Question #1:
[omitted]
Response #1:
There are many reasons to reject the pre-Tribulation "rapture" fallacy (I'll provide some links below). For one thing, it's very dangerous to accept, especially where we find ourselves on the eschatological clock. Not everyone is willing to accept the interpretation this ministry offers on the probable date of the impending Tribulation (here's one link on that), but can any Bible reading Christian doubt that things can't go on much longer in terms of societal degeneration and the turning of the church-visible completely away from the truth toward secular ecumenicalism and all things new age and demonic without the Lord intervening? For while "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" (2Thes.2:7), it seems clear that it is reaching a crescendo of what is possible absent the Holy Spirit's removal of all restraint (something that only happens once the Tribulation begins; see the link). This being the case, for believers to think that they will somehow avoid the Tribulation is very dangerous not only because of the shock they will receive when they discover they have been taught wrong, but also because many as a result of such wishful thinking will have neglected the spiritual preparation necessary to endure those difficult days ahead. After all, the Lord only brings the kind serious testing that tempers faith upon mature believers, and no believer can mature absent serious spiritual growth. The hardest time to catch up – and the worst time to undergo difficult testing for the first time – will be during the Tribulation.
(13) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. (14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming (Gk. parousia) of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. (16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (17) Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
1st Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV
This is the primary "proof text" for "rapture" adherents. They make all manner of erroneous claims about the passage, but it is important to note right from the start that there is absolutely nothing in this passage to suggest that either 1) believers are taken "back to heaven" after what is described here takes place, or 2) that this could not possibly be referring to the second advent – as it is in fact referring to the second advent.
To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming (Gk. parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints (holy ones, i.e., angels).
1st Thessalonians 3:13 KJV
(1) But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. (2) For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. (3) For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1st Thessalonians 5:1-3 KJV
As the passages above make abundantly clear, even within the near context of this very letter there are in fact indisputable proofs that this is all speaking about the Lord's second advent. In Greek, this is called His "parousia", and in the first passage above we see that Jesus returns "with all His saints" or holy ones (angels, just as at Matt.24:31). This is "the Day of the Lord" mentioned in the second passage, the day for which we long, the day upon which we will be resurrected when He returns, the day when judgment will be rendered upon all those who have persecuted us . . . during the Tribulation.
(1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming (Gk. parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him (i.e. the resurrection), (2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (5) Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2nd Thessalonians 2:1-5 KJV
Paul was a bit frustrated with the Thessalonians as the last verse above demonstrates. They had confused the straightforward time line, i.e., Tribulation followed by resurrection, just as so many of our compatriots are doing – even though it's clear enough from what Paul had written in his first Thessalonian epistle. But no one has the slightest excuse based upon what Paul writes above to clear things up in his second letter. The second advent (parousia) is the day of the Lord, and "that day shall not come" before the following events take place: 1) the "falling away" (i.e., the Great Apostasy; see the link), and 2) the revelation of the "man of sin", namely the beast of antichrist, who does the horrific things described. Beyond all argument, these are Tribulation events, so that the resurrection does NOT take place before the Tribulation.
(29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Matthew 24:29-31 KJV
As this passage also makes clear, there was no need for any such
confusion then or now, not, that is, for anyone possessing a copy of the
gospel of Matthew and reading our Lord's words with any care whatsoever.
It is AFTER the Tribulation that the resurrection takes place. Also
important to note are the important similarities between the passage
above (ignored or twisted by pre-Trib "rapture" supporters) and the
"proof text" of 1st Thessalonians 4:13-18: 1) the parousia of the
Lord; 2) the gathering in clouds; 3) the angels; 4) the trumpet call of
assembly; 5) the rising up of the saints in resurrection.
It is often claimed by pro-rapture proponents that "the Church is absent
from the book of Revelation", but while John does not use that word, the
role played by the saints, believers, in Revelation is pivotal (e.g.,
Rev.5:8; 6:9-11; 7:9-17; 8:3-4; 12:17; 13:10; 14:14-16; 15:2-4; 16:5-6;
17:6; 18:4; 18:20; 18:24; 20:4). If the resurrection takes place BEFORE
the Tribulation, what about all these believers who are persecuted and
(many of them) martyred DURING the Tribulation? Are they shut out of the
kingdom, possibly resurrected only at the end of the Millennium? Or is
there yet another resurrection? Now we have three advents and two
resurrections (or more; some even posit these as mid-Tribulation events)
– or we could take the straightforward reading of the passages above
(just as clear in English for any reading with any care) and accept that
there is only ONE second advent and only ONE resurrection of the Church:
at that one and only second advent.
(50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (i.e., at the second advent when our Lord returns to establish it); neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound (cf. Matt.24:31; 1Thes.4:16), and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1st Corinthians 15:50-52 KJV
The problem for "rapturists" is actually even more difficult when we
start to consider who is resurrected and when. 1st Corinthians 15:23-24
makes it crystal clear that there are only three echelons to the
resurrection: "Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's
at his coming. Then cometh the end". Christ has been resurrected; the
end must refer to all of the believers saved during Christ's thousand
year millennial kingdom. His "coming" is, once again, His parousia,
namely, the second advent. All these passages are entirely consistent in
the simple picture they paint, understanding the Church, "they that are
Christ's at his coming" as all saved before that "coming", before the
second advent. Therefore "the Church" consists of all believers from the
beginning until our Lord returns. But if Israel is so different, as most
of these "rapturists" claim, when are the patriarchs resurrected (along
with all the Jewish believers of the past)? When are the 144,000 and the
Jewish believers who escape the dragon and flee into the desert in
Revelation chapter 12 resurrected? When are Adam and Eve resurrected?
Only by understanding that the Church are all believers who are
"Christ's at His coming" and only by understanding that "coming" as the
second advent, and only by understanding that THIS is the time of the
resurrection – not before, during or sometime after – do these passages
align.
I have expressed already my reservations about the
Wide is the Gate apologetic series. It is indeed excellent in
calling out the dangers and doctrinal abuses of the "emergent" movement.
However, the individuals therein are vociferous in their attacks against
any and all who find fault with the pre-Trib rapture. The fact that many
in the NAR movement abuse scripture mightily and seem to look forward to
some sort of non-scriptural spiritual battle within the Tribulation is
not in and of itself any sort of proof that the Church will be
spared from it. Indeed, while finding fault with those who abuse
scripture is appropriate, these individuals would have done well to have
been a bit more respectful of what the Bible actually says, rather than
leaning on their own traditions.
(3) We ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing. (4) Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. (5) All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. (6) God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you (7) and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. (8) He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (9) They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might (10) on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
2nd Thessalonians 1:3-10 NIV
This passage clearly is speaking of the judgments of the second advent.
How can YOU be potentially included if YOU are prophesied to be removed
before the Tribulation even begins?
Here are those links I promised:
The 'Rapture' and other Eschatological Issues
Eschatology Issues XXIV: the 'Rapture' et al.
