheld by Paul, is the one I believe, which affirms that those who have undergone true regeneration cannot live in sin as they did before.
Sixthly, by way of further definition, a truly saved man is one who has received the “seed of the kingdom” “with an honest and good heart” in contradistinction to those, who in the parable of the sower, became only pretenders to true salvation. Lets read Luke 8, verses 12-15, if you have your Testaments. Jesus said “those by the wayside, are they that hear, then cometh the Devil and taketh away the word which was sown in their hearts lest they should believe and be saved.”
“They on the rock are they which, when they hear, receive the word with joy, and have no root (these have no root) in themselves, which for awhile believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they which when they have heard go forth and are choked with cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But (that is a word of contrast), but that on the good ground are they which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience (the Greek word here could be perseverance).” “With perseverance.” “With lastingness” if I can say that.
There are thus four kinds of hearers of the word or seed, in the parable of the sower. Only one of the four, however, heard the word savingly. Only one truly believed. The word was preached and only one was actually saved and regenerated, by that word. Only one had “a good and honest heart.” All the others did not have a “good and honest heart,” but were hypocrites, pretenders.
The only ones who quote, “fell away” (“stumbled,” some translations, or were “offended”), in the parable, were those who received the word without an “honest and good heart.” They were the ones who got “offended.” Such apostates are doomed to fail. They’re destined to be temporary in their professing faith. They’re absolutely certain to “fall away.” Why? Because they “began in the flesh” rather than “in the Spirit.” They did not receive the word with and “honest and good heart.” They did not receive the seed into the depth of the soul. They did not have “root” in the truth or “root in themselves.” They lacked something. Thus, they who are such, are only “seeming” Christians. I, therefore, equate, by way of definition, the term “good ground hearer,” with “regenerated” or “born again” Christian. Until he defines it differently, that’s the way its defined in the debate.
Now, not a single one of the “good ground hearers” failed to produce “good fruit” regularly and continually and none of them “fell away” or lacked saving understanding of the message.
Now let me talk to you about the New Testament epistles. The New Testament epistles were addressed, Pat, to all professing Christians. But, every writer of those New Testament epistles, clearly did not presume them all to be truly what they professed to be. I don’t think you really believe that. Not all the first converts were “good ground hearers.” All the members of the first New Testament churches were not all truly born again, or truly regenerated, or “good ground hearers.” This is clear in the epistles. If my friend Pat disagrees with this, let him tell us. The early church had hypocrites in them just like we do today. The Greek word “hupocrites” means “an actor under an assumed character.” In other words, a pretender, a fake or a fraud, or to use the words of Jesus, “wolves in sheep’s clothing”; Or, to use the words of Paul, “pseudo brothers.” The early church had “shallow ground hearers,” those who “believed for awhile and in time of temptation fell away.”
You say they can’t “fall away” unless they were truly saved to start with. Were those people really saved there in the parable? Tell us that, will you? For, they “fell away.” These did not receive the seed “with an honest and good heart,” for had they done so, they would have permanently believed. They would not have fallen away like the others. In time of temptation they would not have produced temporary fruit, fruit that soon withers and dies, but they would rather have brought forth “fruit with perseverance,” fruit that lasts and fruit that endures.
The exhortations to perseverance, to self judgment and examination, in the Scriptures, are designed to call all professing Christians to make sure that they are not “wayside,” “thorny ground” or “wayside hearers,” but make sure they are “good ground hearers,” to make sure they are truly saved.
Now that you are still in Luke 8, on the parable, look at verse 18. Jesus said, about the coming day of judgment, “whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.” Did you get that? People can lose, or have taken from them, what they only seemingly, or apparently have. They can possess things in their imaginations that are seemingly real to them, and these things can be taken away or lost. Their perceptions often become realities to those who are lost in sins. Why, the sinners in Isaiah 28:15 were “taking refuge in their lies.” People even received comfort from their delusions and things that are not real in themselves. This is important to understand, especially in view of the verses that Pat has introduced to prove that people are losing actual salvation, rather than losing seeming or apparent salvation. Some of those verses simply speak of the hypocrites having taken from them "that which they seem to have," as Luke 8:18 says, “take away from them that which they only seem or profess to have,” what they possess only in their dreams or imaginations, but not actually possess.
People therefore, Pat, may lose salvation seemingly, as in the parable. They may “fall from grace,” only apparently, not actually. People also will have their apparent or seeming “parts," or “names,” in the “book of life,” and in the holy city, in this manner “taken away.” Those who are truly in grace, who truly understand salvation by grace and the gospel of grace, will never be moved away from it. It is a lesson one cannot unlearn for the simple reason – God is the one that taught it to them. John 6:45 So Jesus says in Matthew 24:24 – “that is not possible,” Pat, “that the elect be deceived.” “Impossible,” he says.
Those who had become professing Christians, professed believers in salvation by the grace of God, had manifested, in the churches of Galatia, by their embracing a false gospel, of salvation by human works and human law keeping, that they had never had truly trusted in Christ alone for salvation.
Now lets look at I Cor. 9: 24-27 about “running to obtain the prize.” Now I admit that salvation, is viewed in that passage is view as a “prize” to be “won.” We do “win Christ.” (Phil. 3:8) How then (and I asked Pat this in the question I gave him before the debate) how then can salvation be both a “free gift” and a “prize” or “reward”? Brother and sister, the only way that you can reconcile this is by understanding that perseverance itself is the gift and work of God, the result of divine election. Many scriptures teach this and I will not be able to give but a tithe of them in this discussion. But, I must ask this question. Why, Pat, does one runner persevere and win the prize and another does not? Now, Pat gave me the answer. He says it’s the will of the sinner that ultimately makes the difference. Pat will ascribe the reason to the sinner himself, to his own will and power, rather than to God’s will and power alone, as do the Scriptures. It takes “stick-too-it-iveness,” if I can say that, to win any battle, to win any race, does it not? Who else but God can give this “stick-too-it-iveness”?
Now, lets go further. Paul asks, in I Cor. 4:7, to these same Corinthians, he says, “who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you didn’t receive," that is, from God? Now, you watch, throughout this discussion, and you’ll see that this whole issue comes down to that simple question. To what will each of us ascribe as being the ultimate reason for why we are saved and others are not? Why are we different from another in the matter of salvation and perseverance? Pat must say that the sinner himself makes the ultimate difference by his free will election of God and by his self-wrought salvation, by his own self-will, by his own power to run, and ultimately, not by God’s election, and by God’s omnipotent efforts. What made the difference in the runners?
Also, how do we harmonize Paul’s lesson here in I Corinthians 9 with what he said in Romans 9, where he says about salvation, “it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”? So, we need to harmonize those passages. “Run that you may obtain” and Romans nine – “it is not of him who runs.” As I’ve said, I believe I have explained how the ultimate difference comes from the election. Now look at Philippians 2:13. This will help us out because it tells us there that “God works in us both to will and to do of God’s good pleasure.”
Isaiah 26:12 also says “for you Lord have wrought all our works in us.” That verse also shows that even our “running for the prize” is God’s work in us. Our “inner fuel,” call it “spiritual adrenaline,” or whatever, “spiritual stamina,” is what causes us to ultimately to persevere and win this race, obtain this prize. God creates, according to Phil. 2:13, the desire in people for the prize, then, to Phil. 2:13 and the other verses that I have cited. He brings about, not only the choice to pursue that prize, and gives the spiritual stamina necessary to run the race, but he actually gives those runners, the predestined runners, the power to obtain it. Think of how assured this victory is when you consider that Christ is the coach and trainer of every runner in this race. Christ has run this race before. And brother, with him in one’s corner, coaching and imparting all his skill and understanding, one can’t help but win the prize. Victory is assured. But alas, how few professing runners have Christ truly as their coach and trainer? All victory is God given. I Cor. 15:57. Why does one desire the prize and another does not? I answer, as does the Scripture, “the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” (Rom. 11:7) Pat will not ascribe the reason to divine election. He can’t say “the election has obtained it” for the runner, and “the rest were blinded.”
Now, in Phil. 1:6 Paul shows us that all the parts or various aspects of salvation are all of God and his grace alone. Paul said, “he which hath begun a good work in you will complete it.” Thus, if we give God the credit for initiating us in the Christian race, we will expect him to push us forward in the race as our great coach and trainer in our corner, and so we can’t but help obtain the victory over our enemies, the world, the flesh, and Satan; And we cannot but help give him the credit for us obtaining the prize. Paul does not imply that he nor any truly regenerated, nor anyone whom God chose and predestined to receive this prize could fail to receive it. Paul did not doubt that some who had apparently entered the Christian race would be rejected, disapproved, not receive the incorruptible crown, or the prize, but he did not believe that he nor any of the truly elect would fail to win the prize. What does he say in the passage? “So fight I, not as uncertainly.” So, Paul was assured of what the result was going to be.
Now, about promise of erasure from the book of life in Rev. 3:5 and Rev. 22:19, let me add this other pertinent information to what I have already said about that. In Rev. 13:8 we read – “and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. 17:8 – “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition and they shall wonder whose names were NOT written in the book of life from the foundation of the world when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”
Thus, the names of those written in the book of life were written from the foundation of the world, from eternity. No Pat, I don’t believe a person’s name is written in the book where they are born again. I believe they were written before the foundation of the world. And, for that reason, their names shall not be erased. Why would we think that God was up there in heaven writing and erasing seeing he wrote the names before the foundation of the world? Would he not at least wait till a man died, whether saved or lost, before he wrote his name down in the book and save himself all this erasing and writing? Pat, when does God write a man’s name down in the book of life? Tell us that.
Now, from the passages I just read, Rev. 13:8 & 17:8, it is clear that none of those who have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life go into the false religion of Antichrist. They all remain true to the religion of Christ. They all, therefore, overcome. Would it not be a part of the false religion of Antichrist, Pat, to “take away from the word of God”? The threats do not imply what Pat thinks they do, what he surmises. They don’t imply that any truly called or chosen will fail to persevere and continue. But their designed, as I said, to wake up false and deluded Christians, who think they are saved when they are not, that they might become truly saved, real Christians, and not mere hypocrites.
Now, let me talk about the “weak brethren perishing” in I Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 and concerning which I have the following points.
First, the “weak brothers” in the text, Pat, are not born again, regenerated, Christians nor are they even members of the church at Corinth or the church at Rome. That you might see this:
1. These “weak brothers” did not believe in “one God.” They didn’t believe in “one Lord,” or in “one Lord Jesus Christ,” but believed in polytheism, as is clear from I Cor. chapter 8 verses 5-8.
Next, Paul clearly addresses in the first and second persons, the Corinthian “strong” brethren, the Roman brethren.
Thirdly, Paul speaks of the “weak brothers” as not being part of these churches and speaks of them in the third person.
Fourthly, these “weak brothers” do not have “Christian knowledge.” Only the “strong” have the “knowledge” of the things enumerated in verses 5-8 of I Corinthians chapter 8. What does Paul say about the “weak brothers”? He says the “weak brothers with consciousness of the idol UNTIL THIS DAY eat it as a thing sacrificed to idols.”
Further, the text is telling us that Christ died, not for every weak brother, Pat, every idolater, but he died for these kinds of people, and so, our every effort should be towards their salvation also.
Seventh, obviously, Pat, the word “brother” in this chapter is not used to mean Christian brothers, but as “neighbor.” It is not uncommon in Scripture to call others “brother” who are not Christians. I think there is abundant reason to equate the word "brother” in this passage and in Romans 14 with the word “neighbor” or “fellow-citizen” or “comrade.” Does my opponent’s church have members that do not believe the things that the “strong brothers” believe inverses 5-8? Does he have weak members who do not believe that there is only “one God,” but who still believe there are “many gods” and “many lords”? Does he have weak members, weak brothers, in his church, that do not believe in “one Lord Jesus Christ,” but rather in “many lords”? Let him tell us that. Look at I Cor. 9 verses 19-22 if you want to get a definition of whether these “weak brothers” are saved or not. Look at it.
“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all that I might gain the more...unto the Jews I became a Jew that I might gain the Jews...To the weak,” Pat, “I became as weak that I might save the weak.” There’s your “weak” brother! Your weak “neighbor” that is all the word “brother” means. I will continue with this and what I don’t get to now, addressed to in this speech, I will get to it in the next. How much time?
Thank you brethren.
Now I don’t have to prove anything. Presumption in debate is with the negative. Pat must therefore prove his proposition by the Scriptures. It will be my duty to show that the Scriptures he cites, and the interpretations he gives to them, do not teach his proposition as he imagines. I will also offer counter arguments, that if true, will refute the validity and truthfulness of Pat’s proposition.
Now, let me talk about definitions. I insist that Pat define what it means to be born again, to be regenerated, to become a Christian. I firmly believe that if he understood what it means to be born again, regenerated, that he would not be taking the position that he does relative to whether such can lose salvation. I will, therefore, since he did not, define these terms from the Scriptures. Those who are saved, born again, regenerated, made new creatures in Christ, have been given certain gifts, as part of their calling. In regeneration God gives to, or creates in sinners, certain qualities and attributes. These they receive and continually possess. Among these necessary and precious gifts are,
1. The Divine Nature (II Peter 1:4)
2. The Love of God (Romans 5:5)
3. The Knowledge of God and Christ (Matt. 11:27)
4. Faith (Philippians 1:29)
5. Repentance (II Tim. 2:25)
They are given the gift of 6. Perseverance (Luke 8:15). They are given the gift of a 7. Steadfast hope (I John 3:3) And finally the gift of 8. Truth itself (I John 2:27)
Thus, a man who, is regenerated, has a nature that guarantees its perseverance and ultimate triumph, a nature and conversion that cannot be reversed.
