Salvation Questions III

Question #1: 

Response #1:   

It's fine to desire the salvation of everyone, even when they seem to be heading the opposite way, and to pray for them too. The only problem is if we allow that legitimate desire to negatively affect our own behavior by emotional overreaction which puts us at odds with the truth (in the way that Paul did, going up to Jerusalem when he had been told not do to so, e.g.). Everyone has to make their own decisions in this life. That is why we are all here – and why as Christians we are left here after we are saved, namely, to see just how much we really do love the Lord (and to be rewarded for what we do for Him through faith by grace, in growth, progress and production). I assure you that the Lord loves everyone too (Jn.3:16-17) and doesn't want anyone to suffer or be lost (Ezek.18:23; Matt.18:14; Jn.12:47; 1Tim.2:4; 2Tim.2:24-26; 2Pet.3:9) – but He cannot deny Himself so as to overrule the free will of those who deny Him (2Tim.2:13).

I'll be praying for you for that job interview!

Your friend in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Thanks my dear brother for your response. I have a question on a show I was watching which is the 700 club; they had a segment that was on surviving as a traveling Christian where you could take a class on being able to survive and they said that if you we taking hostage by terrorists that if they asked are any of you Christians that it's OK not to answer or stay quite. I'm of the mind that if we deny him He will deny us ! So if we find are self's in a situation as described should we not say yes I am a child of the most high? Also I am not giving the spirit of fear I will not be afraid if god is for me who can be against me as you know I was having problems with fear of my salvation. I'm resting on the finished works of the cross. I need to grow and never move of his words and my faith; it can be tough I'm only staying on your site and the word of god as I find myself struggling to agree or understand most others some of my fear stems from other sources such as a book by ray comfort; it was not a blessing; it just scared me; anyways hope this mail finds you well and that you know I pray for you in each night; much brotherly love in Christ.

Response #2: 

It's not a program I could recommend.

Also, let me point out that for most Christians there is no need to be traveling overseas – that is a usually a personal choice that has nothing to do with serving the Lord – and certainly no need to be going anywhere dangerous for no particular reason. This is a little like considering how best to defend ourselves when assailed by drunks on skid-row after midnight on Saturday night. It begs the question of what we are doing there in the first place.

As to the gist of the question, it is never permissible to deny the Lord. Indeed, we ought to be willing to die for Him. I find it ironic that people who would consider doing this to save their own hides often also say things like if we were hiding Jews in the basement we couldn't lie to the Nazis about it. Here is a link on this which will lead to others: "Is it ever permissible to lie? part II".

If we are ever in such dire straits, the Spirit will give us the words – we have that promise (Matt.10:19-20). We only have to be willing to do what the Lord would have us do.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #3:  

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

In Hebrews 2:14-16 there is a reference to Satan having the power of death.

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

What does this mean: Satan has the power of death? I always believed that God has numbered our days, in other words knows when we will be born and when we will die.

In Jude 1:9 indicates that Michael was contending with Satan for the body of Moses. Does Satan have a function to perform at the time of death?

Can you clear up my thinking here?

Thank you for your time and efforts. May God richly bless you.

Response #3:    

Good to hear from you. As to your questions:

1) Hebrews 2:14 is explained by the next verse where we find out that it is the fear of death that gives Satan his power. Fear of death results in the human impetus for temporal security (fear of scarcity and dangers which may result in death) and for religion (imagined eternal security). Therefore much of "Satan's World System" (see the link) has its rationale and finds its power through the awareness of physical death that mankind cannot shake and therefore buys into his false solutions – but the true solution as we know is the work of Christ whereby we are saved by grace when we believe (verse sixteen in the context).

2) No, the devil doesn't do anything "for God" whatsoever, only against Him. The struggle for Moses' body is a unique situation because, along with Elijah (whose body was miraculously removed via the divinely sent chariot), Moses will be returning to life – not in resurrection but through the revival of his first, physical body. Moses and Elijah are "the two witnesses" of Revelation (see the link); Satan is always eager to try and forestall prophecy since he feels (perhaps rightly) that if he could ever prove one of God's promises false, he would win this conflict – which of course he can't and he won't; that is the insanity of evil in the blindness of the hardened heart.

Question #4:  

Hi Bob,

This morning I listened to some teaching on the so called imputation of Adam's sin. I took some time afterwards to go through the two email responses and section in BB3B where you talk about it to remind myself why it is an incorrect teaching.

I was looking at the Greek during the teaching, and got puzzled by the phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον in Romans 5:12. I checked your translation of Romans 3:23 (which also has the phrase πάντες ἥμαρτον) – it looks like you take the aorist as gnomic both times ("all sin" = general truth, no time frame – rather than "all sinned"/"all have sinned" = past action). This part I get.

However, I have no idea what the ἐφ᾽ is doing in Romans 5:12. What is the antecedent of , and what exactly is doing here? Does the phrase basically have the same force as a γὰρ would? Is it an idiom?

A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT has the following to say about this phrase:

ἐφ᾽ (= ἐπί) : inasmuch as, seeing that, ἐπί causal

Which seems to suggest to me that it is an idiom. Maybe I just haven't had enough Greek to run across it enough to make it stick?

-------------------

I talked to the teacher afterwards, and he did believe that the sin nature existed, that Christ did not possess it, and that it was theoretically possible that it was passed down through the male line. I was never quite able to understand why he thought Romans 5 teaches anything additional to Adam being responsible for the existence of the sin nature (i.e., why he thought "imputation" as a theological construct was necessary). Talking to him did make me want to be able to better articulate what I believe in the future, however, so in pursuit of that, here's a couple more questions:

1) You state several times in BB3B that the sin nature is passed down through the male line. Since Christ did not possess a sin nature (he had to be blameless to be an acceptable sacrifice), that means that Mary could not have passed it down to him. Assuming there was nothing special about Mary's constitution (i.e., rejecting things like the RC's immaculate conception), that basically leads us to conclude that the sin nature is not passed down through the female line (even though females, including Mary, have/had the sin nature). If we further assume that God does not give us sin natures at birth like he gives us spirits (!), then that basically leaves us with sin getting passed down through the male line – process of elimination.

I didn't see anywhere where you really formally go through why sin is passed down through the male line (aside from it being part of the Genesis 3 curse for Adam's willful sin). Any comment on my thoughts above or further explanation would be appreciated.

2) A large part of this fellow's teaching was centered around the supposed parallel between Christ's righteousness being imputed to us and Adam's sin being imputed to us. I saw that one of the things you said about this was that imputed righteousness (as the phrase is used of Abraham, for example) deals with individual rather than corporate action: having faith. I'm still a little bit fuzzy on this distinction and what other sorts of distinctions we can draw when trying to explain that our understanding of being imputed Christ's righteousness (which is scriptural) does not in fact support an interpretation of Adam's sin as something that is also imputed to us.

-----------------------

Just an update on the personal side: I have a bunch of tests the next couple weeks, but am doing well in all my classes.

I've set up a system now where I'm going back through the introductory textbooks with my Greek professor in office hours – I'm going to do translations and ask questions if I get stuck. He seemed kind of puzzled as to why I wanted to inflict accountability and structure upon myself, but I persisted, and he seems happy enough to do it. I'm also going to go to the tutoring center the department runs and get the grad students to make me parse a bunch of forms from the readings so I actually get practice in that regard. I do wish the class were run differently, but such is life. (Apparently we are actually expected to "know" what was in the first year, and that is why there is exactly zero review built in. I think that's both a) naively optimistic, and b) not at all concordant with reality. But I digress).

I've started looking at Lambdin a little bit, but am basically ignoring the phonology section since I learned MH pronunciation. Do you think it's important at all for me to know the historical [(reconstructed) pronunciation? As much as I've been able to glean from my professor, it's mostly just phonology and word usage that has changed between BH and MH, with the latter being more important.

Prayers are still appreciated. I am continuing to have problems keeping myself focused on the languages.

Yours in Christ,

Response #4:    　

I very much admire your determination to get the most possible out of your academic experience, especially in terms of Greek. In my third semester class, I do expect students to do much review on their own, however, we spend the first few minutes of each class reviewing some paradigm or point of grammar so that most of the important stuff is comprehensively reviewed in the fall. And we go over the Greek very slowly and review forms and usage so that everyone can see "what exactly is going on" in each sentence. No doubt we are going much slower than your class as a result. But my attitude is that if a student could read reams of ancient Greek without any problem and got nothing out of such review and detailed analysis, then he/she would be better served in graduate seminars where the material itself is the total focus. Ideally, a reading class does a little of both. Merely translating through without analysis of either a formal/grammatical kind or a literary kind is of not much use in my view.

On eph' ho in Romans 5:12, 1) this is a tricky and idiomatic phrase; 2) it's trickier and more idiomatic in the NT than elsewhere;, and 3) Paul seems to use it more esoterically than others. That said, it's essentially WYSIWYG: a relative pronoun which is the object of epi in its common sense of directed purpose, or, to put it into a basic English formula, the phrase means "as a result of which". The biggest problem is that Paul sometimes focuses this result forward instead of backward (which English logic would expect), so that the meaning is "as a result of which ____ (whatever follows). N.b., Paul employs a sort of word order exceptionalism in many other places as well.