The pre-Trib 'Rapture': so called 'imminence' and other false proofs refuted
Dangers of the Pre-Trib Rapture False Teaching
The Origin and the Danger of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture Theory
Three False Doctrines that Threaten Faith
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Bob,
Very interesting and helpful emails this week about salvation. I'm still
reading through them. I liked your response #18 where you wrote this
verse, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!" (Acts
16:31) I thought about how simple yet how powerful that is to share. The
simple truth with the power of the Spirit. It just comes down to whether
the person is willing for salvation or not. If they are then they'll ask
more questions and that's an opportunity to go into more detail. I read
an email yesterday on Ichthys that you wrote some time ago. I thought it
was similar. You wrote - "Jesus is the truth - and that is the truth. If
a person is really interested, the truth, pure and simple, is quite
enough".
So here's an example of how NOT to do it. My old pastor from the
Pentecostal church I attended when I was a teenager came to ___'s
funeral. The Pentecostal church that was chocka with false teaching (I
know much better now - thanks Bob!). He was so good to us as a family
when we were going through some very rough times. He and his wife were
very supportive. He has retired now. I had a good chat with him and we
laughed about the old times. He's quite a lively character but oh dear,
Bob. I was waiting for what he was going to do next. I knew it would
happen - it was just a matter of time and then it did. He pulled out
some leaflets from his pocket to hand out to whoever. I read the leaflet
as he walked away and it had a photo of him saying that he had raised
people from the dead! No joke. Thankfully this was near the end when
people were beginning to leave but he did manage to hand one to __ who
is an unbeliever and he pointed to the leaflet and said to me, "It
didn't work this time, did it?" ___ was quite laid back about it. He
knows him from years ago. So there you go, Bob. They never change -
another abysmal move from the Charismatics. At least I made sure the
gospel was given in the service.
Keeping you in my prayers!
In Jesus
Response #2:
Thanks for this!
Interesting about your old pastor. And about the claim and the handouts!
Here is the charismatic movement in a nutshell. Very, very enthusiastic
. . . about things that are not true. So you either turn away from them
(and in many cases from Christianity entirely assuming all is the same),
or get sucked in and start doing and believing untrue things yourself.
Very proud of you that you made sure the gospel was heard! The Spirit
can cut through all other noise . . . for anyone with a willing heart.
Wishing you a good week ahead (we got through Monday, anyway!).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Doc,
Just praying your okay! Watching the weather channel. Confirmed tornado
just North of Louisville. Know the Lord will take care of you! Be safe
tonight!
I had to laugh when I seen your reply to my last email re: Duet 32:15.
It was a perfect response to that verse. Problem was, it was not the
verse I meant to ask you about! You probably thought I was crazy! (my
wife thinks that). I actually meant Duet. 32:21. Is this a prophecy of
God grafting the gentile nations into the fold?
Thanks Doc!
Response #3:
We had some rain and a little hail, but nothing major in this
neighborhood. Thanks for the prayers!
No worries on the citation. Anyone reading this ministry understands
that I'm not good with numbers and have confused more than one citation
myself.
In regard to Deuteronomy 32:21, yes, that's right! This is one of many
verses documenting one of the main reasons for Israel's "hardness in
part", "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Rom.11:25),
namely, jealousy over the inclusion of the gentiles directly into the
family of God apart from the Law (e.g., Deut.32:21; Matt.27:18; Acts
13:43-45; 17:5; 22:21-22; cf. Matt.27:18; Lk.15:25-32; Rom.10:2).
And
here's a link on that.
Keeping you and yours in my prayers.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
[omitted]
Response #4:
In terms of the inerrancy of scripture, I've written a bit about the
Chicago statement before (link).
In short, I'm not a fan of creeds – because their purpose is to restate
what scripture means rather than to explain it (and that will always
result in error and confusion). I prefer the way I've described things
in
BB 7 (at the link).
Dealing with family, friends and acquaintances on spiritual matters is
never easy when they are not "all in" as we are. Everyone who is not
really serious about spiritual growth, believers included, develops a
certain amount of armor against things they find uncomfortable.
Unbelievers harden their hearts against the realities of life so as to
be able to tell God to "leave us alone" while this short life endures
(Job 22:17). Believers who are not willing to get serious about
spiritual growth act in a similar fashion. I certainly did . . . until
the Lord got my attention.
In my experience, observation, and reading of the Bible, this lack of
trust in scripture is not something you can reason people out of. It is
also, importantly, not a set of positions they have come to from careful
analysis of "the problem". Rather, it is a set of rationalizations which
they have collected to protect themselves from truths they find
uncomfortable. So I wouldn't torture myself about it. It's analogous to
unbelievers who refuse to accept the Lord. An evangelist should never
berate himself over their lack of response, as if there were "just the
right words" to reach them. The Spirit uses all manner of flawed people
and less than stellar presentations to bring people to Christ every day.
But they have to be willing to be saved. This is all a long way to say,
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink", so go
ahead and lead, but if he doesn't drink, don't blame yourself . . . as
if there were something wrong with your leading.
If the Bible is perfect. If it weren't, then we would have no way to
know what the truth was. God is not talking to us directly. He talks to
us by the Spirit through the Word. But if the Word were imperfect, we
would have no way of knowing what was right and what was wrong. Clearly,
we have to exert effort to find the right text. Clearly, interpreting
the scriptures correctly is no easy matter. You and I have devoted our
lives to that great task and are learning new things every day. Let
someone who wants to go their own way say, "I don't agree with your
interpretation" and that is fine. "OK, you're certainly free to try and
find a better ministry" (assuming you are really interested in the truth
and not just throwing up a defense). But if someone says, "We really
can't know the truth because the Bible is flawed", then they have ceded
from the start any possibility of spiritual growth. We understand that
only what is believed is used by the Spirit. If something is merely
provisionally understood but not believed on account of such mental
reservations, it may dispose the person in question to being adept at
debate, but they can't possibly be going anywhere spiritually. You have
to believe the Bible. That is one of THE "mountains to die on".
I rather suspect that this may be a way on the part of those who love
you to avoid telling you that they "don't agree with your
interpretations/methodologies/life-choices", that is, to avoid hurting
your feelings. After all, if the Bible itself is up for debate, then all
these other things are relative. It's a good smokescreen to hide behind.
I've never met your family, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are
indeed believers, having faith in the Lord, but just not interested in
doing anything about it, and averse to either hurting your feelings or
allowing themselves to be pushed in the right direction by you. That,
after all, is where most Christians are these days.
Happy to get in the particulars if you wish, but I know you know which
way is up and which way is down, and I don't think this is a case where
"a better argument" is going to have any particular effect (for the
reasons mentioned above).
Keeping you (and your family) in my daily prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
[omitted]
Response #5:
I had to deal with a lot of very sophisticated and scholarly "dissing"
of scripture when I was an undergrad the second time around, and of
course in seminary we were exposed to a lot of the "form criticism"
schools of thought (link). No doubt all such scholars would violently
reject the notion that they are "dissing" scripture and would see our
view as ignorant and "backwoods" (as in, "The King James version was
good enough for the apostle Paul and it's good enough for me!").
I have a hard time seeing this as complicated. Either the scriptures are
true or they are not. If they can be wrong about anything, then they
might be wrong about everything; and in such a case, even if they are
wrong about only some things, then since they might be wrong about "this
particular thing we are talking about at this moment", then there is no
being dogmatic about anything. Like the deity of Christ or the
incarnation or the resurrection or eternal life, if someone who is
questioning scripture protests, saying "No! I DO believe in THOSE
things!", my rejoinder is, "why?" "Where did you get your information?"