Now, I exclude, from the definition, all hypocrites, pretenders, presumers, yea, all deceived and deluded souls. I exclude all wayside ground hearers. I exclude from the definition all shallow ground hearers, all thorny ground hearers. I also exclude from the definition all “false brothers” as Judas, Annanias, Simon Magus (that he brought up from Acts 8), the Judaizers, and such like. (See II Cor. 11:26 & Gal. 2:4).
In further defining what it means to be regenerated and born again, I have these seven further characteristics:
1. A truly saved man is a man “possessed” by Christ and the Holy Spirit. He is as much controlled by Christ’s presence and Holy Spirit as a man possessed of a demon and evil spirit. Just as one possessed of Satan and his spirit, is enslaved to him (II Tim. 2:24), and so does the will of Satan, so one possessed of Christ and his Spirit, is enslaved to Christ and so does the will of Christ. As the slaves of sin and Satan “cannot cease from sin” (II Peter 2: 14), so those who are slaves to Christ and righteousness, “cannot cease” from following Christ or “cease from” righteousness.
Secondly, a truly saved man is “glued” to Christ, “attached” or “joined” to him in a manner that makes it impossible to become “unglued.” The meaning of the word “joined” in the Greek literally means “glued to.” We are “super glued” to Christ. Christians can say of Christ “I’m stuck on you,” and Christ can say to the believer, “I’m stuck on you.” There is a “bond” created between a believer and Jesus, in the new birth, that is more powerful than any bond in nature, be it natural as in the bonding of atoms, or in the social realm as a mother’s bonding with her baby. What God has “joined together” in Christ will not be “put asunder.” Through conversion we are “joined to Christ” (I Cor. 6:17), and as I said, the Greek word there has the sense of “glued.” The “bond” is strong and enduring.
Thirdly, a truly saved man is a man who is “addicted to” Christ. Men become addicted to sin; thus, it is said of them, that they “cannot cease from sin” – That they are “hooked on sin” as a man “hooked” on heroin. When one becomes addicted to Christ they are “hooked” on him and cannot but forever be devoted to him and forever realize their need of him each day. They, in a sense, get their “highs” and their “fixes” on Christ. Christ asked Peter and the apostles after the defection of some seeming disciples, “will you also go away?” Peter expressed his addiction to Christ, saying “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” There is a popular song called “addicted to love.” Christians are addicted to the love of Christ, a love from which they shall never be separated. Just as there is in human behavior that which is called “compulsive behavior,” so there is too in the life of a Christian. He is "compelled" by the love and grace of Christ. So Paul says, “the love of Christ constrains us,” that is, it “compels” us (II Cor. 5:14)
We came into the realm of salvation initially by being “compelled,” and we are continuously "compelled." Luke 14:23 says that.
Number four, a truly saved man recognizes himself as clay in God’s hands, is a man who has God as his potter creating him into a “vessel of mercy.” He recognizes that all he becomes, in Christ is the sole work of the Potter and he can therefore claim no credit for any part of his salvation, nor for any good deed that he does. If (there’s an “if” statement. We will talk more about that), if we are “new creatures in Christ” (II Cor. 5:17), it is because “he has made us, and not we ourselves.” (Psalm 100:3)
Fifthly, by way of further definition, a saved man, a truly saved man, has in regeneration, a life and nature that is immortal and incapable of corruption. This is signified by the language the following scriptures.
I Peter 1:23 – “Being born again...of incorruptible seed, by the word of God.” And then, in I Peter 3:4 , Peter speaks of “that hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible.” And then finally in I John 3:9 the apostle John says, “whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him...” Grace in the heart is here represented as “incorruptible” and “abiding” and that which absolutely assures its possessor from a life of sin.
Regeneration thus produces a drastic change in a sinner’s heart and life. My opponent believes that regeneration is nothing but water baptism, an external rite, something that does not produce any inward or radical change.
In regeneration God imparts to the elect indestructible spiritual life, transforming the very nature and dispositions of their hearts. Since this spiritual life is indestructible, it means that regeneration is irreversible. Therefore, once regenerated, one cannot truly or finally turn away from God or denounce Christ. This means that all those who are regenerated will also persevere. Any doctrine that denies this contradicts the very meaning of regeneration.
All this is clear from rhetorical question in Romans 6:2; Pat, listen to this. “How shall we who died to sin, live any longer therein?” The obvious truth, being upheld by Paul, is the one I believe, which affirms that those who have undergone true regeneration cannot live in sin as they did before.
Sixthly, by way of further definition, a truly saved man is one who has received the “seed of the kingdom” “with an honest and good heart” in contradistinction to those, who in the parable of the sower, became only pretenders to true salvation. Lets read Luke 8, verses 12-15, if you have your Testaments. Jesus said “those by the wayside, are they that hear, then cometh the Devil and taketh away the word which was sown in their hearts lest they should believe and be saved.”
“They on the rock are they which, when they hear, receive the word with joy, and have no root (these have no root) in themselves, which for awhile believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they which when they have heard go forth and are choked with cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But (that is a word of contrast), but that on the good ground are they which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience (the Greek word here could be perseverance).” “With perseverance.” “With lastingness” if I can say that.
There are thus four kinds of hearers of the word or seed, in the parable of the sower. Only one of the four, however, heard the word savingly. Only one truly believed. The word was preached and only one was actually saved and regenerated, by that word. Only one had “a good and honest heart.” All the others did not have a “good and honest heart,” but were hypocrites, pretenders.
The only ones who quote, “fell away” (“stumbled,” some translations, or were “offended”), in the parable, were those who received the word without an “honest and good heart.” They were the ones who got “offended.” Such apostates are doomed to fail. They’re destined to be temporary in their professing faith. They’re absolutely certain to “fall away.” Why? Because they “began in the flesh” rather than “in the Spirit.” They did not receive the word with and “honest and good heart.” They did not receive the seed into the depth of the soul. They did not have “root” in the truth or “root in themselves.” They lacked something. Thus, they who are such, are only “seeming” Christians. I, therefore, equate, by way of definition, the term “good ground hearer,” with “regenerated” or “born again” Christian. Until he defines it differently, that’s the way its defined in the debate.
Now, not a single one of the “good ground hearers” failed to produce “good fruit” regularly and continually and none of them “fell away” or lacked saving understanding of the message.
Now let me talk to you about the New Testament epistles. The New Testament epistles were addressed, Pat, to all professing Christians. But, every writer of those New Testament epistles, clearly did not presume them all to be truly what they professed to be. I don’t think you really believe that. Not all the first converts were “good ground hearers.” All the members of the first New Testament churches were not all truly born again, or truly regenerated, or “good ground hearers.” This is clear in the epistles. If my friend Pat disagrees with this, let him tell us. The early church had hypocrites in them just like we do today. The Greek word “hupocrites” means “an actor under an assumed character.” In other words, a pretender, a fake or a fraud, or to use the words of Jesus, “wolves in sheep’s clothing”; Or, to use the words of Paul, “pseudo brothers.” The early church had “shallow ground hearers,” those who “believed for awhile and in time of temptation fell away.”
You say they can’t “fall away” unless they were truly saved to start with. Were those people really saved there in the parable? Tell us that, will you? For, they “fell away.” These did not receive the seed “with an honest and good heart,” for had they done so, they would have permanently believed. They would not have fallen away like the others. In time of temptation they would not have produced temporary fruit, fruit that soon withers and dies, but they would rather have brought forth “fruit with perseverance,” fruit that lasts and fruit that endures.
The exhortations to perseverance, to self judgment and examination, in the Scriptures, are designed to call all professing Christians to make sure that they are not “wayside,” “thorny ground” or “wayside hearers,” but make sure they are “good ground hearers,” to make sure they are truly saved.
Now that you are still in Luke 8, on the parable, look at verse 18. Jesus said, about the coming day of judgment, “whosoever has not, from him shall be taken even that which he seems to have.” Did you get that? People can lose, or have taken from them, what they only seemingly, or apparently have. They can possess things in their imaginations that are seemingly real to them, and these things can be taken away or lost. Their perceptions often become realities to those who are lost in sins. Why, the sinners in Isaiah 28:15 were “taking refuge in their lies.” People even received comfort from their delusions and things that are not real in themselves. This is important to understand, especially in view of the verses that Pat has introduced to prove that people are losing actual salvation, rather than losing seeming or apparent salvation. Some of those verses simply speak of the hypocrites having taken from them "that which they seem to have," as Luke 8:18 says, “take away from them that which they only seem or profess to have,” what they possess only in their dreams or imaginations, but not actually possess.
People therefore, Pat, may lose salvation seemingly, as in the parable. They may “fall from grace,” only apparently, not actually. People also will have their apparent or seeming “parts," or “names,” in the “book of life,” and in the holy city, in this manner “taken away.” Those who are truly in grace, who truly understand salvation by grace and the gospel of grace, will never be moved away from it. It is a lesson one cannot unlearn for the simple reason – God is the one that taught it to them. John 6:45 So Jesus says in Matthew 24:24 – “that is not possible,” Pat, “that the elect be deceived.” “Impossible,” he says.
Those who had become professing Christians, professed believers in salvation by the grace of God, had manifested, in the churches of Galatia, by their embracing a false gospel, of salvation by human works and human law keeping, that they had never had truly trusted in Christ alone for salvation.
Now lets look at I Cor. 9: 24-27 about “running to obtain the prize.” Now I admit that salvation, is viewed in that passage is view as a “prize” to be “won.” We do “win Christ.” (Phil. 3:8) How then (and I asked Pat this in the question I gave him before the debate) how then can salvation be both a “free gift” and a “prize” or “reward”? Brother and sister, the only way that you can reconcile this is by understanding that perseverance itself is the gift and work of God, the result of divine election. Many scriptures teach this and I will not be able to give but a tithe of them in this discussion. But, I must ask this question. Why, Pat, does one runner persevere and win the prize and another does not? Now, Pat gave me the answer. He says it’s the will of the sinner that ultimately makes the difference. Pat will ascribe the reason to the sinner himself, to his own will and power, rather than to God’s will and power alone, as do the Scriptures. It takes “stick-too-it-iveness,” if I can say that, to win any battle, to win any race, does it not? Who else but God can give this “stick-too-it-iveness”?
Now, lets go further. Paul asks, in I Cor. 4:7, to these same Corinthians, he says, “who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you didn’t receive," that is, from God? Now, you watch, throughout this discussion, and you’ll see that this whole issue comes down to that simple question. To what will each of us ascribe as being the ultimate reason for why we are saved and others are not? Why are we different from another in the matter of salvation and perseverance? Pat must say that the sinner himself makes the ultimate difference by his free will election of God and by his self-wrought salvation, by his own self-will, by his own power to run, and ultimately, not by God’s election, and by God’s omnipotent efforts. What made the difference in the runners?
Also, how do we harmonize Paul’s lesson here in I Corinthians 9 with what he said in Romans 9, where he says about salvation, “it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”? So, we need to harmonize those passages. “Run that you may obtain” and Romans nine – “it is not of him who runs.” As I’ve said, I believe I have explained how the ultimate difference comes from the election. Now look at Philippians 2:13. This will help us out because it tells us there that “God works in us both to will and to do of God’s good pleasure.”
Isaiah 26:12 also says “for you Lord have wrought all our works in us.” That verse also shows that even our “running for the prize” is God’s work in us. Our “inner fuel,” call it “spiritual adrenaline,” or whatever, “spiritual stamina,” is what causes us to ultimately to persevere and win this race, obtain this prize. God creates, according to Phil. 2:13, the desire in people for the prize, then, to Phil. 2:13 and the other verses that I have cited. He brings about, not only the choice to pursue that prize, and gives the spiritual stamina necessary to run the race, but he actually gives those runners, the predestined runners, the power to obtain it. Think of how assured this victory is when you consider that Christ is the coach and trainer of every runner in this race. Christ has run this race before. And brother, with him in one’s corner, coaching and imparting all his skill and understanding, one can’t help but win the prize. Victory is assured. But alas, how few professing runners have Christ truly as their coach and trainer? All victory is God given. I Cor. 15:57. Why does one desire the prize and another does not? I answer, as does the Scripture, “the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” (Rom. 11:7) Pat will not ascribe the reason to divine election. He can’t say “the election has obtained it” for the runner, and “the rest were blinded.”
Now, in Phil. 1:6 Paul shows us that all the parts or various aspects of salvation are all of God and his grace alone. Paul said, “he which hath begun a good work in you will complete it.” Thus, if we give God the credit for initiating us in the Christian race, we will expect him to push us forward in the race as our great coach and trainer in our corner, and so we can’t but help obtain the victory over our enemies, the world, the flesh, and Satan; And we cannot but help give him the credit for us obtaining the prize. Paul does not imply that he nor any truly regenerated, nor anyone whom God chose and predestined to receive this prize could fail to receive it. Paul did not doubt that some who had apparently entered the Christian race would be rejected, disapproved, not receive the incorruptible crown, or the prize, but he did not believe that he nor any of the truly elect would fail to win the prize. What does he say in the passage? “So fight I, not as uncertainly.” So, Paul was assured of what the result was going to be.
Now, about promise of erasure from the book of life in Rev. 3:5 and Rev. 22:19, let me add this other pertinent information to what I have already said about that. In Rev. 13:8 we read – “and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. 17:8 – “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition and they shall wonder whose names were NOT written in the book of life from the foundation of the world when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”
Thus, the names of those written in the book of life were written from the foundation of the world, from eternity. No Pat, I don’t believe a person’s name is written in the book where they are born again. I believe they were written before the foundation of the world. And, for that reason, their names shall not be erased. Why would we think that God was up there in heaven writing and erasing seeing he wrote the names before the foundation of the world? Would he not at least wait till a man died, whether saved or lost, before he wrote his name down in the book and save himself all this erasing and writing? Pat, when does God write a man’s name down in the book of life? Tell us that.