On Romans 3:23, yes, very good! I do consider the aorist gnomic, i.e., formally a past tense but used idiomatically from the early days of Greek to express a general statement; so that here "all sin" or "everyone sins" is the meaning. That is a much easier "lift" too in terms of what the passage might possibly mean than considering it to be a literal past tense which "must mean" that we "all sinned when Adam sinned". This is another crazy (Augustinian) notion that no one reading this passage in Greek would ever come up with on their own absent centuries of faulty theological speculation. On the other hand, anyone who's read a lot of Greek – and not just the NT – would naturally assume a gnomic statement here. Indeed, even an LXX / NT "mostly" reader would probably consider this the equivalent of a Hebrew perfect (i.e., "all have sinned") which is a little off the mark but at least doesn't require this "corporate sinning in Adam" nonsense. People who think "all sinned" is correct have come to the passage with baggage (and bad baggage at that) and without enough sensibility in Greek to have the language correct their faulty assumptions.

So in Romans 5:12, eph' ho pantes hemarton means "as a result of which ]just mentioned universal spiritual DEATH] everyone sins" . . . because everyone has a sin nature as a result of the fall. No need for any "imputation". In other words, this is the Q.E.D. for the rest of the verse preceding demonstrating universal spiritual death as proven by universal sinning resulting from the fall and the passing on of the sin nature. It's a big difference: "because all sinned" tells us nothing but invites false theology; "as a result of which [fall/death/transmission of the sin nature] everyone sins" tells us all we need to know.

On "I didn't see anywhere where you really formally go through why sin is passed down through the male line (aside from it being part of the Genesis 3 curse for Adam's willful sin)", that "aside from" is precisely the reason why Adam passed it down and not Eve (cf. 1Tim.2:11-15). The fact that the Messiah had to be sinless and was sinless, and the fact that the difference between His physical birth and that of the rest of the human race is the provision of a male seed in a supernatural way (the female egg part is identical in process to the rest of us) confirms that this is the mechanism God designed to provide the sinless Substitute. The main links for this are:

The Incarnation and Virgin Birth (in BB 4A)

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ (in BB 3B)

On "the supposed parallel between Christ's righteousness being imputed to us and Adam's sin being imputed to us" I would focus on the word "supposed". The problem really is the undue force placed upon the word "imputation" as if that were some sort of special theological term. All it means really, in Greek or in English, is to "consider A as B" or "give A to B's account" (see the Latin imputare < putare). With righteousness, this term makes perfect sense without trying to derive special meaning from the word group itself: God the Father considers unrighteous us "righteous" because we are one with His Son – so we have God's righteousness, not our own. Attributed to our account? That is fine, but not if too much is made of the analogy. God is not an accountant. The point is, we are individually considered righteous in Christ by accepting Christ. But while there are many passages which talk about righteousness (almost all of which say nothing of "imputation"), there is only this one – Romans 5:13 – which might taken to mean that it is speaking of "imputing sin". But of course Romans 5:13 doesn't actually say that, even in the worst of English translations. It says "sin is not imputed" if we want to translate the verb (wrongly) that way. So even without going into the particulars, this is a VERY slender reed to build a doctrine which is so fundamental to R.C. / Augustinian and, sigh, far too many evangelical theologies. Simply put, there is no true parallel whatsoever between us being considered righteous in Christ and some sort of formal actuarial "imputation" of someone else' sin. Here are the links where this is explained:

Imputation and original sin

Who is doing the imputing?

The so-called "imputation of Adam's sin"

Finally, I've always used MH pronunciation – which is basically the same as the historical Sephardic pronunciation. I don't see any value in trying to recover (the hypothetically only) more original "pure" version which no one living has ever heard – either in Greek or Hebrew.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #5: 

Hi Bob,

Couple clarifications:

1) I obviously haven't gotten far enough in Hebrew to see any verbs in the past time frame, but I'm assuming Hebrew doesn't have the aorist aspect. (So probably only imperfect and perfect in the past time-frame)? Is it common then for Greek to use the aorist to translate the Hebrew perfect? I've seen some individuals try to make grand distinctions in meaning based on the Greek past tenses (aorist vs imperfect, e.g.), and most of the time this always struck me as people trying to lord their Greek knowledge over others, since the distinctions are somewhat artificial (particularly in the case of participles of the sort of "after ___ing," "having ___ed," etc.). Obviously the tenses are important with things like stative perfects and ingressive aorists, but from as much Greek as I've read, much of the time aspect (and therefore tense) doesn't seem to play that big a role in conveying meaning. Just curious – I'm sure I'll get to this in the not too distant future.

2) Could you explain your reference to 1 Tim 2:11-15 in light of the sin nature and the male line? I understand that much violence has been done to this passage in terms of "salvation through childbirth" etc., but can't see the connection here unless "but Adam was not the one deceived" is the connection. The passages (like this one) that talk about Adam's greater culpability for his sin never directly mention the sin nature and its transmittance as part of his punishment, as far as I can recall. If this means that we infer that it is a consequence of Adams greater sin (rather than pointing to a passage where it is plainly obvious), I am perfectly alright with that, especially since Christ's birth would seem to confirm such a view (process of elimination, as I described before). But I just want to make sure that we are inferring it.

Yours in Christ,

Response #5:   

1) Hebrew only has perfect and imperfect, and these are western terms applied to two separate finite verb systems whose parallels with the Indo-European verbal system are obviously inexact. But the LXX does use Greek aorists – and also perfects – for the Hebrew perfect (there are other issues in Hebrew where for example the perfect sometimes refers to the future, and imperfect sometimes to the past and also to the future [it's the future in MH], and can be the equivalent of a subjunctive [there are no discrete optative or subjunctive forms in Hebrew]). But of course the perfect is the least used of the tenses in standard ancient Greek; the fact that it is much more used in the NT than one would expect in any other Greek literature (except other such works from Semitic areas) means something (tragedians seem to use it more often too, Euripides in particular, so it also probably has a more formal or archaic sound to it, generally speaking). What the Greek perfect means in any given passage is always problematic since the perfect does of course occur in other Greek. And I certainly agree with you about many exegetes making a VERY big deal over "aorist" vs. "present" or "perfect" stems and blowing the whole thing out of proportion. In terms of tense, they mean what they mean (idioms such as the ones you mention and the one we've talked about included); in terms of aspect, it is VERY rare for an aspectual difference to have a value so great that it would influence a translation (so there is essentially no difference between an aorist subjunctive and a present subjunctive: authors tend to prefer to use aorists in irregular verbs and presents in regular ones).

2) When you say, "unless 'but Adam was not the one deceived' is the connection"; that is precisely the connection. Just as Adam not being deceived has consequences for male / female roles in life and the Church, so also it had biological consequences (cf. Gen.3:16 vs. Gen.3:17-19). The conclusion from the evidence that the "sin in the flesh" is passed down via the male as "the one not deceived" is admittedly not directly taught as such, but that is certainly understandable in my view: sinning in cognizance is unquestionably worse than sinning in ignorance, so Adam's failure was worse than Eve's, and it thus logical that he should be the one to pass that sin nature down to us since life is all about free will. If we did not wish to adopt this conclusion, we would still be able to say that a) we all have a sin nature because of Adam, that is, specifically, as part of our biological heritage as human beings (not because of any "imputation"), and b) Christ was virgin born and received a perfect body without that sin nature (Heb.4:15) – but why not? Clearly the absence of sinful male input prevented the transmission of a sin nature.

The connection seems obvious, but it is not necessary as long as these two points above (Christ's virgin birth and resultant lack of sin nature) are clearly understood and accepted. I think it would be a little over fastidious to refuse to acknowledge the obvious here; the other extreme is to get into a discussion of DNA and chromosomes, etc., which really takes things into unhelpful areas since there is so much we do not know about all this.

FYI, just gave my first set of exams – reading them over, I'm sure that your professors are grateful to have YOU as a student!

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #6:  

Greetings Bob,

I would appreciate your thoughts on a few issues regarding being born “in Adam.” As I understand it from Scripture, everyone that enters the world fathered by a descendent of Adam encounters the following realities:

1) Without access to Paradise and the Tree of Life
2) Eventual physical death (unless Jesus returns before) due to not having access to the Tree of Life
3) A fallen world impacted by the curses God pronounced in Genesis 3
4) God’s mercy because He did not completely destroy mankind (the garments of Eden and eventual sacrifice of Jesus)
5) Lost fellowship with God in need of reconciliation “in Christ" (some call this "spiritual death/spiritual life”)
6) The prospect of salvation “in Christ” by grace through faith

Although the above list is rather general, my specific question pertains less to mankind and more to each person. It would be hard to debate that as individuals, we all share in the flesh of Adam/mankind, and the consequences/prospects noted above. It would even be ridiculous to argue that had anyone else been Adam, they would not have made the same choice he did. Still, God does not hold the son accountable for the iniquity of the father, etc. (Ezekiel 18:20).

Given that each individual has distinct personhood and their own ledger so to speak as it relates to personal sins… my question is whether or not a person really enters the world “dead to righteousness” since infants do not commit sin? In other words, can a person who enters the world “in Adam” and separated from God, still be “alive" to righteousness in that they have not as of that point committed any personal sin?

This is not a question about infant salvation… but one that seeks to understand if there is a distinction made in Scripture between being born into “spiritual death” (traditionally defined as being separated from God due to Adam’s sin) and being "dead to righteousness” and enslaved to sin… i.e. “the wages of sin is death / the soul that sins it shall die etc..”