Because if it didn't come from the Bible, then the person is merely
following tradition or making it up themselves or believing whatever
they want to believe – not scripture. It seems pretty straightforward to
me. Which is why, as mentioned from much personal experience, most
people who have developed these nuanced theories aren't really concerned
about the fact that they are inconsistent with any sort of strong faith
in the actual truth . . . because in most cases they are really
completely unconcerned with that. They may be believers, but doctrines
(such as the nature of scripture) are merely part of the traditional
paraphernalia they have received, rather than being bedrock principles
they live by.
This is not meant to be a criticism of your family because I don't know
them at all. There are entire Protestant denominations which gladly
embrace this sort of dissonant belief structure without qualms.
Re: "Basically, the idea would be that not caring whether Jesus
cleansed the temple earlier or later (i.e., believing that the gospels
actually do contradict each other on the timing of this event, rather
than it happening twice) ought not be equated with a complete lack of
faith in the Bible. That is what they would say."
I do get that. What I don't get is then going to the Bible for assurance
about anything. Maybe for impressionistic inspiration, but not for
answers to serious questions like "when will the resurrection occur and
what is it like?" or "what will our final judgment be like and what will
it be based on?" But these are the sort of questions that most Laodicean
Christians really don't want to concern themselves with at all. And if
the Bible is only worthy of partial faith (i.e., "my position is not to
be equated with a complete lack of faith in the Bible"), then why would
anyone want to put any serious weight on what could be a mistake or "an
expression of personal experience from a cultural perspective which is
no longer relevant in the modern world", e.g.
Again, I'm not characterizing or judging your family (I would imagine
that each one of them has different ideas about all these things held
with various degrees of conviction, people being people). What I am
reaffirming (as I am sure you would agree), is that it really does make
a difference whether or not we start with the premise that "the Bible is
correct and if there is an apparent problem, I am just not understanding
something correctly here" versus, "if something seems amiss to me, the
Bible must be wrong about it in some way or another, even if I can't put
my finger on it exactly – no disrespect intended". In order to get
anywhere in spiritual growth or in Bible study, it seems to me that
taking the first position and rejecting the second is a sine qua non
for any serious progress. Because there will be plenty of things seeming
"amiss" as we study, many of which seem so because we have been wrong or
out of line, either in interpretation or application or personal
behavior. But if, on the other hand, the Bible is imperfect, we can at
the very least suspend judgment about any suspicions that maybe WE might
be wrong about our interpretations or personal behavior . . . because it
might be one of the "two temple cleansing things. Who knows? (and who
cares)". And that is road to perdition.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
[omitted]
Response #6:
Glad to hear this is helping!
Yes, I think you've put your finger on it. It's the "which parts?"
question that's the problem. If you'd had to be exposed to as much "the
Bible as literature" nonsense as I was in my various academic
sojourning, you'd realize no doubt that your family is right in the main
stream of things.
Here's how this works, practically speaking. There are those who feel
that nothing in the Bible is inspired (the atheist position); there are
those, like us, who know that the entire autograph was inspired. In
between lies the vast majority of Christendom, a word I'm using here to
cover all Protestants and all non-Protestant denominations, whether
composed of believers or not. And all of these groups and schools of
interpretation would say exactly what your family says, namely, that
they do believe the "spiritually important parts". Form criticism in
fact claims to be "trying" to establish the original kerygma of
Jesus, that is, what he (they would not capitalize) actually taught (as
opposed to the writings which have come down to us); the methodology
they use is to find an essential core message that is present under the
surface in parts of Mark and then deconstruct it from the fabulous that
later Christians loaded it up with. Using this method, only the one
gospel really matters (and only what reflects what the man Jesus
actually may have done and said). Everything else is somebody's
interpretation (like Luke's and Paul's, e.g.) or fanciful imagining.
That is one extreme of individuals who pay some attention to the Bible
but grant themselves the authority to decide which parts are
"spiritually important" or, one might say, "really from God"; in that
particular method, in the end, nothing is reliably from God.
So far this is all theoretical. Eschatology presents a fairly good
litmus test to see how solid someone (or some group or school) is on the
issue of inspiration. There are plenty of actual believers who roll
their eyes when anyone mentions Revelation (they usually get the name
wrong too, pluralizing it, an important and telling error since it is
THE "revelation of Jesus Christ"). I confess that as a young man I
myself was in this camp before the Lord straightened me out. And, truth
be told, at the base of this resistance to accept that book at face
value was a desire to be my own authority on these matters, to believe
what I determined in my infinite wisdom was "spiritually important" and
what was not.
To be fair, there are groups and individuals who have put serious limits
on this "I have the right myself to decide on my authority what parts of
the Bible are spiritually important" fallacy. The problem is that even
so this approach provides a "blank check" to reject any doctrine or
teaching one may find confusing or uncomfortable or for any reason
unwanted (the fact that such people and groups don't necessarily do this
ALL the time does not mean they don't take the liberty of doing it
sometimes). And that is why most groups and individuals, even those who
in principle have indeed put serious limits on the fallacy, are usually
not much interested in digging into scripture with a vengeance to learn
what it actually teaches on all things and in every verse. If they
really did want to know what God was telling us, they would have to look
in the Bible, and if they did this seriously, they would find out what
the Bible is really like.
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Revelation 22:18-19 NKJV
Serious words from our Lord here, and meant to be taken seriously.
Distancing oneself a little or a lot from the truth of the Bible being
the complete and perfect Word of God and failing to treat it as such is,
in my opinion, a fatal flaw when it comes to spiritual growth. In the
end, it's not the distance that matters, it's the fact of the distancing
(analogous to jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, whether at
30K feet or merely 300 feet, in the end the result is the same).
N.b., this is not a salvation question per se. Salvation is by
God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, something a person can embrace
without ever even seeing a Bible. But the devil is well aware that no
one is likely to get anywhere spiritually thereafter if he can merely
introduce a sliver of doubt as to the source of all the truth we possess
down here on earth. He is the father of lies (Jn.8:44), and the most
effective lies, like cancer, always insert themselves into the truth.
Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:4-5 NKJV
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend (and your family too).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Hey brother Bob, hope all is going well. I have a question about having a
reprobate mind.
[omitted]
Thank You and God Bless!
Response #7:
The phrase "reprobate mind" is the KJV's rendition of Romans 1:28
wherein unbelievers who after giving themselves unto idolatry and turn
away even from God's natural truth are allowed to harden their
hearts/minds so as to become "unfit" (KJV "reprobate") and thus do
"unfit" (KJV "not convenient") things – things listed before and after
this verse in the context of Romans 1:26-32. It's unfortunate that the
KJV translates the same Greek word so radically differently in the same
verse. In any case, this verse applies to the worst of the unbelievers,
not to you.
The other passage you ask about, Titus 1:15-16, reads as follows in the
NIV version:
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
Titus 1:15-16 NIV
Pretty clearly, these are people who "do not believe", that is,
unbelievers. Is it the case that many believers deny by our actions the
God we claim to believe in? Since all sin is lawlessness and rebellion
against Him (1Jn.3:4), that is true to some extent of all of us every
time we sin – and we all sin (1Jn.1:10). Blessedly, since Jesus died for
ALL of our sins, we are forgiven and restored to fellowship just as soon
as we confess them to the Lord (1Jn.1:9).