Now, from the passages I just read, Rev. 13:8 & 17:8, it is clear that none of those who have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life go into the false religion of Antichrist. They all remain true to the religion of Christ. They all, therefore, overcome. Would it not be a part of the false religion of Antichrist, Pat, to “take away from the word of God”? The threats do not imply what Pat thinks they do, what he surmises. They don’t imply that any truly called or chosen will fail to persevere and continue. But their designed, as I said, to wake up false and deluded Christians, who think they are saved when they are not, that they might become truly saved, real Christians, and not mere hypocrites.
Now, let me talk about the “weak brethren perishing” in I Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 and concerning which I have the following points.
First, the “weak brothers” in the text, Pat, are not born again, regenerated, Christians nor are they even members of the church at Corinth or the church at Rome. That you might see this:
1. These “weak brothers” did not believe in “one God.” They didn’t believe in “one Lord,” or in “one Lord Jesus Christ,” but believed in polytheism, as is clear from I Cor. chapter 8 verses 5-8.
Next, Paul clearly addresses in the first and second persons, the Corinthian “strong” brethren, the Roman brethren.
Thirdly, Paul speaks of the “weak brothers” as not being part of these churches and speaks of them in the third person.
Fourthly, these “weak brothers” do not have “Christian knowledge.” Only the “strong” have the “knowledge” of the things enumerated in verses 5-8 of I Corinthians chapter 8. What does Paul say about the “weak brothers”? He says the “weak brothers with consciousness of the idol UNTIL THIS DAY eat it as a thing sacrificed to idols.”
Further, the text is telling us that Christ died, not for every weak brother, Pat, every idolater, but he died for these kinds of people, and so, our every effort should be towards their salvation also.
Seventh, obviously, Pat, the word “brother” in this chapter is not used to mean Christian brothers, but as “neighbor.” It is not uncommon in Scripture to call others “brother” who are not Christians. I think there is abundant reason to equate the word "brother” in this passage and in Romans 14 with the word “neighbor” or “fellow-citizen” or “comrade.” Does my opponent’s church have members that do not believe the things that the “strong brothers” believe inverses 5-8? Does he have weak members who do not believe that there is only “one God,” but who still believe there are “many gods” and “many lords”? Does he have weak members, weak brothers, in his church, that do not believe in “one Lord Jesus Christ,” but rather in “many lords”? Let him tell us that. Look at I Cor. 9 verses 19-22 if you want to get a definition of whether these “weak brothers” are saved or not. Look at it.
“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all that I might gain the more...unto the Jews I became a Jew that I might gain the Jews...To the weak,” Pat, “I became as weak that I might save the weak.” There’s your “weak” brother! Your weak “neighbor” that is all the word “brother” means. I will continue with this and what I don’t get to now, addressed to in this speech, I will get to it in the next. How much time?
Thank you brethren.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Garrett's Second Negative
I want to pick up where I left off on I Corinthians 8. It’s appropriate because that’s where he ended. I will get to the Scriptures that I didn’t get to in my first speech. Pat did not address a lot of the things I said in ending about I Corinthians 8. He didn’t tell us whether any of his members of the church do not believe the things in I Corinthians 8. I want you to look at your Bible with me. Let us look at this. Paul says, in I Cor. chapter 8, starting in verse four,
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols” (by the Pagans) “we know...” We know, who’s the “we” Pat? Is that the “strong” and the “weak” brothers in that “we” or is it just the “strong brothers”? Just the “strong brothers”? (Pat audibly answers here) Okay, let’s read that. “We,” strong brothers, that’s Paul and the Corinthians he’s writing to, right? “We” (Paul and the Corinthians), “we know,” he is saying all the Corinthians are strong brothers. When he says “we know this,” he is saying every Corinthian is a strong brother.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, WE KNOW that an idol is nothing in the world.” The Pagans don’t know that! “WE know,” the Corinthians, Paul knows, “that there is none other God but one.” The Pagans don’t know that!
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many” (that is, to the Pagans) “BUT to US” (that’s a contrast!), “but to us” who I’m writing to (Paul and the Corinthians), “to us,” not to the “weak brother” outside the Corinthian church. “To US there is one God, the Father, of whom are all the things.” The Pagans don’t believe this. “To US there is one Lord Jesus Christ and we in him.” The Pagans don’t believe this. Watch verse seven.
“Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge.” Does he mean everyone in the Corinthian Church? Is that what he means? That’s what you believe. He believes Paul is saying, “Howbeit, you Corinthians, there is not in everyone in the church at Corinth this knowledge that there is one God, one Lord Jesus Christ.” So, if he is trying to say that these “weak brethren” are in the church at Corinth, the church at Corinth took them knowing that they did not believe in "one God and one Lord Jesus Christ."
He can say “brothers” up there means that they are regenerated, but it doesn’t. Brother Pat, or Pat (I will call you “brother” in the sense of “neighbor” here, okay, just like the passage here), when Paul addressed his lost brethren – “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, my brothers according to the flesh,” was he addressing them as saved? Did you address that in I Cor. 9 when he said, “I became weak that I might GAIN the weak”? That sort of identifies what he means by “weak brethren” doesn’t he? Let’s go on in I Cor. 8.
He’s giving you the Christian creed. Here’s what strong brothers believe. “One God,” “one Lord Jesus Christ”! The “weak brother” doesn’t believe this. Did you answer the question – I said “Pat tell us, down there in Huntsville, Alabama “Church of Christ,” do you take people in who don’t believe in "one God"? You do if you identify these “weak brothers” as not believing these things. Now, look here.
“Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge,” again, tell me Pat, does he mean everyone in the world or everyone in the church? I say its everyone in the world. “There is not in everyone that knowledge,” that Christian knowledge, “for SOME,” not “SOME in the church,” but “SOME out here in the world,” but “SOME with conscience of the idol UNTIL THIS HOUR,” --is he talking about people in the church who “until this hour” keep eating this, recognizing that this food is unto this god, unto this idol god? That’s what his view is. And watch this.
“For some with conscience of the idol,” not “some” in the church, but “some” outside the church, “with conscience of the idol eat it UNTO THIS HOUR as a thing offered to an idol and THEIR CONSCIENCE,” that’s third person – he did not say “YOUR conscience.” See? He is in the third person. “And their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” And again, “weak” is defined in I Cor. 9. Watch this, verse 8.
“But food commends us not to God.” Who is it that recognizes and understands that? These “weak brethren” don’t. Do you take brethren into your church, weak brothers, who think that their food is going to approved unto God? Apparently he does. But Paul says, “but food commends us not to God.” We Christians know that. It doesn’t do that. Pagans have not come to that understanding yet. He’ll take them into the church though. Their good weak Pagan brothers.
“For neither if we eat are we better; neither if we ear not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means, this liberty of yours,” you Corinthians, you strong brothers, “become a stumblingblock” to your weak neighbor, your weak Pagan brother, who you used to go to the idol temple with on Thursday nights till you became a Christian, but they are still your neighbor. It’s just like Paul addressed his lost Jewish brothers as "brothers" so that he could endear himself to them. So these good Corinthian Christians who were once Pagan, went to the temple lodge together on Thursday, they still said “brother” in the sense of “neighbor,” saying “you need to quit worshiping idols, you need to quit thinking that this food is going to somehow commend you to God.” You know, like the Catholics, they think eating the food is going to bring them to God. Anyway, let’s go on.
Look at I Cor. 10. Because he takes up three chapters here talking about this subject. In chapter 10, verse 25.
“Whatever is sold in the shambles that eat.” Talking to the Corinthians, right? “Eat, asking no question for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not,” Pat, “invite you to a feast, and you be disposed to go,” you know, your temple neighbor, who still worship as Pagans, “whatever is set before you eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.”
Now watch verse 29. “Conscience I say, not your own,” not you Corinthians, you strong brothers, but of the other, “for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” Did you notice here it’s the unbelievers that are called “weak brothers.”
Now, let’s go to Romans 14, because its talking about the same thing, their also called “weak brothers” in Romans chapter 14. Let’s first of all look at how Romans chapter 14 is sandwiched in between two verses that talk about “neighbors.” Look at Romans 13:10. He says:
“Love worketh no ill to his NEIGHBOR.” Now look at Romans 15 verses 1 & 2.
“We then who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,” your weak Pagan neighbors, “and not to please ourselves,” so he says “let everyone of us please his NEIGHBOR.” So here in the end of Romans 13 –“neighbor.” Romans 15 – “neighbor,” used as the word “brother” in Romans 14. I say, Pat, it means “neighbor,” the word “brother.” And, if you don’t agree with that, then you take members into your church that don’t believe the creed in I Cor. 8, verses 5-8.
Now also, look at verse 7 of Romans 14. Paul says,
“For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself.” God does not intend that we live as hermits away from the world but that we engage the world and seek to do what we can to “build up our neighbors.” This is said as a statement therefore of our dutiful relations to our neighbors generally, our ,b>“brothers.”,/b> Just like, you know, over in Russia, they call each other “comrade,” or “brother.” Black people – “brother,” you know? Paul did that with his lost Jewish people, “brother,” you know? Now look at verses 10-12. Paul said,
“Why do you judge your brother,” your neighbor? “Why do you set at nought your brother? For WE shall all stand,” – Who’s the “we”? Does he mean just “we Corinthians,” Pat, when he says “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ”? “For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee,” that means every neighbor, every brother, “shall bow the knee and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, so then everyone of US,” who is the “us” Pat? If you’re going to define this, as you are, making it just the Corinthians, then only Christians are going to be judged. But he says “everyone of US,” meaning “everyone of us in the world.” By “we” and “everyone of US,” Paul does not intend Christians only. Obviously he’s using the term “brother,” as I said, in the sense of “neighbor” seeing he’s using it in the wider context of all men. Compare Jesus’ use of the word “brother” as “neighbor” in a verse I think he even quoted, not I quoted it, Jesus said, “whosoever is angry with his brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother RACA shall be in danger of the council.” Well, is that just talking about our "brothers" in the church? Or, is he talking about our "brother" out here in Adam?
When Christ said in Matthew 7 verse 5, “Hypocrite, cast out the beam out of your own eye, then you shall see clearly to cast the mote out of your BROTHER’S eye.” “Brother” means “neighbor” there. If you don’t believe that, then you’re restricting the casting out of motes only from your Christian brother’s eyes but nobody else.
Now look at verse 23 of Romans 14. “He that doubteth is damned if he eat.” Now, we heard a lot on that, didn’t we? For what does he say about that "weak brother," Pat, who is being damned by eating things sacrificed to idols? Because they believed in these idol god! They believed in “many gods,” so it says here that “he that doubts,” that is, that Pagan neighbor, “is damned if he eat.” Why Pat? “Because “he eats NOT OF FAITH.” Brothers, let’s just close the doors and go home. I mean, it clearly says these people don’t have faith! How could you make these “brothers” regenerated children of God? Isn’t that in the definition? But he says right here “because he does not eat from faith.” He doesn’t have faith! Don’t you have to have faith to be a child of God? He says “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” so what they are doing they are doing without faith! And yet he says they are born again! You see, these brethren, in I Cor. 8 and Romans 14. So here, it is clear, these “weak brothers” are weak Pagan friends, weak neighbors of the Corinthian Christians, and such as did not have faith in Christ. They had beliefs. They had a religion obviously, being in some ways “god fearers,” and devout men, yet they did not have the “faith” of Christians, the faith of salvation. It’s clear that these “brothers” did not have “faith” and this was the cause of their sin. These “weak brothers” mostly resemble, don’t they, the “wayside hearers” and those others in the parable? Paul had his unsaved Jewish brothers, who he could also call “weak brothers,” not because they denied there was “one God,” but because they denied the Lord Jesus Christ. So they were “weak” too, in a different sense than Pagans, but still “weak.”
Now, look at verse 4. I’m going to read to you verse 4 from the New King James Version. Paul says, “who are you to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, HE WILL BE MADE TO STAND, for God is able to make him stand.” Brothers, we could just shut the doors right now and go home for that’s what I believe and I firmly believe Pat does not believe this verse. Here he says, “to his own master he stands or falls, yea he,” the servant of the Master, Christ, “will be made to stand”! “For God is able to make him stand”! Now Pat reads that and says “for he shall be made to stand for the sinner will make himself to stand.” That’s what he believes. But he says, “he SHALL BE MADE to stand FOR GOD IS ABLE to make his stand.” So, he puts the responsibility upon God to make him stand. Now you deal with that Pat.
Also, a kindred verse on this is II Cor. 1:21, 22, Paul says, “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us and set his seal of ownership upon us and put his Spirit in our hearts, as a deposit, GUARANTEEING what is to come.” (NKJV)
Now about converting the “erring brothers.” In James 5:19,20 the verse does not say that any truly regenerated child of God will fail to be converted. It does not say that. You can read that verse as long as you want, it does not say that. In the case of “brothers,” who show by their apostasy that they were only shallow ground hearers or thorny ground hearers. Those who are truly saved become the means God will use to truly convert the deluded brothers from their errors and sins, error and sin that will bring eternal death. In the case of those who are true brothers, they will often be kept from losing salvation, being preserved by the means of other brothers whom God will be faithful to send.
Notice I John 2:19. John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us, for had they been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” So, apply that to this passage here in James. These brethren “went out from us but they were not of us, for had they been of us, they would have continued with us.”