Because God consigns everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all (Romans 11:32), some might say that my question really does not matter. However, since we all sin, as a matter of order and process - I’m wondering if the Scriptures indicate whether being separated from God (being "spiritually dead") is the same as being "enslaved to sin"… or, do we only become "enslaved to sin" once we "present our members" to sin and "die to righteousness” at that moment.

Whereas the Scriptures are pretty clear that a person separated from God cannot do anything but sin (so in that sense enslavement already exists and can be attributable to Adam I suppose), my sense is that a person “spiritually dead” “in Adam”… does not die to righteousness until they actually sin. Thoughts?

Best Regards,

Response #6:    

Good to make your acquaintance.

With all due respect, anyone who has ever spent time around a two year old would be reluctant to suggest that infants don't sin! Cute little newborns aren't any different – they just have not yet acquired the ability to express sinful intent the way they will in a few years. Now of course we don't hold toddlers responsible for their tantrums the way we would adults. But it is fair to say that from earliest days all human beings manifest the fact that they have a sin nature. God is holy and separate from sin in every way, so regardless of any issues of technical personal sin or accountability or Augustinian theology, I hope it is clear to see that – absent a divine sacrifice to resolve to the natural abhorrent nature of human beings – perfect God can have no contact with us whatsoever. Not destroying us immediately was, as you suggest, a great boon. But that does not obligate God to solve the problems of 1) a body infested with sin from conception which we all have; 2) the unavoidable commission of personal sins from birth (irrespective of any idea of accountability, sin is still sin); 3) a limited physical life span on account of #1 and #2; and therefore 4) no place to go after death but to a place separated from God (Hades then the lake of fire) . . . absent, that is, God's merciful intervention in Jesus Christ, an entirely grace Gift which God was only obligated to provide to the extent that He obligated Himself being under no necessity to do so. In other words, humanity, individually and collectively, has found itself from the beginning after the fall in a real mess which only God could clear up in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that is true not only for Adam but for all of us who are his descendants. Or as Paul says:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:14 NKJV

And why is this the case? Not, as Augustinian theology wrongly asserts, because of some legal, corporate oneness "in Adam" – that is based on a mis-translation and mis-interpretation of Romans 5:13, the previous verse to the one quoted above – but because of universal sinning which results from universal possession of a sin nature as the verse before Romans 5:13 states:

So just as through one man (i.e., Adam whose antitype is Christ) sin came into the world and, through sin, death, and thus (i.e., Adam physically passing on his sin nature resulting in universal spiritual death) death spread to all mankind – for [obviously] everyone sins (i.e., universal sinning proves the fact of universal spiritual death), . . .
Romans 5:12

In Paul's actual argument, "sin is not imputed" in verse 13 means in the Greek, "people don't recognize / take sin into account" if it is not delineated as such by the Law – but Augustine wrongly took this to mean that God was doing the "non-imputing" as some type of formal legal or actuarial process of , and extrapolated the "doctrine" backwards (i.e., from "non-imputation" he got "imputing Adam's sin") from that mis-impression.

This is not at all what the Greek says, and it runs entirely contrary to the context and the argument made throughout the chapter and indeed throughout Romans of universal sinfulness making righteousness by faith the only way to be saved, not through the Law. For, clearly enough, one would think, if "sin was in the world", then sin was sin in God's eyes, "imputation" aside. Calling sinful behavior "sin" makes it clear enough what God thinks of it, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by people as a violation of the Law. And that sin merely demonstrates what Paul has been saying all along: we are all sinners from birth (cf. Rom.3:23 in the Greek). And as sinners, we can have no part of God (absent His gracious rescue of us).

So it seems to me that, thanks to Augustine (who is responsible for many such problems in the history of the church-visible), we are debating an empty-set "problem". In practical terms, when you say, "this isn't about infant salvation", while that may be true, the fact that those who die without the opportunity of making an informed decision to accept, reject or refuse to accept Christ are saved, does make this an empty-set. Even if we were to presuppose wrongly a state of innocence which is only violated upon the commission of the first personal sin, it cannot be reasonably argued that anyone in the history of the world ever postponed that "first act of sin" until after the age of accountability (as I say, just spend an afternoon with any two year old).

From a theological perspective, moreover, it seems to me that "original innocence" by whatever words has things backwards. God is not under obligation to us. He is everything. We are nothing. He has no necessity to honor any "personhood" on our part or anything else. He made Adam and He gives us life (the spirit created within us at birth) – but these are grace acts on His part. The fact that it is not "my fault" that I was born with a sin nature misses the point that "fault" has nothing to do with it since I am in fact born with a sinful nature, will therefore sin, and in any case cannot live forever but will die unsaved and thus be damned unless I am rescued by accepting Christ's sacrifice.

Perhaps more to the point is the fact that I don't find any scripture that even suggests that we are not lost from the start and irretrievable so and thus "perfect" only as candidates for the grace of God. "Original sin" is a false doctrine which begs for a proof text – or even a suggestion in scripture that this might be an issue worthy of investigation. But there is no such verse. That is why Augustine no doubt had to jigger with the meaning of Romans chapter five. However, I think that there can be not much doubt if anyone reads Romans straight through from chapters one through eight at least but that Paul is hammering away at the same theme all along: there is no salvation through the Law, only through faith in Christ, because sin is ubiquitous and can only be forgiven in the first instance by the cross and combated in the second instance by believers through the Spirit. Suggesting some hypothetical state of innocence after Adam is clearly the reverse of everything he is trying to say in this epistle, and not actually capable of being legitimately derived from what he actually does say (in chapter five or anywhere else). Here are a couple of links which get into the details:

Imputation and original sin

Who is doing the imputing?

The so-called "imputation of Adam's sin"

I hope this is of some help to you – do feel free to write me back about any of the above, especially since in the interest of economy and clarity I restricted my response to the main point at issue.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. My response to your commentary is in the attached file. I will promise not to continue the exchange should you choose to reply to my thoughts, but I would be interested to get your take on my counters to some of what you expressed based on your understanding of the Scriptures. Thanks and best regards,