As I often remark, feelings of guilt are the devil's ace trumps – and he
plays them relentlessly. If we have sinned recently, we confess ASAP and
resolve to stay away from whatever is tripping us up, doing whatever is
necessary to avoid whatever that is. If we have sinned in the past,
those sins have been forgiven no doubt long ago when we confessed long
ago. Other than to remind ourselves of our areas of weakness (and what
giving in to them resulted in in the past), nothing good can come of
regurgitating these incidents or feeling guilty about them. Too much of
that and it's as if we don't trust God that Jesus actually DID die for
these things or we don't believe Him that He says we ARE forgiven when
we confess. Those thoughts ARE of the devil and need to be pitched from
our hearts energetically.
When it comes to fighting that battle for the heart, I would say that
gaining control over what we do is hard enough, especially if we are
talking about behavior that has proven to be addictive for us in the
past; controlling our tongues is even harder (as scripture affirms;
e.g., Jas.3:1-12); but controlling what is going on in our hearts is the
hardest fight of all. I doubt there are many if any believers who have
ever lived (apart from our Lord) who ever went a single day without
having a thought they didn't need confessing (unless in a coma).
How do we win this fight? There is a lot about this at Ichthys (see, for
example, Spiritual
Warfare in BB 6A at the link). The issue of unwanted thoughts and
some specifics about this fight was addressed recently in the email
posting "Fighting the Fight XIX"
(at the link). I urge you to have a look at this if for no other reason
than to see that you are certainly not alone in this struggle.
And as I am sure that we've discussed before, doubts about salvation are
also very prevalent among Christians today. The long and short of that
is, as also often said, believers who are worried they aren't saved are
pretty much saved "by definition" because otherwise, if they were
unbelievers, they wouldn't care (here's one link on that which will lead
to others: Salvation lost and found). Confidence in that salvation comes
from growing confidence in the Lord and in His truth – and that only
comes with consistent spiritual growth.
So for ALL of these issues, only consistent spiritual growth will ever
lead anywhere positive. This problem cannot be solved externally or
"topically"; it requires internal therapy – which is to say that only by
reading into a good Bible ministry on a broad basis (i.e., not just
looking at things that seem to address the particular problem one is
struggling with) will serious growth ever occur, and it is spiritual
growth that leads us closer to Jesus, farther from the world, and puts
us more in tune with the Holy Spirit. I encourage you to adopt a program
of reading through, e.g., the
Basics series at Ichthys (at the link) – or accessing some other
good ministry (I also recommend
Bible Academy at the
link). Because even if the fellowship and the music is good, unless
yours is one in a thousand, you aren't going to get this "at church".
No worries about posting only an edited version of your email.
I'm keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Hi Bob,
So I caught you chomping on those potato chips - LOL!! Don't lay off of
them, Bob. They're far too tasty!
I'm sorry to hear about your colleague. I think what you said in the
emails is so true. Even if we're not sure about those who have departed,
it's always best to have hope for them. At the end of the day, we truly
don't know all the details, only the Lord knows. And I've heard so many
times about people retiring and then not having that long. __ retired at
55 and has always said how important it is to keep yourself active -
body and brain. __'s done exactly that. __ had other part-time jobs and
then volunteered as well. __'s 81 now and in very good health.
Thanks for your prayers too, Bob. Just quietly got through another
testing time with the Lord's help - so that's good! We keep battling on
- God is good!
How long till the end of the semester?
Keeping you and yours in my prayers!
In Jesus
Response #8:
Weather is still crummy (at least not below freezing, but dark, cold,
rainy, foggy), but I opened this email while chomping on some more
potato chips (oops! I think I told you I needed to lay off of them).
Thanks for the typo help as always!
Tomorrow starts week four of our semester, so it's already in full swing
with hope of an eventual end. Just got word that a colleague of mine
passed away this weekend. She and I were two of three new tenure track
hires in our department back in '91. Now the other fellow and I are the
last one's standing and the oldest ones in the dept. She was Greek
Orthodox and regular in her church. Having known others of this stripe
in the past who were believers, I have hopes for her, but we weren't
close enough for me to say for sure. She retired last May and didn't
make a year into retirement. There's a lesson there too, I think.
Keeping you in my prayers too, my friend – and wishing you a smooth week
ahead!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
I read some things on your website and they made me feel convicted and caused my spirit to stir in a good way I believe. I have a question. I’m a believer that has backslid and this has happened multiple times since I first started to seek God and His wisdom back in 2020. At that time, my love for The Lord was hot and I didn’t care about the world, my focus was on things above and I felt like an alien on this earth, knowing that heaven was my true home and that this life was just a breath. I began to seek God with all of my heart, but I think when trials came in life and I underwent certain stressors, I was like a seed that didn’t properly take root. I slowly but surely let bad habits and thoughts back into my life and although I still fight against them when God mercifully convicts me, I feel like my faith is weak and I am not courageous, and I feel like I am not demonstrating the fruit of the spirit in my life. Even back in 2020, I was terrified by the verses in Hebrews about there no longer being a sacrifice for those who willfully sin, and the verse about falling away. I had a difficult time believing I was worthy of being restored because I felt my heart was too hardened and that I had gone too far by not holding tight to my first love and by becoming friends with the world. I still struggle with assurance, because I feel like due to my lack of perserverance, my conscience is seared. In my heart I desire to serve God and I know that the greatest and only true joy, and the only source of peace is found in the knowledge of and genuine reverence for God. I so strongly desire to have an intense awe for God, to fear and tremble like I should. I also feel that my entanglement with sin and concessions I’ve made, and my beliefs in the lies of the devil have caused my character heart to become so very hard. I feel such regret and despair over the way I’ve lived my life, and when reading the Bible I often feel I’m not worthy of the promises that God gives because of my weak faith, and I feel like the fruit of my life is an indicator that I’ve failed to hold fast to my faith, and it causes me to feel that I’m too late. ___ believes in once saved always saved, and I had believed in that too, but not from reading the Bible or my own digging into things. I think it’s clear that we do indeed have free will, and that the narrow path is called the narrow path for a reason, but I had been convinced by preachers and my family that once saved always saved was true, even though I felt it contradicted multiple verses in the Bible. All of this to say, I’m wondering if there is a way to tell if I have fallen away? I have backslid to the point where there are large portions of time where I serve myself as my own master and live in a prideful selfish way, rather than demonstrating the fruits of the spirit, (in fact it’s seems like more often than not I am acting like the old self) and with that being said, is it still possible for me to be saved, is it possible for me to be restored and wiped clean of my wickedness? There are so many verses speaking about how those who are impure in this way are not fit for the kingdom. Is genuine repentance possible for me? God is so very merciful, but I know that He will not be mocked and that we are supposed to continue in our faith and to run with endurance, and that God does not enjoy the one who shrinks back. I feel that I am not qualified because the one who looks back is not worthy. Is this the "fearful expectation" of willful sinners mentioned in in Hebrews 10:27 or is it the accuser trying to make me doubt? I’m not sure if that’s something you could answer with what I’ve shared, but if so it would be immensely helpful to me. Thanks,
Response #9:
Good to make your acquaintance.
First, before I forget, the verses that disturb you in Hebrews are being
incorrectly understood. Here are a few links which explain what they
actually mean:
No, Hebrews does not teach that you lost your salvation.
