Tagged: doctrine Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eugene Adkins 6:52 am on April 12, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , doctrine, , Falling from Grace, , , ,   

    Is A Christian’s Salvation Ever On The Table? 

    For those who still care about little things like sound doctrine, the topic of apostasy, once-saved-always-saved and falling from God’s grace is still a vital subject to consider from time to time…we are talking about Heaven, Hell and eternity after all!

    There are two opposite extremes when it comes to the issue, both of which have done great spiritual harm to many souls.

    The first extreme is that a Christian can never so sin that it leads to he or she losing the reward of their salvation – hence the term “once-saved-always-saved.” This doctrine has managed to convince untold numbers of people that the numerous admonitions of God’s word concerning repentance, sin setting up shop in a believer’s heart and the importance of learning from the major errors of God’s people in the past are actually only hollow warnings for God’s “true” child will never fall into these traps. Unfortunately the very mentality that says there are no traps has become a trap (Jeremiah 16:10).

    The second extreme is that a Christian must walk on eggshells and live in constant anxiety concerning one’s judgment and the punishment of Hell. This doctrine has managed to convince untold numbers of people that the numerous scriptures of comfort concerning the assurance that one can have with God and his or her salvation are only hollow promises. Unfortunately the mentality that revolves around this doctrine ends up robbing people of the blessing that relies upon God for his or her perfection and exchanges it with a worrisome and burdensome and impossible task of making one’s self perfect.

    The truth of God concerning the doctrine of one’s salvation and the peril of sin lies in between the two extremes found above. Any sin can send a person to Hell – no denying that (Romans 6:23). But God’s grace is also a huge concept – a concept that’s large enough through the blood of Jesus to capture sins that we don’t even realize we’ve committed. Do we need to confess our sins to be forgiven? Absolutely! But must all of our sins be confessed in ”numerical” order? Who could ever honestly do such a thing like that every time? The simple truth is that if a person strives to avoid a lifestyle of darkness, strives to walk in God’s essential light lit path, strives to have a willingness that confesses sin of the known and unknown nature, and strives to avoid a self-righteous, I’m above sin, I don’t sin mentality that relies upon the justification and cleansing power of Jesus’ blood then that individual’s salvation is secure in God. Want to lose your security? Then do the opposite! (1 John 1:4-10)

    Is a Christian’s salvation ever on the table? Sure it is! But only when we put it on the table and give it up for the world, for the gift of God’s salvation is something that no man can take from us if we keep our heart set on Heaven.

    “Let your desire be for peace with all men, and to be made holy, without which no man may see the Lord; Looking with care to see that no man among you in his behaviour comes short of the grace of God; for fear that some bitter root may come up to be a trouble to you, and that some of you may be made unclean by it; And that there may not be any evil liver, or any man without respect for God, like Esau, who let his birthright go for a plate of food. For you have knowledge that even long after, when he was desiring the blessing for his heritage, he was turned away, though he made his request frequently and with weeping; because the past might not be changed…But you have come to the mountain of Zion, to the place of the living God, to the Jerusalem which is in heaven, and to an army of angels which may not be numbered, to the great meeting and church of the first of those who are named in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of good men made complete, And to Jesus by whom the new agreement has been made between God and man, and to the sign of the blood which says better things than Abel’s blood.” (Hebrews 12:14-17, 22-24 - BBE)

     

  • Eugene Adkins 7:50 am on December 24, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, ,   

    Too Smart? 

    There are some out there who consider themselves too smart to believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth. The “enlightened” say modern science says it can’t happen and no doctor in the world would ever agree with the idea.

    My answer to such an “educated” stance is 1) science deals with the natural and God (who created the natural) knows how to deal in the supernatural which overrules the previous, and 2) one of the writers who recorded one of the gospels which contains the account of the virgin birth was a doctor (Colossians 4:4)! It’s true there were no MRI machines or even thermometers some 2,000 years ago, but doctors have understood for a very long time where babies come from. Doctor Luke believed in the evidence presented and in the sign promised by God so long ago, so there’s no reason that some “educated” mind can’t do the same today.