Let me say one thing really quickly about the parable of the sower. Brother, he did not get to one tenth of my definitions so my definitions of what it means to be regenerated stand. But, if I heard him rightly, he does not believe that only the good ground hearers were the only ones that were regenerated. So, he’s got these shallow ground hearers regenerated but they don’t even have a good and honest heart. Why? Because it says “they believed for awhile.” The Hardshells do the same thing on this parable. You know the Hardshells and this man’s group, historically known as “Campbellites,” they both have gone into error on the parable of the sower, brother. He cannot make those shallow ground hearers who “believed for awhile and then FELL AWAY” good ground hearers! You cannot do it! Did they have a good and honest heart or not? Because when he says “BUT they that received seed on good ground” implies the others did not have good and honest hearts. Can you be saved without a good and honest heart? Were those shallow ground hearers who believed for awhile, were they saved without that good and honest heart? I don’t believe they were saved. Now, the devils believe and tremble. Just to get up and say, hey they “believed for awhile” and that proves they were regenerated. Brother, I don’t believe that, I’ve never believed that. If that’s true the devils are going to be saved.
Now, getting to Hebrews 3:12 where he talks about Paul telling the Hebrews “take heed brethren,” let me read from the NIV here, “See to it brothers that none of you has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” This is an exhortation for the Hebrews to search their own hearts, to make sure first that they are not shallow ground, wayside, or thorny ground hearers, but that they have truly trusted Christ alone for salvation. Second, they should be careful not to let the slightest unbelief to enter into their hearts. Yes, we all as Christians, fail to believe as we ought, stumbling as did the disciples whom Christ “rebuked for their unbelief and slowness of heart to believe all that the prophets had written.” And, many Christians daily come to Christ saying “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” Christ does hear such prayers. Constant watchfulness by all Christians is not something unheard of in churches that believed in “once saved always saved.” Brother, we admonish our members to persevere. God will finish his work. He will see to it that his servants persevere. He will effectually keep and discipline them see that they are progressively sanctified.
Now, about the Vine and the Branches in John 15. Again, this figure calls our attention back to the parable of the sower and the seed. Brother, that definition is going to hold throughout this debate. Take that as your criteria and the debate is over. If you remember, the shallow ground hearers did produce some fruit initially. Yet, they were never truly joined or glued to Christ, never really or truly in the true vine. Only the good ground hearers, Pat, were saved or born again and vitally connected to Christ. There are dead branches in the vine that produce only “withering fruit” and they are shallow ground hearers. Notice also that Jesus says that “no branch is ABLE TO BRING FORTH FRUIT OF ITSELF”! What does he believe? Why the man wins the race of himself. He bears fruit of himself. It all goes back to the man, his will power, his inner abilities. Brother, there are dead branches in the vine and yet we got some branches in the vine that seemingly are connected to Christ and not bearing more fruit. Brother, they are imposters. First of all, how could you be a Christian without bearing fruit? Isn’t faith a “fruit of the Spirit”? Isn’t love? Isn’t repentance? Well, how could they be in the vine without repenting, without believing? So, apparently, they got in without even doing that! So they were imposters. Interestingly, did you know the term “dried up” in John 15, about these branches, is the exact same term found in the parable of the sower in Mark 4: 5,6 where Christ said, “other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil and when the sun had risen it was scorched, and because it had not root, it WITHERED AWAY”? That’s the same word. It withered, it dries up, so those in the vine in John 15, what are they showing by “drying up”? Showing they weren’t good ground hearers, that they weren’t regenerated. The branch’s ability, Pat, to do what it is designed to do, that is, bear fruit, is totally and completely contingent upon another, that one being the Vine. The life giving sap flows from the vine to the branches resulting in the creation of fruit.
I will pick off where I left off in my next time, give Pat your attention.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols” (by the Pagans) “we know...” We know, who’s the “we” Pat? Is that the “strong” and the “weak” brothers in that “we” or is it just the “strong brothers”? Just the “strong brothers”? (Pat audibly answers here) Okay, let’s read that. “We,” strong brothers, that’s Paul and the Corinthians he’s writing to, right? “We” (Paul and the Corinthians), “we know,” he is saying all the Corinthians are strong brothers. When he says “we know this,” he is saying every Corinthian is a strong brother.
“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, WE KNOW that an idol is nothing in the world.” The Pagans don’t know that! “WE know,” the Corinthians, Paul knows, “that there is none other God but one.” The Pagans don’t know that!
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, as there be gods many and lords many” (that is, to the Pagans) “BUT to US” (that’s a contrast!), “but to us” who I’m writing to (Paul and the Corinthians), “to us,” not to the “weak brother” outside the Corinthian church. “To US there is one God, the Father, of whom are all the things.” The Pagans don’t believe this. “To US there is one Lord Jesus Christ and we in him.” The Pagans don’t believe this. Watch verse seven.
“Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge.” Does he mean everyone in the Corinthian Church? Is that what he means? That’s what you believe. He believes Paul is saying, “Howbeit, you Corinthians, there is not in everyone in the church at Corinth this knowledge that there is one God, one Lord Jesus Christ.” So, if he is trying to say that these “weak brethren” are in the church at Corinth, the church at Corinth took them knowing that they did not believe in "one God and one Lord Jesus Christ."
He can say “brothers” up there means that they are regenerated, but it doesn’t. Brother Pat, or Pat (I will call you “brother” in the sense of “neighbor” here, okay, just like the passage here), when Paul addressed his lost brethren – “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, my brothers according to the flesh,” was he addressing them as saved? Did you address that in I Cor. 9 when he said, “I became weak that I might GAIN the weak”? That sort of identifies what he means by “weak brethren” doesn’t he? Let’s go on in I Cor. 8.
He’s giving you the Christian creed. Here’s what strong brothers believe. “One God,” “one Lord Jesus Christ”! The “weak brother” doesn’t believe this. Did you answer the question – I said “Pat tell us, down there in Huntsville, Alabama “Church of Christ,” do you take people in who don’t believe in "one God"? You do if you identify these “weak brothers” as not believing these things. Now, look here.
“Howbeit there is not in everyone that knowledge,” again, tell me Pat, does he mean everyone in the world or everyone in the church? I say its everyone in the world. “There is not in everyone that knowledge,” that Christian knowledge, “for SOME,” not “SOME in the church,” but “SOME out here in the world,” but “SOME with conscience of the idol UNTIL THIS HOUR,” --is he talking about people in the church who “until this hour” keep eating this, recognizing that this food is unto this god, unto this idol god? That’s what his view is. And watch this.
“For some with conscience of the idol,” not “some” in the church, but “some” outside the church, “with conscience of the idol eat it UNTO THIS HOUR as a thing offered to an idol and THEIR CONSCIENCE,” that’s third person – he did not say “YOUR conscience.” See? He is in the third person. “And their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” And again, “weak” is defined in I Cor. 9. Watch this, verse 8.
“But food commends us not to God.” Who is it that recognizes and understands that? These “weak brethren” don’t. Do you take brethren into your church, weak brothers, who think that their food is going to approved unto God? Apparently he does. But Paul says, “but food commends us not to God.” We Christians know that. It doesn’t do that. Pagans have not come to that understanding yet. He’ll take them into the church though. Their good weak Pagan brothers.
“For neither if we eat are we better; neither if we ear not are we the worse. But take heed, lest by any means, this liberty of yours,” you Corinthians, you strong brothers, “become a stumblingblock” to your weak neighbor, your weak Pagan brother, who you used to go to the idol temple with on Thursday nights till you became a Christian, but they are still your neighbor. It’s just like Paul addressed his lost Jewish brothers as "brothers" so that he could endear himself to them. So these good Corinthian Christians who were once Pagan, went to the temple lodge together on Thursday, they still said “brother” in the sense of “neighbor,” saying “you need to quit worshiping idols, you need to quit thinking that this food is going to somehow commend you to God.” You know, like the Catholics, they think eating the food is going to bring them to God. Anyway, let’s go on.
Look at I Cor. 10. Because he takes up three chapters here talking about this subject. In chapter 10, verse 25.
“Whatever is sold in the shambles that eat.” Talking to the Corinthians, right? “Eat, asking no question for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not,” Pat, “invite you to a feast, and you be disposed to go,” you know, your temple neighbor, who still worship as Pagans, “whatever is set before you eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.”
Now watch verse 29. “Conscience I say, not your own,” not you Corinthians, you strong brothers, but of the other, “for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” Did you notice here it’s the unbelievers that are called “weak brothers.”
Now, let’s go to Romans 14, because its talking about the same thing, their also called “weak brothers” in Romans chapter 14. Let’s first of all look at how Romans chapter 14 is sandwiched in between two verses that talk about “neighbors.” Look at Romans 13:10. He says:
“Love worketh no ill to his NEIGHBOR.” Now look at Romans 15 verses 1 & 2.
“We then who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,” your weak Pagan neighbors, “and not to please ourselves,” so he says “let everyone of us please his NEIGHBOR.” So here in the end of Romans 13 –“neighbor.” Romans 15 – “neighbor,” used as the word “brother” in Romans 14. I say, Pat, it means “neighbor,” the word “brother.” And, if you don’t agree with that, then you take members into your church that don’t believe the creed in I Cor. 8, verses 5-8.
Now also, look at verse 7 of Romans 14. Paul says,
“For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself.” God does not intend that we live as hermits away from the world but that we engage the world and seek to do what we can to “build up our neighbors.” This is said as a statement therefore of our dutiful relations to our neighbors generally, our ,b>“brothers.”,/b> Just like, you know, over in Russia, they call each other “comrade,” or “brother.” Black people – “brother,” you know? Paul did that with his lost Jewish people, “brother,” you know? Now look at verses 10-12. Paul said,
“Why do you judge your brother,” your neighbor? “Why do you set at nought your brother? For WE shall all stand,” – Who’s the “we”? Does he mean just “we Corinthians,” Pat, when he says “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ”? “For it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee,” that means every neighbor, every brother, “shall bow the knee and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, so then everyone of US,” who is the “us” Pat? If you’re going to define this, as you are, making it just the Corinthians, then only Christians are going to be judged. But he says “everyone of US,” meaning “everyone of us in the world.” By “we” and “everyone of US,” Paul does not intend Christians only. Obviously he’s using the term “brother,” as I said, in the sense of “neighbor” seeing he’s using it in the wider context of all men. Compare Jesus’ use of the word “brother” as “neighbor” in a verse I think he even quoted, not I quoted it, Jesus said, “whosoever is angry with his brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother RACA shall be in danger of the council.” Well, is that just talking about our "brothers" in the church? Or, is he talking about our "brother" out here in Adam?
When Christ said in Matthew 7 verse 5, “Hypocrite, cast out the beam out of your own eye, then you shall see clearly to cast the mote out of your BROTHER’S eye.” “Brother” means “neighbor” there. If you don’t believe that, then you’re restricting the casting out of motes only from your Christian brother’s eyes but nobody else.
Now look at verse 23 of Romans 14. “He that doubteth is damned if he eat.” Now, we heard a lot on that, didn’t we? For what does he say about that "weak brother," Pat, who is being damned by eating things sacrificed to idols? Because they believed in these idol god! They believed in “many gods,” so it says here that “he that doubts,” that is, that Pagan neighbor, “is damned if he eat.” Why Pat? “Because “he eats NOT OF FAITH.” Brothers, let’s just close the doors and go home. I mean, it clearly says these people don’t have faith! How could you make these “brothers” regenerated children of God? Isn’t that in the definition? But he says right here “because he does not eat from faith.” He doesn’t have faith! Don’t you have to have faith to be a child of God? He says “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” so what they are doing they are doing without faith! And yet he says they are born again! You see, these brethren, in I Cor. 8 and Romans 14. So here, it is clear, these “weak brothers” are weak Pagan friends, weak neighbors of the Corinthian Christians, and such as did not have faith in Christ. They had beliefs. They had a religion obviously, being in some ways “god fearers,” and devout men, yet they did not have the “faith” of Christians, the faith of salvation. It’s clear that these “brothers” did not have “faith” and this was the cause of their sin. These “weak brothers” mostly resemble, don’t they, the “wayside hearers” and those others in the parable? Paul had his unsaved Jewish brothers, who he could also call “weak brothers,” not because they denied there was “one God,” but because they denied the Lord Jesus Christ. So they were “weak” too, in a different sense than Pagans, but still “weak.”
Now, look at verse 4. I’m going to read to you verse 4 from the New King James Version. Paul says, “who are you to judge another man’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, HE WILL BE MADE TO STAND, for God is able to make him stand.” Brothers, we could just shut the doors right now and go home for that’s what I believe and I firmly believe Pat does not believe this verse. Here he says, “to his own master he stands or falls, yea he,” the servant of the Master, Christ, “will be made to stand”! “For God is able to make him stand”! Now Pat reads that and says “for he shall be made to stand for the sinner will make himself to stand.” That’s what he believes. But he says, “he SHALL BE MADE to stand FOR GOD IS ABLE to make his stand.” So, he puts the responsibility upon God to make him stand. Now you deal with that Pat.
Also, a kindred verse on this is II Cor. 1:21, 22, Paul says, “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us and set his seal of ownership upon us and put his Spirit in our hearts, as a deposit, GUARANTEEING what is to come.” (NKJV)
Now about converting the “erring brothers.” In James 5:19,20 the verse does not say that any truly regenerated child of God will fail to be converted. It does not say that. You can read that verse as long as you want, it does not say that. In the case of “brothers,” who show by their apostasy that they were only shallow ground hearers or thorny ground hearers. Those who are truly saved become the means God will use to truly convert the deluded brothers from their errors and sins, error and sin that will bring eternal death. In the case of those who are true brothers, they will often be kept from losing salvation, being preserved by the means of other brothers whom God will be faithful to send.
Notice I John 2:19. John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us, for had they been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” So, apply that to this passage here in James. These brethren “went out from us but they were not of us, for had they been of us, they would have continued with us.”