Deemed Innocence? Bob said: [With all due respect, anyone who has ever spent time around a two year old would be reluctant to suggest that infants don't sin! Now of course we don't hold toddlers responsible for their tantrums the way we would adults. But it is fair to say that from earliest days all human beings manifest the fact that they have a sin nature.]  Interestingly, when my oldest child was three, she stripped off her clothes and without an ounce of shame, ran around a public water fountain in full view for everyone to behold. By the time she was five, she was much more modest. Certainly it is easy to attribute poor behavior on the part of a child to a “sin nature.” However, “sin” equates to knowing the right thing to do, and failing to do it (James 4:17). Other OT verses (Deuteronomy 1:39 and Isaiah 7:15) would also seem to suggest that “personal sin” does not occur until an individual knows the difference between good and evil. Thus, although you seem to suggest that “original innocence” is a fanciful notion, it is fascinating to observe that a very young child without clothes models what was recorded in Genesis 2:25 which states, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” That was before Adam and Eve lost their innocence. Based on observation, young children do exhibit innocence (lack of self awareness and shame), even if underlying it is a rebellious spirit, the product of a “sin nature.” Conclusion: Are children born with a sin nature? – Yes; are infants born with personal innocence, in that they have not as yet committed personal sin? – Yes. God is holy and separate from sin in every way, so regardless of any issues of technical personal sin or accountability or Augustinian theology, I hope it is clear to see that -- absent some resolution to the natural abhorrent nature of human beings -- perfect God can have no contact with us whatsoever.  What do you mean when you say that, “perfect God can have no contact with us whatsoever”? Maybe you are saying that God cannot have any “union” with those “in Adam” who have not died to the old self. In that case, I agree 100% with you. Otherwise, God pursued Adam and Eve in the garden after they had sinned. He subsequently clothed them with the “garments of Eden.” God then engaged with Abel and Cain. Jesus came to earth and interacted with some of the “lowest and unworthy” elements of society. God certainly has plenty of contact with sinners. I’m not trying to prove a point here, just observing what we read in the texts. Not destroying us immediately was, as you suggest, a great boon. But that does not obligate God to solve the problems of 1) a body infested with sin from conception; 2) the unavoidable commission of personal sins from birth (irrespective of any idea of accountability, sin is still sin); 3) a limited physical life span on account of #1 and #2; and therefore 4) no place to go but to a place separated from God (Hades then the lake of fire) after death . . . absent, that is, God's merciful intervention in Jesus Christ, an entirely grace Gift which God was only obligated to provide to the extent that He obligated Himself being under no necessity to do so. From the beginning (or before creation for that matter), God would have already known the end game. For God, I do not believe it has ever been a question of obligation. Flowing from His love and for His glory He chose the plan with full knowledge of how it would go. From Paul’s commentary in 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 about natural and spiritual bodies, it seems that God’s plan was to develop mankind into Christ likeness. Everything that happens in between certainly gives people the opportunity to recognize the existence of God (Romans 2) and to learn that trusting Him is better than to plot one’s own course and not have faith in Him. I think the Scriptures demonstrate that even unbelievers have the ability to seek God and respond to His revelations (i.e. Acts 10 and Cornelius). Humans from the outset have always struggled with authority. God would have known that and so, the “natural man” was never intended to be the final product. Since God is outside of time, any moment or period of perceived innocence that we ascribe to a child (before they come to know good and evil) is clearly not the entire picture–which God sees at every moment. Therefore, at each instant God is able to take into consideration all of eternity. On that basis, the only true innocent One is Jesus and by way of grace through the faith of Jesus received, those washed with His blood. What cannot be disregarded though is the Bible’s own definitions of sin and examples of faith (especially how Christ talks about children). Young children are innocent of “personal sin,” even though they have received/inherited the “sin and death” infected blood from Adam. At this point I probably should digress to briefly discuss what I call spiritual physiology (that aspect of human anthropology that will always remain invisible).  Genesis 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is ‘in’ the blood (not the blood itself, but ‘in’ the blood So, it is easy to conclude that it is the “breath of life” or “life principle,” that is ‘in’ the blood and gives animation (life) to the body. Now, although I am not a doctor, I understand that what makes a fetus’ blood circulate is “not” its own oxygen, but rather the mother’s oxygen. Thus, it is the mother’s “life principle” (her breath of life) that sustains a fetus until the fetus is born and takes its first breath. Nonetheless, the seed of “sin and death” has already been passed to the fetus from the father (or some might argue from the father and mother, which is why some believe that Mary, even if not the product of an immaculate conception, was at least fully sanctified before she conceived Jesus). Therefore, what we have is that every human born (other than Jesus) possesses the “sin nature” at the moment of birth, but not yet having committed “personal sin.” Even if Michael Phelp’s children receive the best of his athletic genes (i.e. in that case they would have a “swim” nature), they do not become “swimmers” until they jump in the pool. Of course, everyone initially follows their nature until they become mature enough and learn whether or not it is what they want to do.  So yes, infants have a sin nature and will sin, but they are not sinners until they actually do. Might that be why Christ seems to “deem” young children to be exemplars of innocence, faith and righteousness?  Whereas Luther and Calvin believed that all were born with a will in bondage to the flesh, Paul’s commentary in Romans chapter 1&2 and 6 (regarding becoming a slave to what it is you present your members), not to mention many proverbs and psalms where personal choice is in play, suggests that becoming enslaved to the flesh is a process that rejects God’s mercy in favor of personal authority and gratification.  Why does everyone commit sin? Initially, because they have a sin nature and then thereafter, due to preferring the darkness to the light and being consigned by God to disobedience (John 3:19; Romans 11:32)  God’s mercy, which presumably gives everyone the opportunity to receive His grace (only debated by Calvinists I suppose), is seemingly part of His plan to teach mankind that he designed humans to be dependent on Him. In other words, God designed us so that if we go it alone, we can only live a life of sin/unbelief. In other words, our nature is that without God we sin, and when we choose for God, we don’t.  It is in that sense that sin is intrinsic to our nature–if we live apart from Christ (John 15:5). In that regard, being born into captivity makes us a prisoner before we sin and then become a sinner. It is God who ultimately consigns us to disobedience because of sin– not Adam, so that he might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32) Although ridiculous to say, even if a person never committed sin… they would still need a savior because flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Oneself cannot transport their spirit (even if perfectly righteous), into Heaven. God must be involved. A person can neither give themselves a new spiritual body. In other words, humanity, individually and collectively, has found itself from the beginning in a real mess which only God could clear up in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that is true not only for Adam but for all of us who are his descendants. Or as Paul says: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Romans 5:14 NKJV …Agreed And why is this the case? Not, as Augustinian theology wrongly asserts, because of some legal, corporate oneness "in Adam" -- that is based on a mis-translation and mis-interpretation of Romans 5:13, the previous verse -- but because of universal sinning which results from universal possession of a sin nature as the verse before that states: So just as through one man (i.e., Adam whose antitype is Christ) sin came into the world and, through sin, death, and thus (i.e., Adam physically passing on his sin nature resulting in universal spiritual death) death spread to all mankind – for [obviously] everyone sins (i.e., universal sinning proves the fact of universal spiritual death), . . .Romans 5:12 …Agreed In Paul's actual argument, "sin is not imputed" in verse 13 means in the Greek, "people don't recognize / take sin into account" if it is not delineated as such by the Law -- but Augustine took this to mean that God was doing the "non-imputing" as some type of formal legal process, and extrapolated the "doctrine" backwards from that mis-impression. It's not what the Greek says and it runs entirely contrary to the context and the argument made throughout the chapter and indeed throughout Romans of universal sinfulness making righteousness by faith the only way to be saved, not through the Law. …Agreed  For, clearly enough, one would think, if "sin was in the world", then sin was sin in God's eyes, "imputation" aside. Calling sinful behavior "sin" makes it clear enough what God thinks of it, regardless of whether or not it is recognized by people as a violation of the Law. And that sin merely demonstrates what Paul has been saying all along: we are all sinners from birth (cf. Rom.3:23 in the Greek). And as sinners, we can have no part of God (absent His gracious rescue of us). We all have a sin nature from birth. To steal from Yogi Berra’s “It ain’t over till it’s over” though, “Sin ain’t sin until it is sin.” We will probably not ever agree on this point, since it seems as though we have a fundamental difference in what constitutes sin.  I think that we probably agree on the accountability question, but whereas you believe that an action can be a sin even in the case when a person is not accountable, I believe that a two year old boy who hits his twin two year old sister for no reason, has not sinned… he has committed an act that requires some discipline and teaching so that he will not do it again when he knows the difference between good and evil. So it seems to me that, thanks to Augustine (who is responsible for many such problems in the history of the church-visible), we are debating an empty set "problem". In practical terms, when you say, "this isn't about infant salvation", while that may be true, the fact that those who die without the opportunity of making an informed decision to accept, reject or refuse to accept Christ are saved, does make this an empty set. Even if we were to presuppose a state of innocence which is only violated upon the commission of the first personal sin, it cannot be reasonably argued that anyone in the history of the world ever postponed that "first act of sin" until after the age of accountability (as I say, just spend an afternoon with any two year old). …No additional commentary necessary from what we have each already stated above.  From a theological perspective, moreover, it seems to me that "original innocence" by whatever words has things backwards. God is not under obligation to us. He is everything. We are nothing. He has no necessity to honor any "personhood" on our part or anything else. He made Adam and He gives us life (the spirit created within us at birth) -- but these are grace acts on His part. The fact that it is not "my fault" that I was born with a sin nature misses the point that "fault" has nothing to do with it since I am in fact born with a sinful nature, will therefore sin, and in any case cannot live forever but will die unsaved and thus be damned unless I am rescued by accepting Christ's sacrifice. …No additional commentary necessary from what we have each already stated above. Perhaps more to the point is the fact that I don't find any scripture that even suggests that we are not lost from the start and irretrievable so and thus "perfect" only as candidates for the grace of God. "Original sin" is a "doctrine" which begs for a proof text -- or even a suggestion in scripture that this might be an issue worthy of investigation. But there is no so verse. That is why Augustine no doubt had to jigger with the meaning of Romans chapter five. …Only God knows whether a person is “lost” from birth. No human should presume such, since that would imply that they could for-see all of eternity. What everyone should act upon however is that we are all in need of Christ from birth. However, I think that there can be not much doubt if anyone reads Romans straight through from chapters one through eight at least but that Paul is hammering away at the same theme all along: there is no salvation through the Law, only through faith in Christ, because sin is ubiquitous and can only be forgiven in the first instance by the cross and combated in the second instance by believers through the Spirit. …Agreed  Suggesting some hypothetical state of innocence after Adam is clearly the reverse of everything he is trying to say in this epistle, and not actually capable of being legitimately derived from what he actually does say (in chapter five or anywhere else). …No additional commentary necessary from what we have each already stated above.

Response #7:   

I think you may have confused some things I said to you – or I confused you (I seem to do that with my students all the time, so no worries there!).

1) As to "are infants born with personal innocence, in that they have not as yet committed personal sin? – Yes":  This phrase, "personal innocence", doesn't occur anywhere in the Bible, so without a specific definition, what it may mean would be in the eye of the philosophical speculator or speculative theologian.

What I think you are saying is what you seem to say later, namely, that without knowing we are doing wrong we aren't really doing wrong.

But if that were true, Eve would never have been judged for eating the forbidden fruit – but she was guilty even in her ignorance and judged before Adam in Genesis three as the first person to sin. Moreover, there are countless sacrifices in the Mosaic Law for "sins of ignorance", and that (i.e., removing guilt by sacrifice for sins the nation didn't realize they committed) was a prime function of the Day of Atonement (e.g., Heb.9:7).

Sin is much, much more all-embracing than most people, even fairly literate Christians, seem to realize. But even a casual survey of scripture should lead anyone half-way interested to see that sin may encompass vast areas of all that we think, say and do – and not just things which are specifically proscribed by the Law . . . or the New Testament either, for that matter (that is the point of Rom.5:13-14, correctly understood):

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

Paul includes the expandable rider (highlighted above) to let everyone know that we are all sinners and we all sin in a multitude of ways, even if in his short treatment he hasn't hit on one of our "favorites". But it's hard to see how anyone could claim that they didn't occasionally get angry at others or put their own interests first, at least in their hearts temporarily, or once in a while get a bit jealous of others, if only for a moment. Fear (of the world) is a sin. Doubting God is a sin – and who has always had total trust in Him? Sin is everywhere – and properly understanding that fact only enhances our appreciation of the cross (see the link: "the Blood of Christ"). That being the case, the number of sins we all commit daily in ignorance is significant. And if that is true of adult believers who are striving (to one degree or another) to live a sanctified life, how much more is not the case with those who do not yet have great life experience or the aid of the Holy Spirit?

