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.