Let me say one thing really quickly about the parable of the sower. Brother, he did not get to one tenth of my definitions so my definitions of what it means to be regenerated stand. But, if I heard him rightly, he does not believe that only the good ground hearers were the only ones that were regenerated. So, he’s got these shallow ground hearers regenerated but they don’t even have a good and honest heart. Why? Because it says “they believed for awhile.” The Hardshells do the same thing on this parable. You know the Hardshells and this man’s group, historically known as “Campbellites,” they both have gone into error on the parable of the sower, brother. He cannot make those shallow ground hearers who “believed for awhile and then FELL AWAY” good ground hearers! You cannot do it! Did they have a good and honest heart or not? Because when he says “BUT they that received seed on good ground” implies the others did not have good and honest hearts. Can you be saved without a good and honest heart? Were those shallow ground hearers who believed for awhile, were they saved without that good and honest heart? I don’t believe they were saved. Now, the devils believe and tremble. Just to get up and say, hey they “believed for awhile” and that proves they were regenerated. Brother, I don’t believe that, I’ve never believed that. If that’s true the devils are going to be saved.
Now, getting to Hebrews 3:12 where he talks about Paul telling the Hebrews “take heed brethren,” let me read from the NIV here, “See to it brothers that none of you has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” This is an exhortation for the Hebrews to search their own hearts, to make sure first that they are not shallow ground, wayside, or thorny ground hearers, but that they have truly trusted Christ alone for salvation. Second, they should be careful not to let the slightest unbelief to enter into their hearts. Yes, we all as Christians, fail to believe as we ought, stumbling as did the disciples whom Christ “rebuked for their unbelief and slowness of heart to believe all that the prophets had written.” And, many Christians daily come to Christ saying “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” Christ does hear such prayers. Constant watchfulness by all Christians is not something unheard of in churches that believed in “once saved always saved.” Brother, we admonish our members to persevere. God will finish his work. He will see to it that his servants persevere. He will effectually keep and discipline them see that they are progressively sanctified.
Now, about the Vine and the Branches in John 15. Again, this figure calls our attention back to the parable of the sower and the seed. Brother, that definition is going to hold throughout this debate. Take that as your criteria and the debate is over. If you remember, the shallow ground hearers did produce some fruit initially. Yet, they were never truly joined or glued to Christ, never really or truly in the true vine. Only the good ground hearers, Pat, were saved or born again and vitally connected to Christ. There are dead branches in the vine that produce only “withering fruit” and they are shallow ground hearers. Notice also that Jesus says that “no branch is ABLE TO BRING FORTH FRUIT OF ITSELF”! What does he believe? Why the man wins the race of himself. He bears fruit of himself. It all goes back to the man, his will power, his inner abilities. Brother, there are dead branches in the vine and yet we got some branches in the vine that seemingly are connected to Christ and not bearing more fruit. Brother, they are imposters. First of all, how could you be a Christian without bearing fruit? Isn’t faith a “fruit of the Spirit”? Isn’t love? Isn’t repentance? Well, how could they be in the vine without repenting, without believing? So, apparently, they got in without even doing that! So they were imposters. Interestingly, did you know the term “dried up” in John 15, about these branches, is the exact same term found in the parable of the sower in Mark 4: 5,6 where Christ said, “other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil and when the sun had risen it was scorched, and because it had not root, it WITHERED AWAY”? That’s the same word. It withered, it dries up, so those in the vine in John 15, what are they showing by “drying up”? Showing they weren’t good ground hearers, that they weren’t regenerated. The branch’s ability, Pat, to do what it is designed to do, that is, bear fruit, is totally and completely contingent upon another, that one being the Vine. The life giving sap flows from the vine to the branches resulting in the creation of fruit.
I will pick off where I left off in my next time, give Pat your attention.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Donahue 1st Affirmative
The following are six speeches from the first session of the debate I had with Patrick Donahue of the Huntsville, Alabama "Church of Christ," at Crossroads Baptist Church, Monroe, N.C., in October of 2006. We had three sessions. The first two deal with "eternal security" and the final session with the doctrine of "election."
Donahue 1st Affirmative
Now, I forget the exact proposition, but what I’m supposed to prove tonight is that the doctrine of "once saved always saved" is not true. The proposition may be something like, "The Bible teaches that a truly born again Christian may sin so as to be lost." But it amounts to this, is the doctrine of "once saved always saved" true? Now, Steve will probably give you some explanation of for what sense he believes that is true. I’m sure he will, so I will let him do that. But let’s get right into the passages, or some passages, that I think prove this position is wrong. The first one I would like for you to look at is Galatians chapter five and verse four. The Bible says there, "Christ is become of no effect unto you" – I tell you, if something can go wrong with this electronic equipment, it will. Start my time, Frank, we’ll go on and Andy will try to get that working again. In Galatians 5:4 the Bible says, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you is justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." Now the standard position, the standard Baptist position, is that a Christian cannot "fall from grace." But, this verse specifically points out that it’s possible.
Now, this verse has to be talking about Christians. When I bring up these passages, either Steve’s going to have to say, "that’s not talking about a true Christian" or "it’s not saying they’re really going to be lost." But this verse has to be talking about a true Christian because you can’t fall from a tree unless you are in a tree first. You can’t "fall from grace" unless you were in grace first.
The verse is written to the "churches of Galatia." (Chapter one, verse two) "Brethren," chapter one, verse eleven, 3:15, 4:12, you see all the references. "Children of God," "adopted sons of God," who had "received the Holy Spirit," Steve. Chapter 4, verses five through six. So, he’s talking about Christians and it presents the possibility that if they tried to be "justified by the law of Moses," the old law, that means the law of Moses, they could "fall from grace." Now this "in grace" is referring to their personal salvation because two verses before that Paul said "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." And, you can’t be saved unless you are "profited" by the death of Christ. As a matter of fact, that is the only way to be saved. So, he’s talking about their personal salvation. And it says "you have" or "will fall from grace," if you do this. I believe this is clear, talking about Christians, it presents the possibility that they can "fall from grace," therefore, it proves my position, in the debate with Stephen. Now, chart # 15 Andrew.
James 5:19,20. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins." Notice this is talking about "brethren," Christians. You can see these verses is talking about that. It says he "errs from the truth," he’s now called a "sinner," he needs "converting," and if not converted back, his soul will be lost.
Let’s look at one of those passages. James one, verse 16. "Do not err, my beloved BRETHREN..." Now notice, not only did this present the possibility that he could be lost, Steve, but it shows that here is a "brother" that did not "persevere." So it’s possible for a truly born again Christian not to "persevere," and if he does that, if he does not "persevere," his soul needs to be "converted" back or his soul will be lost.
Now the Calvinists, or the "once saved always saved" position, makes this verse meaningless. If the man is a "brother" or an "elect," like the text says, then he can’t fail to "persevere." That’s, I believe, Steve’s position. I’ll let him explain it. His soul is not susceptible to death, that’s Steve’s position. If he’s of the "elect," he’s really a "brother," he can’t fail to persevere. His soul is not susceptible to death.
Now, if he’s not of the "elect," if this is talking about somebody not of the "elect," then his soul cannot be "saved from death" anyway. But yet, Paul tells us, James tells us, I said Paul awhile ago, James tells us to try to "convert" him back. But, if he’s not of the "elect" it would be impossible to "convert" him back, to "save his soul from death," he’s going to be lost for sure, he’s not of the "elect." You see the predicament that I believe that Steve’s in?
If he takes the position that he’s not of the "elect," then why does James say "go and try to convert his soul" and "save his soul from death"? That’s impossible. If he takes the position, he is of the "elect," that he admits does not persevere, and his soul could be lost if we are unable to "convert" him back.
Next I would like to go to Revelation chapter three verse 5.
"He that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." Likewise, Revelation 22:19.
"If any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."
Now notice here it presents the possibility that a person who "overcomes," his name "will not be blotted out of the book of life." That implies that if he does not "overcome," his "name" will be "blotted out." Now, Steve would agree with me, I think it’s one of the questions, that a person doesn’t get his "name" in the "book of life" unless he is a saved person.
The "book of life," that reference is six or eight times in the Bible, perhaps more, it refers to, whether it’s literal or not, it’s a book that God has where he keeps up with the names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with me when a person becomes saved, his "name" is put in the book. Now this presents the possibility that your name could be "erased" out of the book. That means, the person was saved, because his "name" was in the book, and now he could possibly be "erased out of the book," he’s not saved. Now, that’s the question tonight.
Really, the debate is, can a person, is it possible for a person, to be "erased out of the book?" That’s the debate proposition I believe, that I take, and this shows that it is. And, here’s some verses that show that the "book of life" is a list of names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with that so I don’t think I need to go into that.
Notice another passage that mentions the "book of life." When the Israelites made the golden calf, while Moses was upon the mount, receiving the ten commandments, God said about them in Exodus 32:33 – you remember Moses said, "why don’t you blot me out?" You know, he tried to take the penalty for it, he said "no, I’m not going to blot you out." "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."
You see, so back under the Old Testament you could be "blotted out" of this "book of life."
In conclusion, only the saved are in the "book of life" to start with and it is possible to get your "name blotted out" or "taken away from the book of life," and it is clear that it is possible for a saved person to lose his salvation.
Next, I would for you to look at I Cor. 9:25-27.
"And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But, I keep my body under subjection," or "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection," that’s Paul speaking here, "lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
Paul is saying here that he "strives" or "runs" to "obtain an incorruptible crown." That’s heaven right? Revelation 2:10 -- "I will give thee the crown of lift," referring to our reward in heaven.
But, Paul goes on to say if he didn’t "keep his body under subjection," if he did not control his fleshly desires, he would become a "castaway." "Castaway" from what? The "incorruptible crown!" Heaven, obviously. So Paul, one of the greatest Christians of all time, at least second to Jesus, but one of the greatest, so Paul recognized the possibility that even he could be lost.
Now notice this word "castaway" in the Greek, Strong’s number 96 Steve. Did you know, in the New Testament, number 96, this Greek word, is used eight times. It’s translated "castaway" in the King James Version here. Six out of those eight times, and here are those six times I believe, I think I have all of them, but maybe not, it’s translated "rejected," no I mean it’s translated "reprobate." The other time it is "rejected," so one time it is translated "castaway," one time it’s translated "rejected," six times it’s translated "reprobate." The same Greek word.
Now "reprobate," what does that mean? The English word? "Rejected" by God and beyond hope of salvation. That’s what this Greek word means. Paul is saying, "I need to watch myself because if I don’t keep my body under subjection I will become a castaway, a reprobate," meaning "rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation." I think that’s clear. If it’s possible for perhaps the greatest gospel preacher in history to be lost, then it is certainly possible for any Christian today to be lost.
Next, I would like for you to turn to Romans 14:15-23. If I had time we’d read practically all of this chapter. Now, these next three passages Steve, and audience, I’m going to take advantage of something that Steve believes, and this church shares with him in this belief, and that is, Steve believes in what we call a "limited atonement," okay? Now not all Baptists believe that. I mean, not all people who believe in "once saved always saved" believe in a "limited atonement." That means that Steve believes that Christ only died for the elect, the saved. The "general atonement" is what most members of the "Churches of Christ" believe. That would mean that Jesus died for everybody, but of course we don’t believe everybody is going to be saved. Alright?
So we are not debating that tonight, but just to let you know he believes in the "limited atonement." That means that if I can find a place that shows that Jesus died for somebody, then Steve will have to admit they’re of the elect. He can’t say "I don’t think they were really saved to begin with" because that will be his tactic in this debate – he’s going to say - "well if this person didn’t persevere, he must never have been save."
So, I’m going to take advantage of the fact that he believes in a "limited atonement." I’ve got three passages here we’re going to go through where it looks like to me it’s talking about a Christian and I’m going to be able to verify that because it says it’s somebody Jesus died for, which according to Steve’s position, it would have to mean they are of the "elect." It would have to. It wouldn’t have to mean that for me, but it would have to for Steve.
Notice Romans 14:15 and then verse 23. Remember the context of this chapter and I Corinthians 8, basically saying they are "meat." I believe in this case it may be pork and stuff like that but in I Corinthians 8 it may be meat offered to idols, but it really doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.
If your brother thinks it’s wrong to eat this meat, even though you know, maybe you have studied more from the Scriptures, you know it is not wrong to eat it, don’t eat the meat in front of him because that might "embolden him," as the King James puts it, "encourage him" to eat the meat when he thinks it is wrong, violating his conscience. Alright, remember that. That’s what it’s about. Now notice the verse.
"But if thy brother," talking about a Christian here, "be grieved with they meat, destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. He that doubted is D-A-M-N-E-D," that’s such a strong word I don’t even say it. I substituted the word "condemned" for it. But it’s the strongest word in the Bible for a person lost. I cannot think of a word in the Bible that, without dispute, means more about, means "lost." This is the strongest word, it always means "lost" spiritually. You can’t think of a stronger word and say this one doesn’t mean lost but this one over here does. It says "he that doubteth is D-A-M-N-E-D if he eat because he eateth not of faith."
So here’s this brother "for whom Christ died," if he eat this "meat" in front of him, he might be encouraged to eat it even though he doubts it’s right and so he violates his conscience and says he is "D-A-M-N-E-D." If a "brother" Steve, somebody "for whom Christ died," according to his position that means they have to be of the "elect," he’s going to be lost if he eats. Well, I guess I said all that. Let’s go to the next one, which is the parallel, I Corinthians 8:11.
Again it’s the same principle. It’s not really wrong to eat this meat, you know that, but Paul says "don’t eat it in front of him, you might encourage him to eat it when he thinks it’s wrong and violate his conscience." He says "through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died." This is talking about a "brother," one "for whom Christ died." I know he’s a Christian, and Steve certainly knows he’s a Christian, a person that’s an "elect," because it says "for whom Christ died." That should verify to Steve that he agrees with me, it’s talking about a Christian.