I confess to remembering being angry and fearful as a very young child, to being antagonistic toward my parents, jealous of playmates, and selfish with my toys. Maybe I was just an exceptionally "bad boy". But when I grabbed one away from a playmate and got paddled for it (aged 3?), I'm positive I didn't know the meaning of the word sin. Didn't make me innocent; didn't avoid the spanking (which did give me the idea more emphatically that I was in the wrong, which I instinctively already knew). Even children have consciences, something unnecessary for the truly innocent.  That is the reason, namely, being in a sinful world with sin abiding within as well, is why God ordained for eating of the tree of knowing good and evil to empower the conscience; this would only be necessary if the fruit were eaten in the first place (an empowered conscience not being necessary in paradise), but would be very necessary when it was (see the link).

In WWII, the Nazis were "only following orders"; it didn't keep them from being hung after the fact. The Germans "didn't know what was going on"; it didn't make them innocent or prevent them from being overrun, occupied and held in opprobrium for years to come. Their young children played no direct role in causing all that went on; it didn't keep them from being bombed to smithereens.

It's not a gratuitous argument. Consequences are important to consider when discussing sin and culpability and judgment. After all, it is the end that matters, not our present theological/philosophical appreciation of the dynamics of the process.

Fact: all sin.

Fact: all die.

Fact: all are condemned to be damned – unless saved by grace through faith in Christ.

God does spare the mentally deficient, even though they have sin natures, and the very young without a reasonable chance to choose, even though they have been sinning too from their very first breath. So God does extend mercy, but not because of "innocence". The issue in life is choice. We respond to God through accepting His Gift of life eternal, Jesus Christ His Son who died for all of our sins . . . or we are left with the true "facts of life" listed above". Those who cannot choose are spared because they have not rejected Christ or refused to accept Him.

What I mean is, this is all a bit like arguing over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", because it doesn't matter: no one who has the chance to make "the choice" is saved without believing in Christ. So even if there were some theoretical, "personal innocence" outside of Eden (the Bible says the opposite in my view), it has no practical benefit in any case from Adam and Eve to the end of the Millennium. Persons benefitted by such hypothetical "personal innocence" are a null set. So no good can come from postulating such a state (which has no biblical support), but I'm afraid a good deal of harm can. We know this historically from the likes of Pelagius. And, after all, Augustine's mistakes are a direct reaction to P's heretical teachings. We can see this too in every legalistic church and group in the world today. Since no one can ever actually be perfect (on this and all matters related to sin, please see Basics 3B: Hamartiology at the link), there is a very great temptation for those who think they've never sinned . . . or want to think that they are no longer doing so . . . to redefine what sin is. But as mentioned before, sin is wider and deeper than most imagine. The only thing that teaching the possibility of earlier innocence (which some claim to have maintained) or present experiential holiness (which many more claim to have mastered) can do is to induce massive self-righteousness. Not a good thing when only the righteousness which is by faith can actually bring salvation.

2) "contact with God": in this world there is a standoff, but no one is going to be in the new heavens and new earth and in the New Jerusalem who has not been ultimately sanctified. That is what is at issue. Those who want no part of God will spend eternity apart from Him. And that would be all of us – except for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (and our non-meritorious acceptance of Him and His work on the cross through faith).

3) "obligation": I'm not a Lutheran nor a Calvinist. I do know that everything we have from the Lord is strictly on a "grace basis" (Eph.2:8-9). Grace is what "no obligation" means: God didn't have to do what He has done for us but did so anyway at a cost beyond anything any of us can begin to imagine. Naturally, everything is ordained, but grace is what makes it work; the cross is what makes it work. No one, no infant or hypothetical inhabitant of Eden, would ever have had any way to end up in the next world without grace. Grace, moreover, is for sinners who need it. We are all sinners, and we all need it. Sin is an expression of will in a way that is contrary to God's Will. God's Will is perfect and righteous and all inclusive. Man by sin-nature is born opposed to that Will, and it takes a humble appreciation of our hopelessness – sin, death and damnation – to make us ripe for bending our will to His. The refusal to do so, all too common in the human race, is what leads most people to reject Christ or refuse to accept Him. Sin is all about pride, arrogance, and unwillingness to submit to Him.

4) "Sinners". We are at an impasse over definitions again. I take from your text that you are assuming that to be a "sinner" someone has to have committed a "sin" as we might define it, and, possibly (I'm unclear on your position here), a "sin of cognizance", otherwise person in question (small child) is in a state of "personal innocence". But I see this as the other way around: sinners commit sin because they are sinners. Here is what I read in scripture:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19 NKJV

How did this happen that the whole human race (not exclusive of infants, no one here being excepted) were "made sinners"? Not, as Augustine theorized, by some theoretical mechanism of legalistic "imputation" of someone else' sin, but through having been physically born with a sin nature:

So just as through one man sin came into the world and, through sin, death, and thus (i.e., Adam physically passing on his sin nature resulting in universal spiritual death) death spread to all mankind – for [obviously] everyone sins, . . .
Romans 5:12

The translation here is important. In any rendering it is clear to see that spiritual death is automatic (along with its inevitable companion, eventual physical death), but the last part of the verse, where we have a gnomic aorist (i.e., a "past tense" in form only but representing a proverb or truism – very common in Greek but missed by many translators here), is key: "everyone sins" (which we also know from many other passages, e.g., 1Kng.8:46; Ps.130:3; 143:2; Prov.20:9; Rom.5:12); not "everyone sinned when Adam did in some corporate way which is then mystically imputed to us" (that is not in the Bible either).

So while it is possible to wonder about the mechanics and speculate about them or find fault with some systems that try to explain them, we have to go with what we know for certain from scripture: namely, that all are born "dead" to God, and absent salvation based on His gracious intervention in Jesus Christ, would, after inevitable physical death which is the result of being born spiritually dead with a sin nature, be condemned to the lake of fire.

Please remember, this (life) is not about sin. Christ has already died for all sin. No one is (now – and this of course was anticipated in the plan of God) going to hell because of any sin or pile of sins because Christ has paid the entire penalty for them all at an unimaginable cost (dying a fire death and standing judgment in the darkness for them all, bearing them in His body "on the tree": 1Pet.2:24; cf. 2Cor.5:21). This (life) is about responding to God, to be saved through faith in Christ, and then to grow and win rewards that glorify our Savior afterwards.

The biblical position is that we are all sinners by birth and by nature, but as believers have been washed and sanctified positionally through being "in Christ", made righteous though we are sinners on account of being considered such by the Father as being "in Him", and thus have a resurrection, reunion and reward to look forward to. That is where I try to keep my focus.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #8:  

Good day

Trust you are well. Long time and I am still reading your website. I am truly battling with the concept of the " reprobates and the elects". I clearly understand the elect, God's mercy and his enduring love.

But what I am battling to understand is the reprobate. If God is the one who does all, who will and give grace to the sinner. Then how is possible that someone made in His image can be destined to be reprobate? When God created man is because he wanted to display His glory then how can He send someone to hell? Especially of it is beyond that person's will- reprobate, which means there is nothing you can do- your mind is darkened from creation?

I really, really battle with this concept....even if you wanted too you simply can not enjoy God's love? Aren't we all God' s people made with love.

Thanks

Response #8:    

It's good to hear from you, my friend. I hope you are doing well!

The word elect refers to a biblical category but the word reprobate does not. It does occur in the KJV translation but not, as an examination of the passages will show, as a reference to some preordained category. We believers are preordained to life eternal, elect in that God's chooses us in conformity with our choice of Him – accepting by grace through faith His Son and His Son's work for us on the cross. Hell is something people choose not something God chooses for them. That is a hyper-Calvinistic fantasy which does not occur in the Bible. What is the proof of that? The proof is that Christ died for the sins of all, not just of believers. That is biblical, even if hyper-Calvinists refuse to accept the truth of the scriptures which teach it (see the link: unlimited atonement). Also, all are written in the book of life at first and only "blotted out" by rejection of Christ actively (during life) or passively (refusing to accept Him before time runs out); see the link. So you are absolutely correct. God is love and He has done more than we have any idea to save all: dying for the least sin of one person is greater than all of human history from beginning to end and to an infinite degree – and Christ died for every sin, otherwise none could be saved.

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
John 3:17 NKJV

The best place to start with this issue if you have further questions is BB 4B: Soteriology: "God's Plan to Save You".

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Hi Bob,

[details omitted]

Why did God create people like Vincent Cheung? What is his purpose in life?

Sincerely,

Response #9:   

I wouldn't fret myself with V.C. God has a purpose for all things, even flies and mosquitoes – but I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them either (only avoiding them).