    If we want to receive the benefit of knowing that God is with us and that He’ll deliver us (the very purpose of the virgin birth – Immanuel/Jesus) then we’ll have to show our faith in the gospel…including the way it begins. If one can believe that water was turned to wine, that people were healed by touch and great distances, that thousands were fed by a few pieces of food, that people were raised from the dead and that the very child who was born of a virgin, grew up, was betrayed, was crucified, was buried and was risen again the third day, then why should one wonder about and stumble His birth?

    If we don’t have the faith that it takes to believe God and His word then we’ll give into all the skeptics, critics, naysayers, joke makers and unbelievers who will try to drain us of our faith; because at the end of the day, unless we believe in the sign revealed at Bethlehem we won’t believe in the One who the rest of the signs point toward (John 20:30-31).

    There may be some out there who are too smart – but they’re too smart for their own good.

    “For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God — and righteousness and sanctification and redemption — that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-31 - NKJV)

     

  • Eugene Adkins 6:18 am on December 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, Questions and Answers,   

    Quick Answers to Common Objections 

    Those who adhere to “faith only” when it comes to salvation often disagree with the necessity of baptism by offering very common objections. Here are three, followed by very quick answers according to the scriptures of God.

    Objection 1: Baptism is a work of man that violates Ephesians 2:8 which says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,”

    Quick Answer: Whoever said baptism is a work of man? Sure it’s something that a person must submit to, but since when has submission ever earned anyone any thing? Baptism is a work of God and hence, it is not a work of man that earns us anything. “In [Jesus] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12)

    Objection 2: Baptism is to show one is already saved, not to be saved. The “for” in Acts 2:38 is past tense. A person who is wanted ”for“ robbing a bank is wanted because they robbed a bank in the past, not because they’re going to rob it in the future.

    Quick Answer: When a person ignores context they can make a pretext out of almost any scripture! Acts 2:38 says, “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.“ Look at the two things the first “and” connects there. A person no more “repents” because they have been saved anymore than they are “baptized” because they have been saved. Repentance always proceeds salvation for the lost as does baptism. “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31) And by the way, does a person who’s going to the store “for” a loaf of bread go because they already have it, or because they need it? Just asking.

    Objection 3: Jesus condemned the lack of faith and not the lack of baptism in Mark 16:15-16 when He said, “…Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

    Quick Answer: Jesus no more had to condemn the lack of baptism than He did the lack of repentance or confession or faithfulness. Are not these also necessary to be saved? Of course they are! No matter what an unbeliever does they are not saved because they are an unbeliever. Why would anyone want to baptize an unbeliever for the remission of sins when he or she doesn’t even believe in the sins they would be baptized for? Unbelief puts one in a condemned state regardless of anything else. That’s the reason why John 3:18 says, “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.” In Mark 16:15 baptism still comes before salvation, like it does in the rest of the scriptures for people who lived after the giving of the Gospel of Christ.

    Much, much more could be said, but then the answers wouldn’t be so quick would they?

    Related articles:

     

  • Eugene Adkins 6:36 am on October 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , Jehovah's Witnesses, King Jesus,   

    Jehovah’s ‘False’ Witnesses 

    I found a little book placed in my front door the other day. It was the August 1, 2012 issue of the “Watchtower.”

    Inside the booklet there are various topics ranging from miracles to new graduates of the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead. One topic in between those two addressed the question, “When did Jesus become King?” The given answer was:

    God enthroned Jesus as King in heaven in 1914, exactly 2,520 years after Jerusalem’s destruction. Jesus’ first act as King was to expel Satan and his demons from heaven. (Revelation 12:7-10) That event was invisible to human eyes, but it resulted in a visible crisis for mankind. (Revelation 12:12) Events since 1914 confirm that Jesus became King in that year. Read Matthew 24:14; Luke 21:10, 11, 31. (Watchtower, August 1, 2012, p. 17)

    These witnesses miss the mark in the first sentence. Perhaps I’ll do another post that’s a little more in-depth about this topic later but to reveal the falsehood of the statement I only have to use one single verse from the Bible – “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,” (Colossians 1:13).