I learn that from the fact that it says it’s a "brother" in the context of Christians here, not Jews. So it is possible for a "brother" to "perish," which means (that Strong’s 622), it means, for example, I won’t go through all of these passages, but John 3:16 – "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Uh, did I quote that right?
"But have everlasting life." Now, does that mean lost? I think it does. "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in H-E-L-L (or Gehenna)," that means lost. Jesus "came to save that which was lost." That’s the same Greek word as "perish" here. Here’s the word "perish" in second Thessalonians two. He goes on to use the word "D-A-M-N-E-D" to refer to the same person.
"Not willing that any should perish" in II Peter 3:9. Steve would agree that’s talking about lost spiritually. The same word for "perish" is right here in Romans 14, Steve, as right here, "destroy." And then we’ve already been through that. So, we have the same thing as Romans 14.
"If the brother," that means a Christian, Steve would agree he is of the elect for it’s "for whom Christ died," yet the possibility is that he "might perish" or be lost. And then one more passage using that same theme.
II Peter chapter two verses 1 & 4. Now I’m using this passage in this debate, especially because Steve believes in a limited atonement. If he didn’t believe that I might not use this passage. I might, but I might not. But I believe an extra good argument against one, Steve’s position, who believes in limited atonement.
It says, "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in," there’s that word, "D-A-M-N-A-B-L-E (condemnable) heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Notice they definitely did not persevere. "If God spared not the angels that sinned but cast them down to H-E-L-L, and delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment – the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished."
Now I don’t see how you can get around the fact that it’s talking about somebody who is lost here, especially with Steve’s position, that says anybody who is truly saved will persevere. It’s obvious that these "false teachers," the ones that lead astray, aren’t persevering. They’ve got to be lost. Yet, it’s talking about these "false teachers," it says they "denied the Lord that bought them." Jesus died for them. These "false teachers" are "bought" by the Lord Jesus Christ, chapter one verse sixteen, that is, he died for them, so they were saved, "elect," according to Calvinism.
And I believe, implied by the fact that they had "forsaken the right way," which means they had been in the right way and forsook it, like you cannot "fall from grace" unless you’re in it. You can’t "forsake the right way" unless you’re in it to begin with. Now notice these passages.
I Corinthians 6:2 – "bought with a price." It’s talking about the people at Corinth. Doesn’t that mean that Jesus died for them? "Bought with a price." Revelation – "redeemed us to God by thy blood," "redeemed from among men." It’s the same idea as being "bought."
You go down to the pawn shop and you "redeem" the item. I’ve never been to a pawn shop, but if you took your ring down there and get some money and come back later and "redeem" it with your money, your "bought it back," that’s what this is talking about. You "redeem" it. That’s what Jesus did for us. We were "sold" to the devil, we might say, by our own choice, but that’s another debate. And Jesus buys us back. He redeemed us. How did he do it? With his death. Now, according to Steve, if Jesus died for these people, they would have to be of the elect. He can’t say they were never saved to begin with, because Jesus died for them. But notice how clear it is that they were lost, that they did not persevere. These "false teachers" became lost. It says they "bring in condemnable heresies" – "Bring upon themselves swift destruction" – "denying the Lord" – "pernicious ways" – "covetousness" – "feigned words" – "make merchandise of you"; their "condemnation," that’s a stronger word than in the King James, "slumbereth not," "reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished," "servants of corruption."
I don’t see any way that Steve can say they are still going to be saved. Now, his dad might. But he could not say that. Then let’s go on in II Peter toward the end of the chapter. I believe this is connected. But I want to use it as a separate argument. How much time do I have Frank? It says in II Peter chapter two, verses 20-22;
"If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 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 which was delivered unto them. 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."
Alright, I think most of us are familiar with that passage. Now let’s talk about it. Notice the following facts about the people in this passage.
They had become Christians. How do I know that? It says they "escaped the pollutions," that’s King James version, "of the world through the knowledge of Christ." Now notice here. If you look at your footnote in your Bible, we’re not talking about "smog" "pollution," we’re not talking about that kind of "pollution" or oil dumping out into the river or ocean. We’re not talking about that kind of "pollution." We’re talking about "pollution"– the sins of the world. Okay? Then we have the analogy. The analogy is, it’s like a "sow that was washed," a pig was clean of all the mud off the pig and it went right "back into the mire." That’s the analogy of a Christian who is clean and then goes right back into the mud, the sins of the world, the "pollutions of the world." You see the analogy? But that pig was "clean," meaning it had been "forgiven," according to the analogy given by Peter here. He had been forgiven, not the pig, but the cleaning off the mud is analogous to us being forgiven of our sins, clean, then we go right back into the mud, go right back into sin.
Verse one, referring back to what we already referred to in the same chapter, the Lord "bought them," or died for them, that means that Calvinism would have to say that these people were Christians. Thus they "become entangled again" in those sins and then it says they’re current state is "worse" than if they had never become Christians to start with.
Now Steve, it says, that their current state is "worse" than the beginning. Certainly "worse" than non-saved wouldn’t mean they were still saved, would it? I don’t see how that could mean that, how you could be "worse" off than a person not saved, and still be saved yourself. Peter says they’re "worse" off than they were in the beginning, than before they ever became, before they "escaped the pollutions of the world," before they became Christians.
II Peter 1:9-11. "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure. For it ye do these things, ye shall never fall. For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Now the man in this passage had been "purged from his old sins." Do you see that in the first part of the passage? That means he was saved. He was saved. But it goes on to say he needed to "make his calling and election sure." Now tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 we’re going to finish up this debate and let Steve go on into the affirmative on this topic, then tomorrow night at 7pm, I invite you to both of those sessions, we’re going to talk about "election" and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional, and I suppose we’ll talk about salvation some too and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional.
I understand more about Steve’s position after eating supper with him tonight, that I didn’t understand before. But you can be sure I am going to bring this up tomorrow night Steve, because it says we’ve got to "make our calling and election sure," which shows that our election is conditioned upon something we have a say over. And what this implies in this debate is that he can lose his "calling" and "election." He’s "elected" alright, but he has to "make it sure." He could lose it.
When you, let’s say, we go fishing in a boat, and we tie the boat to the rail, and we walk away with my son, and I say, "son, I think I just kind of wrapped it around the post, the rope, why don’t you go make that boat ‘sure,’" meaning tying it in a knot, or something like that, "make sure it doesn’t float off."
What do we mean by that, "making it sure"? Let’s "make sure" it doesn’t float off! Alright. And thus here we are "making our calling and elections sure." We’re "making sure" that election is sure, that we have it, that it doesn’t float off, that we don’t lose our "election," lose our salvation.
Notice they had the possibility of "falling." He says "for if ye do these things ye shall never fall." Now, I know, every time I have a debate, that everybody I debated, always has an answer for what I’ll say. Some answer. Now many times I don’t think it’s very reasonable and I have to let the audience be the judge.
Now Steve will have some kind of answer for this word "if." No doubt about it. But you’re going to have to ask yourself, is it reasonable? When you see the word "if," like if you were to tell your son, "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, you can have chocolate pie." What do we mean by that? We mean by that, and it’s simple, if he eats his carrots he gets chocolate pie and if he doesn’t, he doesn’t get chocolate pie. Right? We understand the word "if."
"If ye do these things ye shall never fall." What does that mean? Simply and plainly, without trying to get around it, what does it mean? It means, "if you do these things," that is "add," or put into your life, the practice of this, what we call the Christian graces, just a few verses before, you won’t "fall." But, if you don’t do these things, you will "fall"!
So that presents just enough a possibility that a person who had been "purged from his old sins," a Christian, could "fall" from that, and he could, presents the possibility, that Bobby might not receive that chocolate pie if he doesn’t eat his carrots. They had the possibility of falling. Falling away from what? His "election" and "salvation," that is, as the verse goes on to say, in verse eleven, he will lose "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." It tells us what he would lose if he "falls." He would lose the "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." Look it up in your Bibles right there in verse eleven. So if a Christian does not "add" the Christian graces, verses five through seven, he will fall from his "election," salvation, that is, he will miss out on heaven.
Everybody turn to Hebrews 3:12. The Bible says there – "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God."
Now notice that these people addressed are called "brethren." I asked him a question. He said these are "professed Christians." So I guess what he is saying, just because they are called "brethren" doesn’t prove they are genuine Christians. But I want you to notice verse one who he is talking to. Verse twelve calls them "brethren" but verse one, talking about the same people, says "wherefore, holy brethren." Now people who are Christians but only in a professed way, meaning their hypocrites, their not really Christians, but they just professed it, maybe they believed and were baptized to please their wife or something like that. Yes, I can see how somebody might mistakenly call them "brethren," Steve or I might mistakenly call them a "brother," but Paul wouldn’t mistakenly call them a "brother," would he? Paul was inspired of God. He would not call somebody a "brother" if they were only professed "brethren," and not really truly Christians.
"He assumes he’s talking to true Christians," that’s what he said, and then, I’m continuing with my point in verse one, he not only calls them "brethren," Steve, he calls "holy brethren," which means they’re not just hypocritical brethren, just professed Christians. They’re "holy" brethren. Notice that perseverance, according to this text, is not a certainty for these brethren. Not even for the Hebrew writer. He includes himself in these warnings. He says "who’s house we are," that would be him and those he is writing to, "if we hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end."
So even, let’s assume for a moment that Paul wrote it, I don’t know who wrote it, but it is easier to say, even Paul recognized, along with the ones he’s writing to, the Hebrews, that if he didn’t "hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end," he would not be considered God’s "house" any more. Verse 14 "we," that would be the writer and those he’s writing to, are "made partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." So, it’s conditioned upon "holding the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," and we’re not going to be "partakers of Christ" if we don’t do that. Do you see that? So Paul recognized the possibility that even himself, assuming he is the writer and I don’t know if he was, that he himself and his "holy brethren" could be lost if they didn’t hold their faith till the end. This last part is similar too.
"We are made partakers of the benefits of the national honor society if, or as long as, we hold to a 3.5 grape point average." Okay? Now, Steve said a believer cannot become an unbeliever. This verse stated that you can. "Take heed brethren," these are "holy brethren," "lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." So a "holy brother" could change, a "holy brother" could change to unbelief. Steve says a "holy brother" could not "depart" from God, but this verse says he can, in "departing from the living God."
And Steve says a brother can’t lose his salvation, but this verse, along with verses six and fourteen, teaches that he can. Now, what is the fate of the believer who changes to unbelief? John 3:36b makes that clear, it says "he that believeth not shall not see life." So, a person who is a believer, that changes to an unbeliever, John 3:36 says "he that believeth not shall not see life."
Everybody turn to John 15, let’s look at the context of verses 2-6. Jesus said – "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Now, he’s just said, this is "ye," who he’s talking to, second person, he says now "you are clean through the word."
Does that sound like somebody who is not a Christian? No, only Christians are "cleaned through the word." Not just a professed Christian, but a true Christian is the only one who has been "cleaned through the word," forgiven of sin.
He says, "every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away, and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned."
Now notice he’s talking to people, he says, "ye are clean through the word," that means somebody, you can’t be "cleaned through the word" without being forgiven, a Christian. He says, he’s basically encouraging them to abide in him, and he says if you don’t abide in me, and he’s using an analogy here, like a person that’s a fruit tree that’s not bearing fruit, you "prune" it, trying to get it to bear fruit and you take the branches that you cut off, the stems, and you go and burn them. What do you think that Jesus is talking about here when it says he "casts them in the fire and they are burned"?
Making an analogy, what’s the spiritual parallel to being "burned in the fire"? I think we all know. Jesus is the "vine" and the "branches" are people, verse five, they’re talking about Christians, they’re "in me," that means their "in Christ," their "clean through the word," so it’s Christians. He says if they don’t bear fruit, they are "taken away," "cast forth" and "burned."
So a Christian who does not bear fruit will end up being burned in everlasting punishment. I think that is very clear. I really think if you’ll just accept the clear and plain meaning of these passages you’ll come to the conclusion I’m contending for tonight.
Next, I would like to look at Hebrews 10:26-27. It says – "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversary."
Now notice this is talking about Christians. Calls them "brethren." Chapter ten, verse nineteen. He’s talking to the same people that we mentioned awhile ago, that he was talking to in Hebrews three, verse one, "holy brethren." He warns them in chapter ten not to forsake the church assembly. But he says, if this person "sins willfully" he will be lost. How do I know that? Verse 26 says "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." In other words, the benefits of the sacrifice are no longer applied to that person. Now you can’t be saved if the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ are no longer applied to you, because the only way we can be saved is based upon the benefits of the death of Christ.
In chapter ten, verse 27, "fearful judgment" and "fiery indignation." Does that sound like a person that’s saved? No. So it was a person who was saved, who was called a "holy brethren" but he’s being warned that if you "sin willfully," assuming they don’t repent, then this is what will await you, you will be lost. Christians who "sin willfully" cease to receive the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ, instead they face a fiery judgment.
Now I would like for you to look at I John 1:9. I believe he’s talking to Christians there, in I John 1:9. But let’s look at it. Either way it wouldn’t matter. It says – "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Now let’s think about Bobby and the chocolate pie, and the carrots, "if you eat your carrots, you can have a piece of chocolate pie" – we know what this kind of phraseology means. "If," this says, "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We know what that means! That means if you confess he’ll forgive you, and if you don’t, he won’t forgive you. That’s simple and plain. It can only be garbled if someone’s trying to get around the plain meaning.