We all sin. We are all forgiven when we sin if we repent and confess. Patterns of sin are frustrating but can be broken. That comes with growth and with growing determination to carry out the plan we know the Lord has for us in this life. When we get distracted by the world, incidental things as well as necessary things, it does have a tendency to knock our guard down. There is no point in getting upset about past failure; dwelling on the past merely makes us unable to function in the present and thus worse equipped to face the future. This is a fight to the finish; some punches will get through our guard; if we worry about the one that got through we are likely to let two more through by not paying attention to what we are doing right now. If you have discipline coming, the Lord is faithful to provide. When/if He does, remember how much He loves you – so much that He died on the cross for all these sins and all your sins (including the ones that don't bother you) and for those of everyone else as well (including V.C.). So you can take heart in the fact of being disciplined as a son who is beloved. Feeling frustration over failure is part of the discipline. We don't want to repeat "that again", which means we are going to be less likely to repeat the sin(s) in question – as long as we retain the memory and the sting of the discipline. But the important thing is not to take yourself out of the fight out of over-reaction to the frustration of failure. There is no "time out" in this warfare. It goes on until the end. Finishing it strong is what leads to a good reward, one that the Lord will be pleased to give you and pleased that you have earned. Fussing at ourselves does nothing for Him. Better to channel the energy after repentance and confession into forward progress through this and all other distractions.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #10:  

This is my stumbling block. I do not know if Christ really did die for me. There is some doubt that limited atonement might be true, leading to the fear that I'll appear before the Great White Throne and have him say that "the fact is that I never once shed my precious blood for you. You will have to pay for your sins by yourself."

Response #10:

There's no doubt about it. The Bible very clearly says that He did die for all (see the links: "unlimited atonement1"; "unlimited atonement2"). And besides . . .

If He didn't die for all, then the gospel offer of salvation to all would be a lie (because in fact the "reprobate" have no chance since in that wrong-headed evaluation Christ did not die for them) – but it's no lie (see the links above).

If He didn't die for all, then all could not have been written in the book of life, only to be blotted out for unbelief – and all are written in the book originally and only blotted out by willful rejection or refusal to accept Christ.

If He didn't die for all, then God didn't really "love the world so much" that He sent Jesus; He only loved a very small handful of people in the world – but He did love and does loves the whole world and the cross is the proof of that (even if most in the world don't love Him back).

If He didn't die for all, then unbelievers would be judged for their sins and have to "pay for them" as you fear, when in fact they are said to be judged "according to their works".

Don't let your fears dictate to your reason; that is the opposite of listening to the Spirit.

Question #11: 

Response #11:   

Yes indeed. It's in the Greek without question (hyper pantos = "on behalf of everyone"). Yours is one of the verses quoted at the link I gave you (and there are many such verses). Only by letting theory blind one's judgment regarding the clear meaning of the Bible could all this evidence be ignored by people who purport to honor the authority of scripture

Question #12:

I THANK YOU FOR YOU FOR YOUR WEBSITE WHICH HAS BEEN OF GREAT ASSISTANCE TO MY AWARENESS OF JESUS THE NAME ABOVE ALL OTHERS. MY COMMENTS BELOW ARE NOT CRITICISM BUT HELPS ME TO FORMULATE A QUESTION. AT 79 YEARS YOUNG AND MANY YEARS OF PRAYERS AND SADLY MIXED IN WITH SINNING,THIS WAHAT THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS EXPLAINED THE BORN AGAIN SITIUATION TO ME. THE QUESTION IS HAVE I BEEN SOME-HOW MISLEAD. THNAKS AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR GREAT WORK. SHALOM AND GODBLESS YOU ALWAYS.

MARK 2
21 No one sews a patch of in-shrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, and a worse tear will result. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. Instead, new wine is poured into new wineskins.”

WE ARE CALLED AND THEN BECOME A NEW WINESKIN = IS A NEW BIRTH AFTER REPENTING ACHOICE FROM THE DEPTH OF THE SOUL.THEN WE ARE BAPTISED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT “” AND WITH FIRE AND WILL BE REGENERATED AND PREPARED FOR THAT WONDEROUS MOMENT WHEN ARE CALLED TO BE BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT FROM ABOVE INTO A NEW SPIRITUAL BODY. MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN. THE LAST SHAL BE FIRST AND THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST.

I CORINTHIANS 15
50 Now I declare to you, brothers,THAT FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.37 And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else.
2So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;”e the last Adam a life-giving spirit

LUKE 17 20 When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied,
“THE KINGDOM OF GOD WILL NOT COME WITH OBSERVABLE SIGNS.

PRAISE THE LORD – MARANATHA.

Response #12: 

Good to make your acquaintance, and thanks so much for your positive comments about Ichthys.

I'm not sure that I understand your question, exactly, but if you are asking about the resurrection body, we who believe most certainly will receive a blessed eternal body when we rise up at Christ's return to meet the Lord in the air (1Thess.4:13ff.; cf. 1Cor.15:1ff.).

In terms of being born-again ("born from above": Jn.3:3), that regeneration is internal: we become alive to God as He gives us life eternal in Jesus Christ. All who choose from the heart to accept Jesus Christ are saved:

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:40 NKJV

But for those who refuse to accept the Gift of the Son, that is the only way for sins to be forgiven . . .

"But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."
John 5:40 NKJV

Since salvation is ALL about grace and not at all about what we do (Eph.2:8-9), as I sometimes like to say, to be saved, all a person need do is not say "No!" to the Gift of Jesus Christ – as the people addressed by our Lord plainly refused.

Do please feel free to write me back about this. I'm more than happy to answer your questions further.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob Luginbill

Question #13:  

THANK YOU FOR YOU RESPONSE. SORRY YOU COULD NOT IDENTIFY MY QUESTION HOWEVER I CAN SEE YOU ARE WELL PROGRAMMED. JESUS WAS CONCIEVED AS A MAN BY - OF THE SEED OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. AND WAS RESURRECTED AND CHANGED IN A TWINKLING OF AN EYE, BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT INTO HIS ORIGINAL SPIRITUAL BODY. AFTER WE RECEIVE OUR NEW WINE-SKIN, A CHANGED AND A NEW PERSON, WE RECEIVE THE SEED OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE FIRE TO RGENERATE US.WHEN THAT IS COMPLETE WE WILL RESURRECTED AND CHANGED; BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT INTO A NEW INCORRUPTIBLE SPIRITUAL BODY AT THE LAST TRUMP IN A TWINKLING OF AN EYE.

1 CORINTHIANS 15
50 Now I declare to you, brothers, THAT FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, NOR DOES THE PERISHABLE INHERIT THE IMPERISHABLE.

[MEANING – WE MUST BE BORN AGAIN INTO AN IMPERISHABLE BODY].

GOD BLESS YOU, HALELUIAH – MARANATHA.

SHALOM

Response #13:    

OK - you're most welcome.

Write any time, my friend.

Wishing you a very merry Christmas in Jesus Christ our dear Savior, "my Lord and my God" (Jn.20:28).

Bob L.

Question #14:  

Do you not think our Salvation is eternally Secure? Do you think we can lose or walk away from our salvation?

Response #14:    　

Good to make your acquaintance.

There are two false positions here. The first is the one you ask about, namely, "I am saved no matter what"; that is patently false and not supported by scripture (please see the link: "The False Doctrine of Absolute Eternal Security III", which will lead to many more links).

However, the opposite of this is also an incorrect and equally dangerous false doctrine, namely, "If I sin [in one of a number of ways but particular ones that bother me more than others] I will lose my salvation".

Scripture is quite clear that all believers are saved; only unbelievers are condemned:

"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

The critical point is "believe": faith is the issue. If a person is a believer – someone who believes in / puts their trust for salvation in Jesus Christ – that person is saved. But if a person once believed but then comes not to believe – i.e., loses faith entirely to the point where he/she no longer believes in Jesus Christ – the fact of prior belief does not prevent condemnation . . . because only believers are saved. This "total loss of faith" is not usually a quick thing but generally a more of a gradual thing as a lukewarm believer begins to drift away from Christ and then to harden his/her heart to the truth. Faith can die out, and if it dies out completely, the person is no longer a believer, and only believers are saved. This is seldom the result of sin. The only "unpardonable sin" is the sin of refusing to accept the Spirit's witness about Christ so as to be saved (see the link).

And those [whose seed of faith fell] on the rock do receive the Word with joy when they hear it. However these [types] have no root [to their faith]. They believe for a while, but in time of testing they apostatize (aphistantai; i.e., turn away from Christ).
Luke 8:13

The other two gospels explain more about the process of falling away from the faith by this category of person whose "faith plant" shrivels and dies from lack of moisture ("the water of the Word = the truth):

And he who was sown on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the Word and immediately receives it with joy. He has no roots [to his faith], however, but lasts only a short time. So when tribulation or persecution occurs on account of the Word, he is immediately tripped up (skandalizetai; i.e., he apostatizes).
Matthew 13:20-21

And these [second types] who are sown on the rocky places are similar. Whenever they hear the Word they immediately receive it with joy, although they have no root [of faith] in themselves, but are only temporary [believers]. When tribulation or persecution because of the Word comes [their way], they are immediately tripped up (skandalizontai; i.e., they apostatize).
Mark 4:16-17

I hope this answers your question. This is an important issue which if misunderstood from the one side leads Christians to think they can do whatever they want without endangering salvation – whereas in reality gross sinfulness leads us away from the Lord, hardens our hearts, debilitates our faith, and can in extreme situations lead to losing faith; while misunderstood from the other side believing that "some [terrible secret] sin" can take away one's salvation has plunged more than one believer into a completely wasted life of unending guilt and fear – precisely the opposite of how we followers of Jesus Christ ought to live: We have been completely forgiven at salvation and are forgiven any other sin we commit thereafter when we confess (1Jn.1:9). Not to say that we are not disciplined for sinful behavior – we most certainly are, but God comports Himself to us a loving Father who is concerned for our welfare so that we should rejoice in whatever correction we receive and not lose hope because of it (Heb.12:5-13).