    The Christians at Colossi were members of Jesus’ kingdom before Paul ever wrote his letter to them, and I guarantee he wrote the letter before 1914! You can’t have a kingdom without a king and you can’t be a king without a kingdom! That “math” is too simple to deny.

    “Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:37 – NKJV)

     

    • Danny Haszard 8:41 am on October 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Yes they are a ‘fraud for God’ cult. (Gal1:8) -’”false Gospel”

      Jehovahs Witnesses who are they?
      A) They are at your door to recruit you for their watchtower society corporation,they will say that *we are just here to share a message from the Bible*… this is deception right off.
      B) Their *message* creed is a false Gospel that Jesus had his second coming in 1914.The problem with this is it’s not just a cute fairy tale,Jesus warned of the false prophets who would claim *..look he is here in the wilderness,or see here he is at the temple*.
      C) Their anti-blood transfusion ban against *whole blood* has killed thousands.
      D) once they recruit you they will *love bomb* you in cult fashion to also recruit your family & friends or cut them off.
      —-
      3rd generation Jehovah’s Witness Danny Haszard
      FMI dannyhaszard(dot)com

    • preachercarter 2:32 pm on October 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The simplicity of truth complicates everything. Well said!

      http://thechristianperspective.intuitwebsites.com/

    • Deluded Students 4:00 pm on October 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Let’s not forget that for their 1914 date to have any sort of significance at all, they claim that Jerusalem was destroyed 20 years earlier (607 BCE) than what it really was (587 BCE) – and in the process attacking the same scholars that they rely on for dates in the very same doctrine.

  • TFRStaff 6:04 am on August 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , doctrine, , ,   

    Don’t Move Away from the Truth (Charles Box) 

    Just before giving in to the pressure of the crowd to crucify our Lord Jesus Christ, Pilate asked one of the most tragic questions of the Bible. In a very cynical way he asked, “What is truth?” In John 18:37-38 we read,

    “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”

    How tragic and disturbing that Pilate spoke of truth but he had no interest in the truth. How could Pilate judge with truth when he did not know the truth?

    “These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates.” (Zechariah 8:16)

    It would have been great if Pilate had been interested in truth and when he learned it to act accordingly. The same is true of us! “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.” (Proverbs 23:23)

    Don’t move away from the truth that the Bible is the word of God. (More …)

     

  • Eugene Adkins 6:23 am on July 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , doctrine, ,   

    Funny Way to Make A Serious to Point 

    Here’s a short, but good and funny article from Harry Middleton of the Lebanon Road church in Nashville, TN.

    It’s titled: Search the scriptures!!! I thought someone may want to use it for a reference or a bulletin article.

    Great truths may sometimes be stated in amusing ways. I found the following statement of truth amusing and thought provoking. It is taken from “Wells of Thought.”

    Jacob Ditzler and J. S. Sweeny were having a debate on the scriptural mode of baptism. Ditzler showed a secondary meaning of the word BAPTIZE to wash or sprinkle.

    In reply, brother Sweeny showed that a secondary meaning of BELIEVE was to have an opinion and a secondary meaning of SAVE was to be pickled.

    Then he gave the resulting translation of Mark 16:16, “He that hath an opinion and is sprinkled shall be pickled.”

    He then raised the question, “Is it our aim to see what we can make out of the scriptures, or is it to find out what God has said?”

     

  • Ed Boggess 7:57 am on June 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine,   

    Few people realize that ideas have consequences. Sometimes, I hear Christian’s say “I don’t want to study doctrine, I want to study the things that I deal with in day to day living.” That sounds good but the fact is people live the way they think. It is not enough to merely talk about how we ought to act in this or that situation. We need to understand the underlying motives. If you look at the writings of Paul, you will see that he spent much of his time on doctrinal truths. Every doctrinal teaching has a “therefore” that applies directly to Christian living. But rob the house of its foundation and it soon falls: “Being good for goodness sake” may work around Christmas time, but if it is not bolstered by an understanding of what’s behind it, it will wear thin after awhile. It is not enough to know that racial prejudice is sinful. We should also understand that all men were created equal and that the reason for that is the Creator is just. Things are not right because we all agree that they are right; they right because they are right. This is Just-A-Minute with Ed Boggess

     

    • Don Ruhl 9:57 am on June 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I like the part where you say, “people live the way they think.” Jesus said, “…out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt 12.34). Later, He said, “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man” (Matt 15.18). And Solomon declared centuries before, ” Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life” (Pro 4.23).