Hebrews 10:26 again
Does Hebrews 10:26 teach loss of salvation?
Second, it is true that the Bible does not teach "once saved always saved no matter what". That is because ONLY believers are saved:
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV
So the flip-side of this equation is that all who are believers ARE
saved – and that is great news since it is obvious that you are a
believer in Jesus Christ; therefore you are saved. But ONLY believers
are saved. What that means is that if the faith plant of the parable of
the Sower dies off, then the principle does not apply since only
believers are saved.
So, yes, this is very serious business, but the idea that committing a
sin or many sins causes a person to lose salvation is absolutely NOT
true. We are not on "pins and needles" down here. We are meant to feel
the assurance of our salvation, not be constantly wringing our hands –
which is the opposite of growing in faith.
Sin is indeed an issue because if a person gets deep into sinful
behavior it inevitably pushes them farther and farther away from Jesus
Christ. And it can come to a point where the person actually no longer
has any respect, any obedience, and faithfulness . . . and faith in Him.
And ONLY believers – "those who are believing / maintaining faith in
Christ" – are saved.
Sins of the past are forgiven every time we confess them (1Jn.1:9). The
proper procedure for any sin is to 1) recognize and take responsibility
for one's mistake; 2) confess it to the Lord (it's in the Lord's prayer
too, after all); 3) take God at His word that He forgives you when you
confess; 4) move on with your objective in this world (more about that
below); 5) forget about the past (Phil.3:13); 6) resolve not to do it
again. Of course, just because we confess does not mean that the divine
discipline pursuant to sin will immediately dissipate. The Lord
disciplines us perfectly to help us – just like a perfect and loving
human father would do (Heb.12:3-11).
I commend you for looking into these things. We are living in the last
era of the Church Age, Laodicea, and complacency is the order of the
day: lukewarmness. I can't think of anything more lukewarmness-inducing
than OSAS – except maybe also the false teaching of the pre-Trib
rapture. Both false ideas (link)
make people feel good and also give them the impression that they can do
whatever they want to pursue their own happiness in this life apart from
God with no consequences. That is a dangerous lie, and many cults and
cult-like churches and organizations embrace it.
So you rightly want the truth. The good news is that as a believer you
have a right to be confident about your salvation just as long as you
guard and build your faith. And you have a right to let go of the past
and rejoice in the forgiveness and mercy of God, making a point of not
"going back to folly".
But how do you guard and build your faith? The very fact that you are
upset is an indication that you need to address the issue of spiritual
growth. That is why we are here. The Lord's purpose for us all is, in a
nutshell, to grow up in faith, to progress in strengthening it by
passing testing once we are spiritually mature, and then help other
believers do the same through engaging in the ministries Jesus has for
us (these become clear only after we've made it some way down the road).
It's no secret that the vast majority of Christians today are only going
through the motions. Going to church doesn't produce growth since
churches don't teach enough of the truth to reach maturity in a hundred
years of church-going – and the majority of them nowadays are also
compromised with all manner of false doctrine and dangerous activities.
Singing hymns, giving money, going to church functions, etc., etc.,
etc., are just part of the set of sops the church visible has embraced
in place of doing the hard work of praying and reading one's Bible AND
learning diligently from a good teaching ministry. Contemplative prayer
and "tabernacle of David worship" and the like are not just pointless
but also dangerous to one's spiritual health.
All of the angst you are feeling can only go away once you learn the
truth about these things AND believe it. That is what we are all here to
do, not just in one or two areas that concern or interest us but the
entirety of the truth of scripture. That is what Ichthys is dedicated to
(I also recommend Bible
Academy at the link). That is the only way to actually please Jesus
Christ and draw closer to Him. And that is the way to earn the eternal
rewards that glorify Him forever (link).
You are welcome here any time.
Feel free to write me back.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Thank you so very much. I greatly appreciate your reply, and also your website as a whole has helped me so much in eliminating lukewarmness and erasing the toll that sin and the world has taken on my convictions/heart. Thank you!
Response #10:
You're very welcome!
Do feel free to write back any time, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Brother Robert,
I just listened to a message on being forgiven of past, present, and future
sins. The speaker quoted the verse in 1 John about true believers do not
practice sin. I know we have conversed several times about this. I have
practiced sin after coming to Christ. I am guilty of this. After listening to
this I prayed and confessed all known sin in my life and determined not to
practice sin going forward. Can you please help me with this again?
Thank you
Response #11:
I suppose I need to point out to begin with that I have warned you
against surfing the internet in search of sites that will condemn you.
Everyone can find that, that is, some individual or group willing to
condemn them for something in the past, whatever it might be. No one is
perfect. And there are a plethora of groups out there today who are very
adept at using this sort of guilt to trap you into their webs of false
teaching.
On that note, not even Christians are perfect. Jesus washed the
disciples' feet and told Peter that if he was unwilling, he would have
no part "in Me". And John, in first John, tells us at 1st John 1:9 that
we believers are forgiven when we confess – and why would that be
necessary if we never sinned? And he says at 1st John 2:1 that while he
is writing this to keep us from sinning that if we DO sin, Jesus is our
Advocate – and why would we need one if we don't sin? And John also says
this:
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
1st John 1:10 NKJV
Since this person/group is saying exactly that, they are "making God out
to be a liar" – which is blasphemous in the extreme.
Reading the verses you are referring to in that context we understand
that "not sinning" is where believers are supposed to be at all times;
but since we are human, as John has earlier in the letter explained, we
do sin and we do need to repent and confess; and if we refuse to do so,
claiming that "we have not sinned" when we have sinned because "everyone
sins" (Rom.3:23 in the Greek; cf. 2Chron.6:36), then they are twisting
scripture and destroying the peace of anyone who is unwise enough to
listen to them . . . or pressuring others to likewise claim that they
are not sinners when everyone sins.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies – and whatever is similar to all these things. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Galatians 5:19-21
Are these people saying they've never allowed rage or jealousy or
ambition or dissension or envy or discord of any kind to rise in their
hearts? Or how about "things like this" which also qualify as sin. If
they can't control their thoughts, we know for certain they can't
control their tongues – because no one can do that (Jas.3:2-12; cf.
Ps.39:1-3). Furthermore, regarding "witchcraft", one of the obvious sins
listed by Paul above, which of these groups is free of all "new age"
teaching, no "contemplative prayer", no yoga, no communing with spirit
guides, no wild charismatic behavior, etc., etc.?
Re: "I prayed and confessed all known sin in my life", good! As we all
should.
Re: ". . . and determined not to practice sin going forward". Good! As
we all should, however, but doing so with the proper humility of
understanding that we all sin in our hearts and with our tongues all the
time, so that restraining the sin nature is always going to be a work in
progress. If we can keep ourselves from gross sin and sin that damages
others and restrict it as much as possible to a constant battle for
control of our thinking, then we should be grateful for that progress.
We all should be walking in love at all times with all people and in all
things . . . but we are human beings. Something, apparently, your
correspondents don't understand, or have forgotten . . . or are
dissembling.
There is much more about this in BB 3B: Hamartiology (at the link). See also:
1st John: Text and Interpretation
Sinlessness and 1st John
Sin and Spiritual Transformation
The Myth of Sinless Perfection
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Thank you as always for your advice. I will heed your warning about not
surfing the net. It was unwise of me to do so.