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #15: 

Hello Dr. Luginbill, Is there a difference between Eternal Security and Once saved, always saved? Someone said once you are truly saved, you can not lose your salvation regardless of what you do. I find this teaching from the pits of hell. I believe we have free will and can choose to walk away from their beliefs and end up being condemned. What is the difference between Eternal Security and OSAS? God Bless,

Response #15:   

I certainly agree with you. It's very clear from even a casual reading of the Bible that "no matter what" is wrong. The problem most have is that they don't understand the spiritual mechanics. Only believers are saved (Jn.3:18), and it is definitely possible to stop believing. That is what apostasy is (see the link). Sin plays a role in that sin strains our relationship with the Lord and makes us less willing to come back to Him in cases of chronic rebellion; sin weakens faith, and salvation is all about faith. I think the attraction of OSAS is in large part (for many) a reaction to the equally false proposition that there is some deadly sin a person can commit to cause them to lose their salvation. So while I have seen some cases of Christians far too casual about sin because of believing OSAS, I've had contact with many more who have wrongly felt they have "lost their salvation" when in fact they were believers. As is often the case, the true biblical position is in between the two extremes of "no matter what" on the one hand and "easily lost" on the other. Only a considered turning away from the Lord so as to no longer believe in Him or follow Him in any way results in loss of salvation; but being casual about sin can put a person on just that very road. Here are a few links which will lead to others:

The False Doctrine of Absolute Eternal Security III

The False Doctrine of Absolute Eternal Security II

The False Doctrine of Absolute Eternal Security I

Being Saved: Security, Apostasy, and the Sin unto Death

No, Hebrews does not teach that you lost your salvation.

Three false doctrines.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #16:  

Hi Bob, I can't quite understand what Paul meant in Roman 6:1. Paul said should we keep on sinning that grace may abound. He then says "God forbid". Someone said that that passage means that if you continue in habitual sin, you're still saved based on Roman 6:1. I would like to hear your thoughts on this, because this person said that you can go on sinning and still be saved. Then he said that the verse in Romans 6:1 says that you can go on sinning and still be saved. I know this is completely a wrong interpretation of scripture, yet this person vehemently believes that we can be saved, even if we live a life of habitual sin. I can't find that anywhere in the bible. God Bless you and your ministry,

Response #16:    

You are certainly right about Romans 6:1 being merely a position taken by Paul for the sake of argument; that is explained very clearly by the context as you point out. Just as one cannot infer from a parable all the details in the parable to make it mean something totally different from what our Lord intended it to be, so also in Paul's arguments it is incorrect to extrapolate the details contrary to the context.

On sin, please have a look at the links provided previously. As mentioned, sin is an issue because it erodes faith and alienates us in our hearts from the Lord. If we go down that road too far, He will mean less and less to us until finally He means nothing. That is the process of apostasy. It's not that God takes away our salvation for some "bad sin(s)". Rather, it's that such persons throw their salvation away by deliberate choice. The mechanics are important. Trust me, I have been trying to help so many Christians over the year who imagine that they've lost their salvation precisely because of such incorrect ideas.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #17: 

There is actually one more question that I have really been struggling with. It is on the familiar Hebrew 6:4-6 passage about turning away from God. I come from difficult background [details omitted]. Do you think this passage means that if you are saved and then turn on Him knowing what you are doing at the time, there is no coming back?

Response #17:   

First, let me say that it is a testimony to your genuine faith and love for the Lord that in spite of what you've suffered and in spite of a tendency to "get angry" (something many of us share), you resisted the strong temptation to fall away from Him as a result. The main cause of apostasy, falling away from faith so that one no longer believes, no longer is "a believer", is precisely some strong disappointment or setback or trouble for which the Christian blames God.

"But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles."
Matthew 13:20-21

Recovering from a youthful experience where the "Christianity" to which one was exposed was that in name only is also no small thing. So I commend you for the resilience and genuineness of your faith, and encourage you to set yourself to build it up further through the truth – which I suspect is the reason you have been led to this ministry (no obligations here; you can access it anonymously and for free any time you wish, and welcome too).

False guilt is one of the devil's favorite weapons. All believers should know that all who believe are saved and that only those who do not believe are not 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

Therefore, since you believe, you are saved, because all believers are saved. If your past history had caused you to fall away from the faith entirely, to the degree that now you no longer believed in Jesus Christ as you Lord and Savior, no longer accepted Him as God and man, no longer recognized or affirmed that He died for you sins, if, that is, you were no longer a believer, that would be a different story. But you ARE a believer – and the tone, tenor and content of your emails makes that very clear indeed.

All believers should also know that regardless of what sin we may have committed, the Lord has already died for them all (e.g., Rom.8:1-4). And we should all also know that whenever we turn back to the Lord and confess our sins, they are forgiven along with anything else that needs to be forgiven:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1st John 1:9 NKJV

So if we are feeling guilty about past sins, that is inappropriate – it's as if we are saying that we don't believe His promise above; and if we are feeling unsure about our salvation, that is the same thing.

Passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6 are notoriously problematic for Christians who are not getting the teaching of the truth they need. In fact, many "churches" even reinforce the false impression that is bothering you.

(4) For, in the case of those who have been enlightened (i.e., have become believers, "light in the Lord": Eph.5:8), and who have experienced the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit (i.e., have been baptized with the Spirit so that He indwells them, and by the Spirit into union with Christ), (5) and who have experienced that the Word of God is good, and [who have experienced] miracles [foreshadowing] the age to come, (6) it is impossible to restore them to [true] repentance after having fallen [into sin] as long as they keep crucifying the Son of God afresh and exposing Him to open shame (i.e., while they continue in their sin, the particular sin in question here being continued participation in the sacrificial rites of Law which foreshadowed Christ's work on the cross and suggesting by that participation that His work was ineffective).
Hebrews 6:4-6

As the explanations included in the verses above demonstrate, Paul was remonstrating with the Jerusalem believers who were continuing to pretend to be Law-following Jews to the degree that they were even engaged in the temple sacrifices – the very rites that looked forward to a Messiah who would come and release us from our sins. But of course He HAD come and died for the sins of the world, so that continuing in this practice was in effect denying Christ. Paul tells them that "as long as" they keep doing this, they aren't going to be able to get right with the Lord. Makes sense. If we are involved in some pattern of chronic sinning, to get right with the Lord, we really do need to stop it first. Note that this passage is often mistranslated to make it appear as if there is no coming back, when in fact the whole point is to get these people to come back completely in every way. Hebrews was written to correct the behavior of believers who were out of line in many ways. It was not written to tell apostates that they were damned – that makes no sense as an exercise on any level. Just a few verses later, here is what Paul says about all this:

But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.
Hebrews 6:9 NKJV

If we sin, we confess and are restored. If we do wrong and receive discipline for it, God treats us as beloved sons and daughters (Heb.12:1ff.). If we experience trouble without being in the wrong, we are being tested and it is a grave mistake to look WAY back for the "cause" – that is NOT how God operates. He loves us and wants the best for us (Rom.5:2; 8:28). So feeling guilty is almost always a mistake. Even when it is legitimate (the result of some recent error for which our conscience smites us), the solution is turning back and confessing – immediately – and then moving on.

But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3:13-14 NIV

In hopes of your winning the prize too, my friend (see the link: "The Judgment and Reward of the Church").

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #18:  

I appreciate the compliment, but we might have to wait until Judgement Day on what good (if any) there was in how I responded. I did get some positive; for example I could have grown up
not knowing there about the Judeo-Christian God specifically, and things have been much worse for me. And I'm not a detached objective 3rd party observer. [details omitted]

Response #18:    

You're most welcome. It seems to me that you have come to terms with these things in a godly way. Good for you!

Yes, everything worldly is potentially problematic. We can't go out of the world, but we don't have to wallow in it either. If something in the world is compromising our spirituality, it's a good idea to at least tamp it down if not cut it off as completely as is within our power.

Feel free to write any time.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #19: 

After reading your piece on apostasy your description sounds a lot like what I did. Even recently with another lapse into sin for several months.

How can I know I'm not an apostate?

Response #19:   

Sorry to hear of your spiritual troubles.

On your question, to reiterate, an apostate is an unbeliever; that is, a former believer who now no longer believes in Christ. And uncontrolled pattern of egregious sin may or may not play a role in apostasy as it tends to harden the heart to the point where faith shrivels and dies in the end, but just as often apostasy results from Christians blaming God for hard times and disappointments.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

If the answer to the question is "yes!" (or even "yes"), then you are not an apostate.

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

I'm very sure I've always taken pains to be clear on this point, so perhaps you've got me confused with someone else. Would you mind giving me the reference and/or the quote you're talking about (I've written quite a lot "pieces on apostasy" posted at Ichthys)?

Wishing you and your family a very happy Christmas time, my friend!

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #20:  

So might you have any idea that makes sense from scripture why a believer such as myself, who entered into periods of sinful disobedience did not receive any (and I mean none), after searching in hindsight, divine discipline? I am definitely a believer but I find this vexing because Hebrews does day ALL children will be disciplined if they are children. This is what brought me to wondering if the Lord was truly done with me as maybe I was considered an apostate as in 2 Peter 2:20.