      Therefore, you are correct that doctrine matters!

  • Eugene Adkins 7:02 am on May 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, ,   

    Just a Simple-Minded Christian 

    “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil.” (Romans 16:17-19 - NKJV)

    The plain gospel doesn’t have enough flavor for those who are sensually minded, so they believe they must spice it up to be enjoyable. Paul says the gospel hasn’t been served to please the palate! It’s been served to nourish and give holy wisdom to the soul, and we’re to mark those who change the recipe for they have no interest in the well-being of others. They are interested in satisfying their own appetites and in finding those whose “spiritual taste buds” are weak and susceptible to being deceived.

    Paul’s admonition to the brothers and sisters at Rome was to avoid being simple-minded (harmless, pure, unskillful) in evil actions and intents, while remaining wise (skillful, cultivated, educated) in the good things of God’s will so they could avoid being of the mindset that opened the door of their heart to deception…think the Garden of Eden for a moment.

    There is a difference in being simple-minded (uneducated) toward the evil that allows us to be destroyed from a lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6), and in being simple-minded (deeds done with holy motivations) in our actions and works. We must strive to be one without becoming prey to the other (Hebrews 5:14; Matthew 7:15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4).

     

    • Men of Mud 7:54 am on May 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great post. It is so very true that there always has been and will always be those who distort the gospel message because they feel its not seeker driven enough.

  • Ed Boggess 8:25 am on May 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Church of God, doctrine, , revision   

    It was some time back when I read the headline, “Assemblies of God revamp rules on sexual con¬duct.” I was reading the Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, MS (Aug 12, 1989). I wondered, “Why is a denomination revising and revamping it rules? The Bible hasn’t changed.” Indeed, scripture reads the same. What the Holy Spirit inspired never needs rewriting. But when men make rules and form a church based on those rules, then they are faced with the embarrassing prospect of making something right that was before wrong. Of course, nothing right ever becomes wrong or wrong right, but when man gets into the rule making business, he is bound to make mistakes. This is my chief com¬plaint about creeds, statements or articles of faith and such like; all in addition to the Bible, that regulate members. Why can’t we just use the Bible – it never needs revamping or rewriting. This is Just-a-Minute with Ed Boggess

     

  • Ed Boggess 8:58 am on May 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine,   

    There is a slow, subtle, sinister brainwashing process going on and by it, society is gradually drifting further and further from God. Satan has sold our generation a bill of goods and many have bought it, hook, line, and sinker. Satan’s lie is this: “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.” It has become popular to fraternize with unbelievers until false doctrine is no longer objectionable. Borderline sects and confirmed cults are slapped on the back and greeted as friends. Others find overtures from Rome attractive. Still others would make a crazy quilt of the world’s religions, choosing what they like of all faiths and dropping it all into a mixing bowl of ideas and popping it into a lukewarm oven of popular opinion. In short order these theological chefs come forth with religious “hash”. But some things do not mix with He who said, “I am the truth and no man goes to the Father but by me.” This is Just-a-Minute with Ed Boggess

     

  • Eugene Adkins 8:32 pm on April 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine,   

    Natural Born Sinner? 

    Few doctrines like Total Hereditary Depravity start a person off on the wrong foot spiritually when it comes to understanding the Bible’s teaching on sin and salvation. Despite the fact that it leads to erroneous teachings on the cross of Christ, it distorts the responsibility, accountability and feasibility of answering for personal sin by teaching the sinner to say (or at least think), “It’s all Adam’s fault and I can’t help the way I’m born.”