Thank you,
Response #12:
I've got no problem with prudent use of the internet, but I guarantee
you and anyone else who is feeling guilty about anything, there is most
definitely a site designed to stoke that guilt rather than allay it . .
. and lead you into something much worse (e.g., demonism cloaked in a
mantle of Christian vocabulary).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Thank you. I highly value your opinion even if it comes with a warning.
I did read through the attachments and they helped greatly.
God Bless
Response #13:
Good for you! And of course believing and applying the truth one
receives is what makes it all work in the Spirit.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hey Dr. Luginbill,
Saturday, I know, but today was the day I had time to send this email,
so of course I don't expect a response today. It was just a good time
for me, that's all.
I know I've discussed the passages below with you before (you also touch
on them throughout Ichthys), but I wanted to take them at a different
angle and see what you think about Roy/Zuck's interpretation of 1 John
3:6;9 and 5:18. But before I ask about those verses...
I've asked you about the interpretation of Galatians 5:4 and the meaning
of "alienated from Christ" and "fallen from grace." You mentioned to me
before that this phrase applied to those on whoever the shoe fit, of
which, of course, I agree. I know that the Galatians to whom Paul wrote
were believers and had not gone "overboard yet, but were in danger of
doing so (some had apparently gone over the cliff). My question is, how
can we better prove that these phrases refer to loss of salvation
instead of a breach in fellowship with Christ? The Bible Knowledge
Commentary (Zuck and Walvoord) say (of these verses)...
"Anyone seeking justification by Law has been alienated from Christ, that is, such a person would not be living in a sphere where Christ was operative. The KJV has a helpful rendering, "Christ is become of no effect unto you." In addition, said Paul, they would have fallen away from grace. The issue here is not the possible loss of salvation, for "grace" is referred to not as salvation itself but as a method of salvation (cf. 2:21 where "a Law" route is mentioned as an unworkable way to come to Christ). If the Galatians accepted circumcision as necessary for salvation, they would be leaving the grace system for the Mosaic Law system."
A few other questions arise with other passages we've talked about,
those being 1 John 3:6, 3:9, and 5:18. What do you think of the Roy/Zuck's
interpretation of all three of them? They believe they all have the same
meaning (I must admit their arguments are reasonable).
Regarding 1 John 3:9 they say...
"As was pointed out in connection with verse six, adding such phrases as "continue to" and "go on" to John's statements about sinning is not justified on the basis of the Greek text. As before, the statements are absolute. One who is born of God does not sin precisely because God's seed remains in him, and he cannot sin because he has been born of God. "God's seed" is His nature, given to each believer at salvation. The point here is that the child partakes of the nature of his Parent. The thought of a sinless Parent who begets a child who only sins a little is far from the author's mind. As always, John dealt in stark contrasts. All sin is delvilish; it does not stem from the believer's regenerate nature, God's seed, but the child of God cannot and does not sin. The explanation here is the same as that given in verse 6. The "new man" is an absolutely perfect creation. By insisting on this point, John was seeking to refute a false conception about sin. Sin is not, nor ever can be, anything but Satanic. It can never spring from what a Christian truly is at the level of his regenerate being."
Its weird though because verse ten right after verse nine says, "By this
are manifest the children of God and the children of the Devil."
They say virtually the same thing about 1 John 5:18...
" As in 3:6;9 the words "continue to" are not justified by the original. John was affirming that anyone born of God is a person whose true, inward, nature is inherently sinless. The additional statement about the one who was born of God is not, as often suggested, a reference to Christ. John nowhere else referred to Christ in this way; and he was still writing about regenerate people. On this view, the word "himself" should be read in place of "him." John thus affirmed that the one who has been born of God keeps himself (there is no word for safe in the original). This restates the truth of 3:9 in a slightly different form. A believer's new man is fundamentally impervious to sin and hence the evil one, Satan does not touch him."
They then reinforce the above with verse 19 by saying that knowledge of
a regenerate person's new nature as being inherently sinless because
God's seed lives in him couples with the conviction that the person
knows they are "of God."
Finally, I wanted to ask again about 1 John 2:19 (they went out from
us). Typical proof passage used by many who hold to OSAS (the pastor in
a church I'm plugging into just used it in defense of the perseverance
of the saints). I know you explain this multiple times on Ichthys
(forgive me for asking), but I still don't get the meaning of this verse
and the explanation you've given for it. Maybe its just my reading
comprehension? Could you explain it in a more detailed manner for me? I
always struggle with this verse (very well aware that it can be
interpreted multiple ways). Verse twenty right after verse nineteen says
"But you have an anointing from the Holy One" making it sound as if
those who left were never saved to begin with. The young adult Bible
study group I'm part of continuously use this verse as proof that
believers can't fall away, and I don't have the explanation for it
properly put together in my head.
I hope your doing well and you will continue to be in my prayers. I
start training for the new job this Monday!
In His grace and power,
Response #14:
No worries – I left this for today.
On Galatians 5:4 and the Zuck and co. quotation: if you can understand
this quotation, you probably belong in academia. To me, the very
impenetrability of the prose reveals it for what it is, namely, an
attempt to "defuse" a passage that clearly demonstrates that salvation
can be lost . . . through loss of faith. Paul's logic is indisputable.
IF a person gets to the point where indeed they are relying entirely on
the Law to be saved then by definition they are not relying at all on
faith in Christ to be saved. As you mention in terms of our prior
discussion, in all of Paul's epistles he kept it in mind (as we should)
that not everyone in the congregation was in the identical place
spiritually, so indeed it is "if the shoe fits". Mostly, he is pitching
to those who are being dragged in the wrong direction and attempting to
get them to see the error of their ways before it does get to the point
of loss of salvation . . . because that is the logical result of what
they are doing in abandoning grace for the Law.
On 1st John 3:6; 3:9; 5:18, let me start by noticing that their entire
take on this issue is entirely incorrect. When they say, "adding such
phrases as "continue to" and "go on" to John's statements about sinning
is not justified on the basis of the Greek text", they are ignoring 1)
the fact that the present stem in Greek is continuous and has this
meaning as possible too (i.e., "is sinning" rather than "sins", is the
first best way to understand this present tense here), not the other
(aoristic present) way around (i.e., "sins" rather than "is sinning");
Greek, as you know, only has ONE present tense as opposed to these two
aspectual tenses in English (he sins / he is sinning . . . and we also
have "he does sin"); 2) that if we read this epistle from the beginning
it is clear that believers do indeed sin (e.g., 1Jn.1:8-10; 2:1-2) and
that therefore they are undermining what John has said previously with
their incorrect pronouncements about what Greek can and can't mean; and
3) they are taking this particular verse out of immediate context as
well:
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1st John 3:6 KJV
This verse is the key to understanding what comes next. "Sinning" later
on is "remaining in sin", that is, continuing in a sinful pattern. That
is impossible for believers over the long term because the Lord will not
stand for it. Anyone who tries it will find that out sooner or later and
either be forced away from Him (into apostasy, where "the seed" of the
Word no longer then "remains" in the person: 1Jn.3:9) or suffer the sin
unto death (discussed by John in the last chapter: 1Jn.5:16-17).