(Hope you are well Robert)

Response #20:    

The first thing I would observe is that you are very clearly exercised about this. It is vexing your mental peace and negatively affecting your joy in the Lord. How is that not discipline? It seems to me that the Lord is the perfect dispenser of discipline. He lays discipline on us to correct us – not what we necessarily expect or would prefer, but what He knows will get our attention and generate correction. He got you attention. That is why you have been emailing me.

Second, it is also true that the Lord never places on us things we cannot handle, things that would crush us rather than help us (1Cor.10:13). His discipline is perfect in every way, and certainly in bringing about the intended results (Heb.12:11). The discipline He laid on David was very heavy indeed. But on the one hand, David with his immense spiritual maturity could handle it; and on the other hand for that very reason his responsibility was greater. We don't discipline a four year old the same way we would discipline a seventeen year old.

So not to get too personal, but it's my job to point these things out. Since we have been exchanging emails for a number of years now, if memory serves you have always been concerned about this one, single topic. I always try in responses to expand things to other doctrinal areas as well as to point out that spiritual growth is in the end the only long-term solution to concerns such as yours. But spiritual growth requires giving serious and consistent attention to the whole Bible, to all of its teachings, to the whole realm of truth. Readers of Ichthys ideally get around to reading all of the series (at least once) and the weekly postings (there are many of these too); if that approach is taken, if the truth is believed, if attention is given not only to listening but to learning, not only to learning but believing, not only to believing but to living the truth believed, all such concerns begin to evaporate as everything starts to fall into place.

Life is complicated, challenging, demanding and definitely distracting. Those who engage on the road to winning eternal rewards are, in the end, very few. But nothing honors our Lord more, and there is no more valuable use of our short time here on earth. Everything else will turn to dust, but what we have done for the Lord in growing up spiritually, walking with Him in faith so as to pass the tests that come the mature believer's way, and then helping others do likewise through ministry, these achievements last forever, and "eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (1Cor.2:9 NKJV; cf. Ps.40:5; Eph.2:7) – the "things" of reward which fall to the lot of the soldiers of Jesus Christ who are fighting the fight as He would have us to do (see the link: "Rewards").

If my diagnosis is off base, please don't take it personally. I've been wrong before. As I tell my classes, "there was one time back in 1967 . . . "

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #21: 

Response #21:   

There's nothing I know of in scripture which separates natural results from something divinely caused. I do make the distinction, but that is only to let people know that all actions have consequences. We speed and we get at ticket. Perhaps that is discipline for something (otherwise maybe we'd have gotten a warning); but if we weren't speeding . . .

David's son Absalom tried to kill him. That was a result of David's going easy on Amnon when he raped Absalom's sister. But if David hadn't slept with Bathsheba and had her husband murdered, maybe God would have intervened and prevented Amnon's action. Everything is tied together in the perfect plan of God and it is pointless to try to mentally disentangle it. We just have to accept that God is in control of everything and knew our every thought before He even made the world. Therefore His discipline is perfectly informed as well.

As John says, "perfect love casts out fear" (1Jn.4:18); we who are following Jesus Christ have no reason to fear – we only need to reverence Him and His Father and ours. If we find ourselves fearing Him (because of our conduct whether negative or lacking in the positive), we need to adjust our approach ASAP.

Keeping you in my prayers daily, my friend – and thanks in advance for yours too!

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #22:

I don't really understand your reply in relation to the questions below...Maybe I'm just missing it?

Don't know what the common understanding is on this - How would someone know (or what would be the evidence biblically) God was finished with them? That they had in fact been abandoned by God - when his spirit was no longer striving with them?

Would it be that they show no interest or sign of caring?

Blessings,

Response #22: 

Here is what I read in scripture:

But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me." Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!
Isaiah 49:14-15 NIV

Even if you were the worst sinner in the world, there would be more joy in heaven at your prodigal return than for the ninety nine who had no need of returning.

(38) For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, neither angelic nor human authorities, neither things present nor things to come, neither heavenly powers, (39) be they the highest [of the elect] or the lowest [of the fallen], nor any other created thing [on this earth] will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:38-39

The Lord loved us enough to die for us, and He is never "done" with any of us. How sad that many come to the point of being "done" with Him! That is what apostasy is, namely, not Him throwing us out of His family but of the apostate throwing Him out of their heart, and completely so.

If the Lord has gone easy on you, my advice is to rejoice in relief . . . and not do "it" again.

Did I mention that spiritual growth is the real key to growing confidence in your relationship with the Lord? Whereas failure to pursue the truth in a diligent and consistent way only leads to things getting worse in the long run.

Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.
Hebrews 6:9 NIV

Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #23:  

* All of humanity is divided into two groups: those who believe and those who do not. (Justification: John 3:18)

* You can migrate from the second group to the first group, and then go back. (Justification: Luke 8:13)

* Everyone in the first group, no matter their sins, goes to Heaven. (Justification: John 3:16)

* Everyone in the second group, no matter their past virtues or performance as a Christian, goes to Hell. (Justification: Ezekiel 18:24)

* Sinning by itself does not automatically cause you to move from the first group to the second group: you need to also abandon faith in order to do that. (Justification: Romans 8:38-39)

Response #23:    

A nice synopsis of the mechanics – but I would want to put in the most critical point of all: the sacrifice of our Lord which transcends everything else in this finite world.

Hope you and your family had a nice Thanksgiving!

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #24:  

Bob

Sorry to bother you again - This was in this mornings prayer book - Is this not pretty scary

Is this not two groups - ungodly - Sinner - would the ungodly be unbelievers - sinners all of us

first peter 4 17-18
17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first,
what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

Response #24:    　

It's no bother, my friend. Write any time.

On your question, there is only one definite article here so this is not a case of two separate categories but of one category with a twin description: literally "the ungodly-and-sinful-[person]" (cf. Jude 1:5 where the same two adjectives are conjoined without "and"). We all sin, but we believers are not sinners (biblically speaking, through our position in Christ as a result of which we have the righteousness of God through faith) after we have been saved (Prov.11:33 and 1Pet.4:18 put it the way they put it to avoid the conclusion you ask about). We put it that way in conversation (i.e., "We're all sinners, after all"), and sometimes the Bible does describe believers in that way who are so far off the rails that it's hard to tell the difference (e.g., Lk.15:7; Jas.4:8), but consider:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
1st Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJV

We certainly hope not to be in any of the categories above, but which of us can say that after salvation we have never "coveted", e.g.? That, after all, was the very sin which led Paul to see that keeping the Law for salvation was impossible (Rom.7:7-11). There are a number of these "sin lists" in Paul's epistles. Galatians 5:19-21 is another, and in that one, after mentioning specifics, Paul adds "and the like" to let us know that just because our area of weakness has not been mentioned does not mean we are sinless. Anyone who is not being led by the Spirit is being led by the flesh instead, making the commission of sin inevitable. But we believers have all "had our bath" (we have been "washed"), and have been forgiven all sin, past, present and future, for salvation (Jn.13:10). We only need to "wash our feet" by confessing when we do lapse and are immediately restored to fellowship. In short, we are "righteous people" – in Christ – and not "sinful people" – as all unbelievers are no matter how nice and prim they may be since they lack God's righteousness, the only righteousness that counts.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Galatians 3:6

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
Philippians 3:8-9 NKJV

Unbelievers "are" sinners, by profession (cf. Ps.1:5); believers are supposed to behave sinlessly (1Jn.3:6; 3:9; 5:18), but we are not perfect in these bodies of sin and so we do make mistakes. When we do lapse, it is "out of character" and does not threaten our salvation – unless it gets to the point where it hardens our hearts and leads us to abandon our faith entirely (that is what apostasy is); but most sin does not lead to death (1Jn.5:17), either apostasy or the sin unto death (see the link), and few believers go a day without making any mistakes whatsoever (if sin is rightly understood).

Scripture often provides motivation on both sides of the issue, and that is the case here; we are saved while the ungodly are not, but we ought not to become complacent about it. Compare:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
2nd Corinthians 5:10-11 NIV

The prospect of being rewarded for what we have done in this life for the Lord is thrilling; the prospect of being reproved and wishing to avoid having our "wood, hay and stubble burned up" is to "know what it is to fear the Lord". We love Him and we respect Him. Love and delight in Him without godly fear or godly fear without love and delight in Him is evidence of a flawed walk either way and spiritually dangerous either way. If we truly fear the Lord we have nothing to fear; if we truly love Him we will respect Him too.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #25: 

Hi i want to ask what mean 1Jn3-20

Response #25:   

1st John 3:20 means that we human beings are prone to guilt and sometimes do not assess ourselves correctly – or we have assessed ourselves correctly but are not as quick to forgive ourselves emotionally as God is (for we are forgiven when we turn back to Him and confess). In all such cases, we have to remember that God is much bigger and much more merciful than we can even imagine, that Jesus' sacrifice is much bigger than anything in this world – in its smallest part – and that the forgiveness we have is so much greater than the guilt we may feel . . . that is, that "God is greater than our heart, and knows all things" (1Jn.3:20 NKJV).

Merry Christmas to you too, my friend!

In Jesus Christ our Lord, the Savior of the whole world.

Bob L.

Ichthys Home