But, the limited atonement version of "once saved always saved," which Steve holds, is made absurd by this verse. If your of the elect your forgiven even if you don’t confess! Right, Steve? And, if you’re not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess! Do you see that? Let me say it again. According to Steve’s position, if your of the elect you’re forgiven even if you don’t confess your sin and if your not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess your sin. But this says, "if we confess our sins" he will forgive us, naturally applying it. "Confess" and you will be forgiven, and if you don’t confess, you won’t.
Look’s like I’m running out of time, but you’ll remember Simon the Sorcerer.
It says, it talks about the people of Samaria who "believed and were baptized." I feel confident that Steve would say they are saved. Verse 13 says, "then Simon himself believed also." It wasn’t a false belief Steve. It says he "believed ALSO," meaning "like the other people of Samaria" and they were saved, according to your position, I believe, "and when he was baptized he continued with Philip."
So, it says "Simon believed," not a false belief because it says "also," meaning like these other people, who Steve would say is saved. Then later he tried to buy the gift of God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, with money. Peter told him "repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the fall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." You see that? He was saved, yet when he sinned, through thought and action, Peter said you’re "in the gall of bitterness and the bondage of corruption."
Does that sound like he’s still saved? It doesn’t, does it? He said, "you need to repent." And, it looks like, if you read the rest of the text, that he did repent. Do you see that? Is that pretty simple?
Let’s go back to this little word "if." "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, mom will get you some ice cream." "Finish your homework you can go out and play." "If you take this medicine it should make you feel better."
Notice I Corinthians 15:1,2. "Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel, which you have received, and wherein you stand," so their Christians. "By which you are saved IF ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain."
Notice that they’re Christians, they are called "brethren," they "stand in the faith," in the gospel. Their not just professing Christians, they’re truly Christians. He says you will be saved "if ye keep this in memory." What does this mean?
Thank you very much. I invite you to pay special and close attention to what Steve has to day. I appreciate Steve being willing to do this and I know you do too.
Donahue 1st Affirmative
Now, I forget the exact proposition, but what I’m supposed to prove tonight is that the doctrine of "once saved always saved" is not true. The proposition may be something like, "The Bible teaches that a truly born again Christian may sin so as to be lost." But it amounts to this, is the doctrine of "once saved always saved" true? Now, Steve will probably give you some explanation of for what sense he believes that is true. I’m sure he will, so I will let him do that. But let’s get right into the passages, or some passages, that I think prove this position is wrong. The first one I would like for you to look at is Galatians chapter five and verse four. The Bible says there, "Christ is become of no effect unto you" – I tell you, if something can go wrong with this electronic equipment, it will. Start my time, Frank, we’ll go on and Andy will try to get that working again. In Galatians 5:4 the Bible says, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you is justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace." Now the standard position, the standard Baptist position, is that a Christian cannot "fall from grace." But, this verse specifically points out that it’s possible.
Now, this verse has to be talking about Christians. When I bring up these passages, either Steve’s going to have to say, "that’s not talking about a true Christian" or "it’s not saying they’re really going to be lost." But this verse has to be talking about a true Christian because you can’t fall from a tree unless you are in a tree first. You can’t "fall from grace" unless you were in grace first.
The verse is written to the "churches of Galatia." (Chapter one, verse two) "Brethren," chapter one, verse eleven, 3:15, 4:12, you see all the references. "Children of God," "adopted sons of God," who had "received the Holy Spirit," Steve. Chapter 4, verses five through six. So, he’s talking about Christians and it presents the possibility that if they tried to be "justified by the law of Moses," the old law, that means the law of Moses, they could "fall from grace." Now this "in grace" is referring to their personal salvation because two verses before that Paul said "if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." And, you can’t be saved unless you are "profited" by the death of Christ. As a matter of fact, that is the only way to be saved. So, he’s talking about their personal salvation. And it says "you have" or "will fall from grace," if you do this. I believe this is clear, talking about Christians, it presents the possibility that they can "fall from grace," therefore, it proves my position, in the debate with Stephen. Now, chart # 15 Andrew.
James 5:19,20. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins." Notice this is talking about "brethren," Christians. You can see these verses is talking about that. It says he "errs from the truth," he’s now called a "sinner," he needs "converting," and if not converted back, his soul will be lost.
Let’s look at one of those passages. James one, verse 16. "Do not err, my beloved BRETHREN..." Now notice, not only did this present the possibility that he could be lost, Steve, but it shows that here is a "brother" that did not "persevere." So it’s possible for a truly born again Christian not to "persevere," and if he does that, if he does not "persevere," his soul needs to be "converted" back or his soul will be lost.
Now the Calvinists, or the "once saved always saved" position, makes this verse meaningless. If the man is a "brother" or an "elect," like the text says, then he can’t fail to "persevere." That’s, I believe, Steve’s position. I’ll let him explain it. His soul is not susceptible to death, that’s Steve’s position. If he’s of the "elect," he’s really a "brother," he can’t fail to persevere. His soul is not susceptible to death.
Now, if he’s not of the "elect," if this is talking about somebody not of the "elect," then his soul cannot be "saved from death" anyway. But yet, Paul tells us, James tells us, I said Paul awhile ago, James tells us to try to "convert" him back. But, if he’s not of the "elect" it would be impossible to "convert" him back, to "save his soul from death," he’s going to be lost for sure, he’s not of the "elect." You see the predicament that I believe that Steve’s in?
If he takes the position that he’s not of the "elect," then why does James say "go and try to convert his soul" and "save his soul from death"? That’s impossible. If he takes the position, he is of the "elect," that he admits does not persevere, and his soul could be lost if we are unable to "convert" him back.
Next I would like to go to Revelation chapter three verse 5.
"He that overcometh the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." Likewise, Revelation 22:19.
"If any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life."
Now notice here it presents the possibility that a person who "overcomes," his name "will not be blotted out of the book of life." That implies that if he does not "overcome," his "name" will be "blotted out." Now, Steve would agree with me, I think it’s one of the questions, that a person doesn’t get his "name" in the "book of life" unless he is a saved person.
The "book of life," that reference is six or eight times in the Bible, perhaps more, it refers to, whether it’s literal or not, it’s a book that God has where he keeps up with the names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with me when a person becomes saved, his "name" is put in the book. Now this presents the possibility that your name could be "erased" out of the book. That means, the person was saved, because his "name" was in the book, and now he could possibly be "erased out of the book," he’s not saved. Now, that’s the question tonight.
Really, the debate is, can a person, is it possible for a person, to be "erased out of the book?" That’s the debate proposition I believe, that I take, and this shows that it is. And, here’s some verses that show that the "book of life" is a list of names of all the saved people. Steve will agree with that so I don’t think I need to go into that.
Notice another passage that mentions the "book of life." When the Israelites made the golden calf, while Moses was upon the mount, receiving the ten commandments, God said about them in Exodus 32:33 – you remember Moses said, "why don’t you blot me out?" You know, he tried to take the penalty for it, he said "no, I’m not going to blot you out." "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."
You see, so back under the Old Testament you could be "blotted out" of this "book of life."
In conclusion, only the saved are in the "book of life" to start with and it is possible to get your "name blotted out" or "taken away from the book of life," and it is clear that it is possible for a saved person to lose his salvation.
Next, I would for you to look at I Cor. 9:25-27.
"And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But, I keep my body under subjection," or "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection," that’s Paul speaking here, "lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
Paul is saying here that he "strives" or "runs" to "obtain an incorruptible crown." That’s heaven right? Revelation 2:10 -- "I will give thee the crown of lift," referring to our reward in heaven.
But, Paul goes on to say if he didn’t "keep his body under subjection," if he did not control his fleshly desires, he would become a "castaway." "Castaway" from what? The "incorruptible crown!" Heaven, obviously. So Paul, one of the greatest Christians of all time, at least second to Jesus, but one of the greatest, so Paul recognized the possibility that even he could be lost.
Now notice this word "castaway" in the Greek, Strong’s number 96 Steve. Did you know, in the New Testament, number 96, this Greek word, is used eight times. It’s translated "castaway" in the King James Version here. Six out of those eight times, and here are those six times I believe, I think I have all of them, but maybe not, it’s translated "rejected," no I mean it’s translated "reprobate." The other time it is "rejected," so one time it is translated "castaway," one time it’s translated "rejected," six times it’s translated "reprobate." The same Greek word.
Now "reprobate," what does that mean? The English word? "Rejected" by God and beyond hope of salvation. That’s what this Greek word means. Paul is saying, "I need to watch myself because if I don’t keep my body under subjection I will become a castaway, a reprobate," meaning "rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation." I think that’s clear. If it’s possible for perhaps the greatest gospel preacher in history to be lost, then it is certainly possible for any Christian today to be lost.
Next, I would like for you to turn to Romans 14:15-23. If I had time we’d read practically all of this chapter. Now, these next three passages Steve, and audience, I’m going to take advantage of something that Steve believes, and this church shares with him in this belief, and that is, Steve believes in what we call a "limited atonement," okay? Now not all Baptists believe that. I mean, not all people who believe in "once saved always saved" believe in a "limited atonement." That means that Steve believes that Christ only died for the elect, the saved. The "general atonement" is what most members of the "Churches of Christ" believe. That would mean that Jesus died for everybody, but of course we don’t believe everybody is going to be saved. Alright?
So we are not debating that tonight, but just to let you know he believes in the "limited atonement." That means that if I can find a place that shows that Jesus died for somebody, then Steve will have to admit they’re of the elect. He can’t say "I don’t think they were really saved to begin with" because that will be his tactic in this debate – he’s going to say - "well if this person didn’t persevere, he must never have been save."
So, I’m going to take advantage of the fact that he believes in a "limited atonement." I’ve got three passages here we’re going to go through where it looks like to me it’s talking about a Christian and I’m going to be able to verify that because it says it’s somebody Jesus died for, which according to Steve’s position, it would have to mean they are of the "elect." It would have to. It wouldn’t have to mean that for me, but it would have to for Steve.
Notice Romans 14:15 and then verse 23. Remember the context of this chapter and I Corinthians 8, basically saying they are "meat." I believe in this case it may be pork and stuff like that but in I Corinthians 8 it may be meat offered to idols, but it really doesn’t matter, the principle is the same.
If your brother thinks it’s wrong to eat this meat, even though you know, maybe you have studied more from the Scriptures, you know it is not wrong to eat it, don’t eat the meat in front of him because that might "embolden him," as the King James puts it, "encourage him" to eat the meat when he thinks it is wrong, violating his conscience. Alright, remember that. That’s what it’s about. Now notice the verse.
"But if thy brother," talking about a Christian here, "be grieved with they meat, destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. He that doubted is D-A-M-N-E-D," that’s such a strong word I don’t even say it. I substituted the word "condemned" for it. But it’s the strongest word in the Bible for a person lost. I cannot think of a word in the Bible that, without dispute, means more about, means "lost." This is the strongest word, it always means "lost" spiritually. You can’t think of a stronger word and say this one doesn’t mean lost but this one over here does. It says "he that doubteth is D-A-M-N-E-D if he eat because he eateth not of faith."
So here’s this brother "for whom Christ died," if he eat this "meat" in front of him, he might be encouraged to eat it even though he doubts it’s right and so he violates his conscience and says he is "D-A-M-N-E-D." If a "brother" Steve, somebody "for whom Christ died," according to his position that means they have to be of the "elect," he’s going to be lost if he eats. Well, I guess I said all that. Let’s go to the next one, which is the parallel, I Corinthians 8:11.
Again it’s the same principle. It’s not really wrong to eat this meat, you know that, but Paul says "don’t eat it in front of him, you might encourage him to eat it when he thinks it’s wrong and violate his conscience." He says "through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died." This is talking about a "brother," one "for whom Christ died." I know he’s a Christian, and Steve certainly knows he’s a Christian, a person that’s an "elect," because it says "for whom Christ died." That should verify to Steve that he agrees with me, it’s talking about a Christian.
I learn that from the fact that it says it’s a "brother" in the context of Christians here, not Jews. So it is possible for a "brother" to "perish," which means (that Strong’s 622), it means, for example, I won’t go through all of these passages, but John 3:16 – "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish." Uh, did I quote that right?
"But have everlasting life." Now, does that mean lost? I think it does. "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in H-E-L-L (or Gehenna)," that means lost. Jesus "came to save that which was lost." That’s the same Greek word as "perish" here. Here’s the word "perish" in second Thessalonians two. He goes on to use the word "D-A-M-N-E-D" to refer to the same person.
"Not willing that any should perish" in II Peter 3:9. Steve would agree that’s talking about lost spiritually. The same word for "perish" is right here in Romans 14, Steve, as right here, "destroy." And then we’ve already been through that. So, we have the same thing as Romans 14.
"If the brother," that means a Christian, Steve would agree he is of the elect for it’s "for whom Christ died," yet the possibility is that he "might perish" or be lost. And then one more passage using that same theme.
II Peter chapter two verses 1 & 4. Now I’m using this passage in this debate, especially because Steve believes in a limited atonement. If he didn’t believe that I might not use this passage. I might, but I might not. But I believe an extra good argument against one, Steve’s position, who believes in limited atonement.
It says, "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in," there’s that word, "D-A-M-N-A-B-L-E (condemnable) heresies even denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Notice they definitely did not persevere. "If God spared not the angels that sinned but cast them down to H-E-L-L, and delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment – the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished."
Now I don’t see how you can get around the fact that it’s talking about somebody who is lost here, especially with Steve’s position, that says anybody who is truly saved will persevere. It’s obvious that these "false teachers," the ones that lead astray, aren’t persevering. They’ve got to be lost. Yet, it’s talking about these "false teachers," it says they "denied the Lord that bought them." Jesus died for them. These "false teachers" are "bought" by the Lord Jesus Christ, chapter one verse sixteen, that is, he died for them, so they were saved, "elect," according to Calvinism.