So I'm afraid that this is a good example of "theology driven" exegesis
where the individuals concerned are so tightly wedded to their
preconceived (wrong) notions that they are only engaging with scripture
to prove what they believe is right – rather than to let the Spirit
speak to them through the scriptures.
On 1st John 2:19, you'll have to help me with this one.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
1st John 2:19 KJV
When these individuals "went out" they were not "of us" when they went
out. But before that they were in the church (otherwise they wouldn't be
described as going out). Were they always unbelievers? Were they
believers who turned back to the world? It doesn't say, but there is
nothing in the verse, even in the English as far as I can see, to
preclude that they were believers who apostatized.
Best wishes for tomorrow (I have been praying for you and the job). I've
been down for the count for the last couple of days with what seems to
be a dose of Covid (weird symptoms). Feeling better tonight but tomorrow
is the first day of classes . . . so prayers appreciated!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hey Dr. Luginbill, thanks for the response.
On Galatians 5:4, what I don't get is what they mean in saying, ""Grace"
is referred to not as salvation itself but as a method of salvation (cf.
2:21 where "a Law" route is mentioned as an unworkable way to come to
Christ). I don't see how calling it a method helps their argument in any
way. And what's with them referencing 2:21? What is that supposed to
prove? I guess I don't belong to academia lol, (I'm assuming you don't
think that's a bad thing). It seems they think "fallen from grace" and
"severed/alienated from Christ" refer to loss of fellowship (not being
in a place where Christ is operative)? I teach this passage in one of my
papers on Galatians chapter five and the fruits of the Spirit (haven't
posted it to the site yet) and I understand it as you do but just wanted
to see if there was anything I might be missing.
I saw another interpretation of this verse and they said that those who
had "fallen from grace" were those who "never got saved at all" (were
never saved to begin with) and had only fallen from it in the sense that
they have fallen away from the opportunity for grace (another attempt to
squeeze in OSAS). I've studied the meaning of this phrase (along with
"severed from Christ") in the Greek but what is your reading of it in
the original? I understood that it meant to fall from a better position
to a less favorable one. Thing is, you can't fall from something you
never had, which means that saving faith had to have been present at
some time. If you are "severed" from Christ, you must also had to have
been connected at some point.
Regarding 1 John 3:6;9 5:18...
In 1 John 5:18, do you interpret the phrase "the one born of God keeps
himself" to mean that a truly committed believer will guard himself
against apostasy? If so, would that negate the arguments proposed by Zuk/Walvoord
(the stuff I bolded in my first email to you)? They say "A believer's
new man is fundamentally impervious to sin and hence the evil one, Satan
does not touch him" but seem to ignore away the phrase "keeps himself"
which involves free will (just having what they call a "perfect nature"
isn't going to keep you from turning away by itself). God's seed only
remains in us if we remain in Him. You then have verse ten right after
verse nine which reads, "By this are manifest the children of God and
the children of the Devil." Are the words "children" in the original
Greek? If so, that would also seem to be a strike against their
arguments when they say that this refers to "devilish" deeds done by
believers (acts of the Devil)- "All sin is delvilish, because the text
seems to suggest that those who who continue in sin are unbelievers,
whether they were apostates or not, doesn't make any difference.
Wouldn't verse ten debunk their arguments on 1 John 3:6;9, 5:18?
On 1 John 2:19, I'm gonna have to think that one through and give it
some time. So you're saying they were "not of the church" only as they
were going out? In other words, they were "of them" before they left but
not after? How does that square with the phrase, "For if they had been
of us, they would no doubt have continued with us?" How do you harmonize
your position with that part? Just for clarity, I don't hold a view on
this verse, hence I'm asking for your interpretation and the arguments
for it. Just helps me to think everything through and sort out the
details.
In Christ,
Response #15:
No, it's not a bad thing to still be able to operate under (spiritual)
common sense.
As to "It seems they think "fallen from grace" and "severed/alienated
from Christ" refer to loss of fellowship", they have to, because
otherwise their theological misconceptions would be challenged. So this
is all backwards: find a passage that contradicts your theology and then
work hard to find some way to say that it really doesn't, and if that
means constructing prose that no one can really understand, all the
better (you sound smart and you won't be challenged by those who have
bought into your view ahead of time).
The second interpretation is even more fatuous. Fallen means fallen in
Greek as well as in English, although in Greek the verb is prefixed by
ex- which makes it a more emphatic statement. To buy this one, we
would have to assume that "you" are unbelievers and that the whole
epistle is written to unbelievers . . . so why did Paul write it,
exactly? I don't think we need to spend much time on this except to
point out that this is the sort of extreme that evangelicals today will
go to defend one of their three top false doctrines (the rapture and
institutional salvation being the two other big ones). Oddly (or perhaps
logically), they mostly only get interested in the doctrines of the
Bible when it comes to defending false positions.
On 1st John 5:18, re: "God's seed only remains in us if we remain in
Him", that's exactly correct. Nice point that "keeps himself" is an
action not the result of an irrevocable "no matter what" position. Yes
you are secure in your salvation . . . IF you "keep yourself" in faith
in Christ, keep believing in Him, keep being a believer.
On 1st John 3:10, yes, the word "children" is there twice. As far as
"debunking", I think you have a point but this is not my forte nor the
way I go about things. I try to explain what the Bible actually
says/means; I'm not overly concerned with understanding what others say
about it and to what degree or why what they say is not correct unless
I'm explaining defending a particular passage/teaching. Meaning to say,
I don't really totally understand their convoluted arguments because on
a cursory reading they are not entirely internally consistent. One finds
that in "theology" all the time, because traditional (as opposed to
biblical) "theology" creates constructs and argues from them as if from
the truth. That results in all manner of confusion (such as we see with
Zuck & co.).
On 1st John 2:19, I'm not sure how else John would have said it without
footnotes or parenthetical explanations. Situation: a person is in a
church, is saved but marginal, not growing, then buys into false
teaching, falls from grace (apostatizes) and leaves the church. If said
person had not fallen, said person would not have left; leaving
demonstrates that he/she was – at that point – "not of us". At what
other point could we be talking about since the point is "they left" . .
. so it has to be the leaving point. For me, this is only a problem for
those adopting OSAS or Calvinism and assuming unchangeable status. For
them I ask, if they weren't believers, why did they come into the church
in first place? If for nefarious purposes, then why did they leave
(rather than attempting to continue carrying them out)?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Thanks! Regarding 1 John 3:6, I've seen what you've said on that verse and last we spoke on it I think I remember you saying it referred to fellowship, so a different meaning compared to 3:9 and 5:18 (assuming I understood you correctly). I read your take of 3:6 in a link dealing with pneumatology and "how would you translate 1 John 3:6" and you mentioned that the verse could be translated two ways as "continues in sin" (which would lead to apostasy) or "sins" referring to the fact that believers who are in fellowship with Christ will not sin (for the same reason Galatians 5:16 gives- if you walk by the Spirit, you won't sin). Do you think the words, "No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known Him" could potentially refer to apostates? I say that because in the parable of the ten virgins, the Lord tells the apostate virgins that He never knew them, even though they were once believers for some time. Could verse 6 possibly be saying, that the one who falls away from Christ was never known by Him because they fell away (as in the parable of the ten virgins)? Or are the words "seen" or "known" strictly limited to the past tense only (this wouldn't be an "after the game is over" scenario as we see with 1 John 5:18)? One final thing. In the thread/link I mentioned above, you said (regarding 3:6), "For all these reasons, rather than choosing between the "position" and "job" description interpretations of this verse, I am of the opinion that they have to be combined to understand what John means here: "You are all sinless in Jesus and have been called to live up to that perfect standard which in Him you positionally possess- so do live up to that standard in practice so as to glorify your Lord, in order to to help and not harm your brothers, and also for your own spiritual safety " Could you clarify what you meant by the above? It sounds similar to what Zuck and Co said about this verse and the other two (3:9 and 5:18) but I don't believe that is what you meant. I'm just confused, that's all. I read the entire response on that thread (response #1) but I'm still not sure what you meant by this paragraph. Just asking for clarity, that's all.