    Sadly, by un-originally twisting the scriptures some even try to use Paul’s masterpiece on sin, law, faith, grace and salvation found in Romans to teach the existence of “original sin.” The abuse of Romans 5:12-19 disregards the fact that one doesn’t deserve spiritual death because we’re born any more than one deserves spiritual life because we’re born again!

    Babies born guilty of the sin of Adam? That’s just something inconceivable according to the scriptures (Ezekiel 18:20).

     

    • Don Merritt 8:27 pm on April 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Nicely done Eugene! Very well put; and pithy! Thank you for writing it!

    • laodeciapress 8:52 pm on April 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      What about passages like Psalm 51, especially verse 5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
      And in sin my mother conceived me.”?

      Also, would you then take the view that if infants die right at or soon after birth they have no need of Christ’s atonement?

      Could it be that Ezekiel 18 is a response to a faulty proverb spreading through Israel that abolished personal responsibility for sin? This doesn’t mean that humans aren’t born with a fallen nature.

      We are born with a fallen nature and we are also responsible for our sins. Without Christ, we are truly in a hopeless state.

      • Eugene Adkins 6:20 am on April 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Hello Laodecia,

        Look at Psalm 51:5 in context with the rest of the psalm. In verse 1 David says the transgression belongs to him. In verse 2 David says it was his inquity and his sin. In verse 3 David says it was his transgression and his sin. In verse 4 David says it is his sin. Then in verse 5 David supposedly tries to shift the blame??? That just doesn’t fit what David’s saying.

        David was feeling about as low as he ever felt spiriutally and he used words to reflect his personal feelings on his personal life – there is nothing universal there to be found! David’s sin wasn’t his mother’s fault, Bathsheba’s fault or Adam’s fault – it was his own fault.

        Psalm 51:5 is hyperbole. It reflected the lifestyle that he had fallen into. David was no more literally brought forth in inquity any more than Job literally guided the widow from his mother’s womb (Job 31:18).

        As far as you mentioning the atonement, I don’t know if you understand the meaning of the word. Atonement is needed for those who have sinned. Babies have not sinned. It’s that simple.

        Plus, if you subscribe to the rest of Calvinism’s destortion of the atoning work of Jesus on the cross (like unconditional election) then it doesn’t matter because God has already decided who’s going to Heaven and Hell before the baby was born to begin with. And according to Calvinism there are babies that die who will be going to hell! So your question has no real point.

        Lastly, to your comment about Ezekiel. You’re missing the whole point of Ezekiel 18. God’s word is saying that children will not be held spiritually accountable for the sins of the previous generations. Ezekiel 18:20 says the soul that sins will die – not the soul that’s born. You won’t find one time in the scriptures where God says the rest of mankind is spiritually responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve. Don’t confuse repercussions from with responsibility for.

        If we are born with a fallen nature then we’re not responsible for our sins! You can’t blame a square peg for not fitting into a round hole. Paul said. “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—” (Romans 5:12) Paul DID NOT say death spread to all because all were born sinners.

        God bless in your studies.

        • laodeciapress 11:05 am on April 19, 2012 Permalink

          Thanks for the response!

          It seems like your view is that if one is born with a fallen nature, they are not responsible for their sins. I just don’t see this as a Biblical view.

          I’m also a little confused as to what you believe we inherited from Adam’s sin. If it’s simply an evil world, doesn’t that set us up for sin and abolish some responsibility in your view?

          I think this passage from Romans 9 describes the sovereignty/responsibility phenomenon better than I ever could:

          Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

          What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

          You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles

        • Eugene Adkins 6:42 pm on April 19, 2012 Permalink

          Hello again Laodeica,

          You said, “If it’s simply an evil world, doesn’t that set us up for sin and abolish some responsibility in your view?”

          I don’t get what your question is trying to prove. Total Herditary Depravity does away with all responsibility to sin. Sin is a choice, and if one is born a sinner they have no choice but to sin. The scriptures teach that it is not God who makes mankind sin. To say such a thing is an affront to God’s holiness and goodness. “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” (James 1:13-15) This is exactly what Adam and Eve did and it’s what people still do today.