And I believe, implied by the fact that they had "forsaken the right way," which means they had been in the right way and forsook it, like you cannot "fall from grace" unless you’re in it. You can’t "forsake the right way" unless you’re in it to begin with. Now notice these passages.
I Corinthians 6:2 – "bought with a price." It’s talking about the people at Corinth. Doesn’t that mean that Jesus died for them? "Bought with a price." Revelation – "redeemed us to God by thy blood," "redeemed from among men." It’s the same idea as being "bought."
You go down to the pawn shop and you "redeem" the item. I’ve never been to a pawn shop, but if you took your ring down there and get some money and come back later and "redeem" it with your money, your "bought it back," that’s what this is talking about. You "redeem" it. That’s what Jesus did for us. We were "sold" to the devil, we might say, by our own choice, but that’s another debate. And Jesus buys us back. He redeemed us. How did he do it? With his death. Now, according to Steve, if Jesus died for these people, they would have to be of the elect. He can’t say they were never saved to begin with, because Jesus died for them. But notice how clear it is that they were lost, that they did not persevere. These "false teachers" became lost. It says they "bring in condemnable heresies" – "Bring upon themselves swift destruction" – "denying the Lord" – "pernicious ways" – "covetousness" – "feigned words" – "make merchandise of you"; their "condemnation," that’s a stronger word than in the King James, "slumbereth not," "reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished," "servants of corruption."
I don’t see any way that Steve can say they are still going to be saved. Now, his dad might. But he could not say that. Then let’s go on in II Peter toward the end of the chapter. I believe this is connected. But I want to use it as a separate argument. How much time do I have Frank? It says in II Peter chapter two, verses 20-22;
"If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 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 which was delivered unto them. 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."
Alright, I think most of us are familiar with that passage. Now let’s talk about it. Notice the following facts about the people in this passage.
They had become Christians. How do I know that? It says they "escaped the pollutions," that’s King James version, "of the world through the knowledge of Christ." Now notice here. If you look at your footnote in your Bible, we’re not talking about "smog" "pollution," we’re not talking about that kind of "pollution" or oil dumping out into the river or ocean. We’re not talking about that kind of "pollution." We’re talking about "pollution"– the sins of the world. Okay? Then we have the analogy. The analogy is, it’s like a "sow that was washed," a pig was clean of all the mud off the pig and it went right "back into the mire." That’s the analogy of a Christian who is clean and then goes right back into the mud, the sins of the world, the "pollutions of the world." You see the analogy? But that pig was "clean," meaning it had been "forgiven," according to the analogy given by Peter here. He had been forgiven, not the pig, but the cleaning off the mud is analogous to us being forgiven of our sins, clean, then we go right back into the mud, go right back into sin.
Verse one, referring back to what we already referred to in the same chapter, the Lord "bought them," or died for them, that means that Calvinism would have to say that these people were Christians. Thus they "become entangled again" in those sins and then it says they’re current state is "worse" than if they had never become Christians to start with.
Now Steve, it says, that their current state is "worse" than the beginning. Certainly "worse" than non-saved wouldn’t mean they were still saved, would it? I don’t see how that could mean that, how you could be "worse" off than a person not saved, and still be saved yourself. Peter says they’re "worse" off than they were in the beginning, than before they ever became, before they "escaped the pollutions of the world," before they became Christians.
II Peter 1:9-11. "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure. For it ye do these things, ye shall never fall. For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."
Now the man in this passage had been "purged from his old sins." Do you see that in the first part of the passage? That means he was saved. He was saved. But it goes on to say he needed to "make his calling and election sure." Now tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 we’re going to finish up this debate and let Steve go on into the affirmative on this topic, then tomorrow night at 7pm, I invite you to both of those sessions, we’re going to talk about "election" and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional, and I suppose we’ll talk about salvation some too and whether or not it is conditional or unconditional.
I understand more about Steve’s position after eating supper with him tonight, that I didn’t understand before. But you can be sure I am going to bring this up tomorrow night Steve, because it says we’ve got to "make our calling and election sure," which shows that our election is conditioned upon something we have a say over. And what this implies in this debate is that he can lose his "calling" and "election." He’s "elected" alright, but he has to "make it sure." He could lose it.
When you, let’s say, we go fishing in a boat, and we tie the boat to the rail, and we walk away with my son, and I say, "son, I think I just kind of wrapped it around the post, the rope, why don’t you go make that boat ‘sure,’" meaning tying it in a knot, or something like that, "make sure it doesn’t float off."
What do we mean by that, "making it sure"? Let’s "make sure" it doesn’t float off! Alright. And thus here we are "making our calling and elections sure." We’re "making sure" that election is sure, that we have it, that it doesn’t float off, that we don’t lose our "election," lose our salvation.
Notice they had the possibility of "falling." He says "for if ye do these things ye shall never fall." Now, I know, every time I have a debate, that everybody I debated, always has an answer for what I’ll say. Some answer. Now many times I don’t think it’s very reasonable and I have to let the audience be the judge.
Now Steve will have some kind of answer for this word "if." No doubt about it. But you’re going to have to ask yourself, is it reasonable? When you see the word "if," like if you were to tell your son, "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, you can have chocolate pie." What do we mean by that? We mean by that, and it’s simple, if he eats his carrots he gets chocolate pie and if he doesn’t, he doesn’t get chocolate pie. Right? We understand the word "if."
"If ye do these things ye shall never fall." What does that mean? Simply and plainly, without trying to get around it, what does it mean? It means, "if you do these things," that is "add," or put into your life, the practice of this, what we call the Christian graces, just a few verses before, you won’t "fall." But, if you don’t do these things, you will "fall"!
So that presents just enough a possibility that a person who had been "purged from his old sins," a Christian, could "fall" from that, and he could, presents the possibility, that Bobby might not receive that chocolate pie if he doesn’t eat his carrots. They had the possibility of falling. Falling away from what? His "election" and "salvation," that is, as the verse goes on to say, in verse eleven, he will lose "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." It tells us what he would lose if he "falls." He would lose the "entrance" "into the everlasting kingdom of Jesus Christ." Look it up in your Bibles right there in verse eleven. So if a Christian does not "add" the Christian graces, verses five through seven, he will fall from his "election," salvation, that is, he will miss out on heaven.
Everybody turn to Hebrews 3:12. The Bible says there – "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God."
Now notice that these people addressed are called "brethren." I asked him a question. He said these are "professed Christians." So I guess what he is saying, just because they are called "brethren" doesn’t prove they are genuine Christians. But I want you to notice verse one who he is talking to. Verse twelve calls them "brethren" but verse one, talking about the same people, says "wherefore, holy brethren." Now people who are Christians but only in a professed way, meaning their hypocrites, their not really Christians, but they just professed it, maybe they believed and were baptized to please their wife or something like that. Yes, I can see how somebody might mistakenly call them "brethren," Steve or I might mistakenly call them a "brother," but Paul wouldn’t mistakenly call them a "brother," would he? Paul was inspired of God. He would not call somebody a "brother" if they were only professed "brethren," and not really truly Christians.
"He assumes he’s talking to true Christians," that’s what he said, and then, I’m continuing with my point in verse one, he not only calls them "brethren," Steve, he calls "holy brethren," which means they’re not just hypocritical brethren, just professed Christians. They’re "holy" brethren. Notice that perseverance, according to this text, is not a certainty for these brethren. Not even for the Hebrew writer. He includes himself in these warnings. He says "who’s house we are," that would be him and those he is writing to, "if we hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end."
So even, let’s assume for a moment that Paul wrote it, I don’t know who wrote it, but it is easier to say, even Paul recognized, along with the ones he’s writing to, the Hebrews, that if he didn’t "hold fast the confidence and hope firm unto the end," he would not be considered God’s "house" any more. Verse 14 "we," that would be the writer and those he’s writing to, are "made partakers of Christ IF we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." So, it’s conditioned upon "holding the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," and we’re not going to be "partakers of Christ" if we don’t do that. Do you see that? So Paul recognized the possibility that even himself, assuming he is the writer and I don’t know if he was, that he himself and his "holy brethren" could be lost if they didn’t hold their faith till the end. This last part is similar too.
"We are made partakers of the benefits of the national honor society if, or as long as, we hold to a 3.5 grape point average." Okay? Now, Steve said a believer cannot become an unbeliever. This verse stated that you can. "Take heed brethren," these are "holy brethren," "lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief." So a "holy brother" could change, a "holy brother" could change to unbelief. Steve says a "holy brother" could not "depart" from God, but this verse says he can, in "departing from the living God."
And Steve says a brother can’t lose his salvation, but this verse, along with verses six and fourteen, teaches that he can. Now, what is the fate of the believer who changes to unbelief? John 3:36b makes that clear, it says "he that believeth not shall not see life." So, a person who is a believer, that changes to an unbeliever, John 3:36 says "he that believeth not shall not see life."
Everybody turn to John 15, let’s look at the context of verses 2-6. Jesus said – "I am the vine, ye are the branches." Now, he’s just said, this is "ye," who he’s talking to, second person, he says now "you are clean through the word."
Does that sound like somebody who is not a Christian? No, only Christians are "cleaned through the word." Not just a professed Christian, but a true Christian is the only one who has been "cleaned through the word," forgiven of sin.
He says, "every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away, and every branch that beareth fruit he purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered and men gather them and cast them into the fire and they are burned."
Now notice he’s talking to people, he says, "ye are clean through the word," that means somebody, you can’t be "cleaned through the word" without being forgiven, a Christian. He says, he’s basically encouraging them to abide in him, and he says if you don’t abide in me, and he’s using an analogy here, like a person that’s a fruit tree that’s not bearing fruit, you "prune" it, trying to get it to bear fruit and you take the branches that you cut off, the stems, and you go and burn them. What do you think that Jesus is talking about here when it says he "casts them in the fire and they are burned"?
Making an analogy, what’s the spiritual parallel to being "burned in the fire"? I think we all know. Jesus is the "vine" and the "branches" are people, verse five, they’re talking about Christians, they’re "in me," that means their "in Christ," their "clean through the word," so it’s Christians. He says if they don’t bear fruit, they are "taken away," "cast forth" and "burned."
So a Christian who does not bear fruit will end up being burned in everlasting punishment. I think that is very clear. I really think if you’ll just accept the clear and plain meaning of these passages you’ll come to the conclusion I’m contending for tonight.
Next, I would like to look at Hebrews 10:26-27. It says – "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversary."
Now notice this is talking about Christians. Calls them "brethren." Chapter ten, verse nineteen. He’s talking to the same people that we mentioned awhile ago, that he was talking to in Hebrews three, verse one, "holy brethren." He warns them in chapter ten not to forsake the church assembly. But he says, if this person "sins willfully" he will be lost. How do I know that? Verse 26 says "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." In other words, the benefits of the sacrifice are no longer applied to that person. Now you can’t be saved if the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ are no longer applied to you, because the only way we can be saved is based upon the benefits of the death of Christ.
In chapter ten, verse 27, "fearful judgment" and "fiery indignation." Does that sound like a person that’s saved? No. So it was a person who was saved, who was called a "holy brethren" but he’s being warned that if you "sin willfully," assuming they don’t repent, then this is what will await you, you will be lost. Christians who "sin willfully" cease to receive the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ, instead they face a fiery judgment.
Now I would like for you to look at I John 1:9. I believe he’s talking to Christians there, in I John 1:9. But let’s look at it. Either way it wouldn’t matter. It says – "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Now let’s think about Bobby and the chocolate pie, and the carrots, "if you eat your carrots, you can have a piece of chocolate pie" – we know what this kind of phraseology means. "If," this says, "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We know what that means! That means if you confess he’ll forgive you, and if you don’t, he won’t forgive you. That’s simple and plain. It can only be garbled if someone’s trying to get around the plain meaning.
But, the limited atonement version of "once saved always saved," which Steve holds, is made absurd by this verse. If your of the elect your forgiven even if you don’t confess! Right, Steve? And, if you’re not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess! Do you see that? Let me say it again. According to Steve’s position, if your of the elect you’re forgiven even if you don’t confess your sin and if your not of the elect, your not forgiven even if you do confess your sin. But this says, "if we confess our sins" he will forgive us, naturally applying it. "Confess" and you will be forgiven, and if you don’t confess, you won’t.
Look’s like I’m running out of time, but you’ll remember Simon the Sorcerer.
It says, it talks about the people of Samaria who "believed and were baptized." I feel confident that Steve would say they are saved. Verse 13 says, "then Simon himself believed also." It wasn’t a false belief Steve. It says he "believed ALSO," meaning "like the other people of Samaria" and they were saved, according to your position, I believe, "and when he was baptized he continued with Philip."
So, it says "Simon believed," not a false belief because it says "also," meaning like these other people, who Steve would say is saved. Then later he tried to buy the gift of God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, with money. Peter told him "repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the fall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." You see that? He was saved, yet when he sinned, through thought and action, Peter said you’re "in the gall of bitterness and the bondage of corruption."
Does that sound like he’s still saved? It doesn’t, does it? He said, "you need to repent." And, it looks like, if you read the rest of the text, that he did repent. Do you see that? Is that pretty simple?
Let’s go back to this little word "if." "Bobby, if you eat your carrots, mom will get you some ice cream." "Finish your homework you can go out and play." "If you take this medicine it should make you feel better."
Notice I Corinthians 15:1,2. "Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel, which you have received, and wherein you stand," so their Christians. "By which you are saved IF ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain."
Notice that they’re Christians, they are called "brethren," they "stand in the faith," in the gospel. Their not just professing Christians, they’re truly Christians. He says you will be saved "if ye keep this in memory." What does this mean?
Thank you very much. I invite you to pay special and close attention to what Steve has to day. I appreciate Steve being willing to do this and I know you do too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)