Response #16:
Sinning puts us out of fellowship and continuing in sinful behavior
alienates us from Christ (rather than "drawing near" as we are commanded
to do through the truth: Jas.4:8). So this "works" on both levels, the
immediate and the chronic.
Re: the ten virgins, actually what our Lord says is "But he replied,
‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you’ " (Matt.25:12 NIV), which is
different from "I NEVER knew you" (Matt.7:23), a statement
that was directed towards our Lord's contemporaries who never believed.
After all, the crowds cheered Him entering Jerusalem, but we know from
the sequel that most were not really believers.
On the last paragraph, I don't want to weigh in on what Z+ mean because
I don't precisely understand what they are saying (except to say that
they are clearly trying to wiggle out of what scripture says and justify
their theology). What I am saying is that 1) we are positionally
sinless, justified by faith, holy in Christ; and 2) we are also called
to live that way. This is positional vs. experiential sanctification (see
the link), a simple doctrine which most evangelicals don't seem to
understand. God considers us righteous and holy . . . even though of
course there is no believer who does not fall well short of being either
in terms of our actual behavior here in this world. But part of what
John is clearly doing here is what we see Paul and Peter and others
doing as well, namely, setting the standard and challenging us to live
up to it. It's important to do that to glorify the Lord, help our
brothers and sisters, and keep spiritually safe ourselves. There's
a lot more on all this in BB 3B: Hamartiology:
the biblical study of Sin (at the link).
Pursue peace with everyone, and sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord.
Hebrews 12:14
How is the job going?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
During my daily reading of the referenced chapter's of 1 John, I noticed that
the translations of three Bibles I looked at were different as follows; Three
version of 1 John.
1 John chapter 1, verse 9. NASB 1977 edition.
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and
the cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
1 John chapter 3, verses 6 to 9. NASB 1977 edition.
“6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
“7 Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who practices righteousness
is righteous, just as He is righteous.
“8 the one who practices sin, is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the
beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the
works of the devil.
“9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and
he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
1 John chapter 3, verses 6 to 9. NASB 1995 edition.
6No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices
righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the
beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the
devil.
9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he
cannot sin, because he is born of God”.
1 John chapter 3, verses 6 to 9. NASB 2020 edition.
6No one who remains in Him sins continually; no one who sins continually has
seen Him or knows Him.
7Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices
righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from
the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of
the devil.
1 John chapter 3, verses 6 to 9. NLT edition.
6”Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on
sinning does not know him or understand who he is.
7Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is
right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous.
8But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who
has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the
works of the devil.
9Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning,
because God’s lifea is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are
children of God.”
The NLT version in verse 9 is not, in my opinion, very good: "So they can't keep
on sinning", so, perhaps one can reach perfection, because they can't keep on
sinning. I know of several people who believe they no longer sin.
The other versions in places, can also be very misleading to someone who does
not keep these verses in context.
___'s German Bible Luther's translation of 1984 is very misleading, because it
leaves out the practice of sinning.
I would appreciate your comments, when your not toooooo busy.
P.S. Translation's can be very confusing with someone who does not study their
bibles on a daily basis. I have in the past, provided the correct meaning of
these verses many others who were confused by them.
Translators, ughhhhhh
Commentators, ughhhhhh
Blessings to you always,
Your friend,
PPs. It's been a while since I wrote to you, Been really busy studying your
teaching on "Eschatology" on Last things. A really, really, great teaching that
all who call themselves Christians, should study for themselves, but
unfortunately, they are hung up on the false doctrine of a Rapture.
Response #17:
Good to hear from you, my friend. I have been wondering about you. I'm
glad to hear that you two are OK, just busy. Nothing wrong with that!
On first John, these are questions and issues that everyone has. I
remember back in seminary one of my profs described these "no one sins"
verses as a "job description" for Christians rather than a statement of
fact. Because, obviously, "all sin" (Rom.5:12 – that is what the passage
says; it is NOT a past tense ["sinned"], speaking of bad translations).
AND 1st John, as you note, not only gives us the means to deal with sin,
but also condemns all who say that they haven't sinned or don't sin
(1Jn.1:8; 1:10). AND we are told that "if we do sin" (and all sin),
Jesus Christ is our Advocate and the propitiation for our sins
(1Jn.2:1-2). AND we are told that we should pray for those who do sin
and fall into disease-discipline as a result (1Jn.5:16-17). AND that
there is a "sin unto death" (1Jn.5:16-17). So, obviously, John was not –
could not have been – teaching that there is even the possibility that
believers are incapable of sinning.
Jesus taught us that we need our feet washed, but not our bodies
(Jn.13:1-17), meaning that we do fall into sin after we are cleansed at
salvation. So the "job description" approach is not a bad way to think
of it. Our Master's expectation and charge to us is "no sinning";
violations are punished and must be repented of and confessed. Believers
don't / can't give themselves over to a life of sin. Not with impunity.
If they do, either they will end up dying the sin unto death . . . or
get sick of the discipline and reject the Lord and apostatize. But
assuming that "never sinning" is even possible requires sublime
arrogance or mental illness to accept.
Here are some links on all this which discusses these matters in a bit
more detail:
Keeping you and your family in my daily prayers, my friend.
And thanks for the encouraging words as well!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Doc, a trend I've noticed in Judaizing and/or works salvation cults is claiming Apostle Paul was a false prophet. I feel like it's largely because for most of them that they realize their satanic false Gospel can't be scripturally supported otherwise. Even alot of works salvationists say Paul isn't a false prophet but "no servant is greater than his master, so are you going to listen to Jesus or Paul?", even when Paul says in no uncertain terms that his words are the words of Christ. It's almost sad the level of scripture twisting these people will do because even though they won't admit it, alot of them want to earn their way to Heaven.
Response #18:
It's a good observation. Jesus Christ IS "the Word of God" so that the
Bible is all intimately His, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Re: Paul, I've heard that one too. One sure "tell" of a cult / false
teaching is dismissing part of the Bible . . . or adding some other work
to it. Both are just as bad so stay clear.
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Revelation 22:18-19 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
p.s., I wrote about my skepticism about conspiracies because of
government incompetence and because of the inability of human beings to
keep their mouths shut. But I should have added that there is of course
an ulterior force behind all cults and false teachings and movements to
undermine everything in this world that is anything like good or right,
namely, Satan's world system (see the link).
And that infiltration of lies into the truth is progressing in every
aspect of society and within the church-visible as well, more and more
every day. All the more reason to stick to our knitting: spiritual
growth in preparation of whatever may come.