          God created Adam and Eve upright and sinless, but yet they still sinned. Now if Adam and Eve could sin and not be born sinners then there is no scriptural reason why the same truth cannot be applied to people today. The heart of mankind goes astray (Romans 3:12) – it is not born astray (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

          As to your comment, “I think this passage from Romans 9 describes the sovereignty/responsibility phenomenon better than I ever could” you are completely missing the point of Romans 9-11.

          To understand what Paul is talking about here you have to keep in mind the historical context of the verses he’s quoting along with the purpose of the book of Romans to begin with.

          You highlighted the part that says, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER”. Now where in the world is there anything about salvation in there? Calvinism does a lot of far-fetched jumping. It jumps from Adam sinning to everyone being guilty of Adam’s sin instead of their own (Romans 5:12). It also jumps from God using nations to bring Jesus Christ into the world to give all nations the chance to be saved (Romans 10:11-13) to determining that God has decided which individuals are worth saving regardless of their reaction. The context about Jacob and Esau is about nations my friend, not individuals (Genesis 25:23). The context of the clay and potter is about nations my friend, not individuals (Jeremiah 18:1-10). It’s about Jews and Gentiles as a whole. Look at verse 24 that you stopped at again.

          If you will keep the theme of chapters 9-11 in mind (well actually the whole book Romans up through chapter 11) you will find it’s about God working His plan to bring the Messiah into the world for all people (Romans 1:16,17). God used Jacob to bring the Messiah into the world and not Esau. God used Pharaoh (whom hardned his own heart and God was only “responsible” for hardening his heart by doing the judgments that Pharaoh refused to acknowledge) to display His mercy to the nation of Israel – - which was used to bring the Messiah into the world.

          God is the potter without a doubt, but what Calvinism ignores is that God DOESN’T ignore the way that the clay reacts to Him. The very verses after the potter and clay theme is introduced says -”Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.” (Jeremiah 18:5-10)

          Check that out! God saying in His omnipotent way that He allows the clay to determine whether or not it wants to listen to Him. And if you read Jeremiah you will find that God wanted Judah to repent but they refused (Jeremiah 13:11; 29:19). In Romans 9-11 Paul is talking about how God opened up His grace and mercy as wide as it possibly could be opened through the gospel which included extending it to the Gentile nations, not narrowing His grace and mercy like Calvinism does with “unconditional election” and “limited atonement”.

          You’re not seeing the forrest for the trees when it comes to Romans 9 and God’s elect my friend. The “foundational proof text” (Psalm 51:5) of Calvinism has crumbled, and so the rest of Calvinism falls in on top of it. To say that one is born completely depraved but yet with enough room to be responsible completely ignores the definition of completely!

          God bless in your studies, Laodicea.

    • laodeciapress 9:35 pm on April 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Sorry about that confusion, the verses were capitalized because they were from the OT.

      I still think you misunderstand Calvinism doctrine. Total depravity does not abolish responsibility for sin, nor does it say we are only responsible for Adam’s sin and not our own. If you care to look into things a bit more, there’s a book by James White called “The Potters Freedom” which gives a really good description of the Biblical basis of Calvinism.

      I don’t agree with your description of Romans 9, or of the book of Romans in general. The language of Paul is very clear that this is personal, and I believe he responds to the very argument you present:

      -So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
      -You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
      -On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

      Psalm 51:5 is still very clear. David recognizes that he is so in need of God’s grace that he was, in fact, sinful from the time his mother conceived him.

      Sorry for the confusion on my question. It was poorly worded. I was asking what you believe we inherited from Adam’s sin. If you believe we did inherit something, does this take away some responsibility?

      Without original sin, you have people dying free of sin. This makes statements in the Bible that “all have sinned” simply not true. If you take the whole Bible into consideration, we clearly see that man is hopelessly sinful from birth, responsible for their sin, and will die in their sin unless they receive forgiveness through Christ’s death.

      • Eugene Adkins 6:46 am on April 20, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Good morning Laodicea,

        I understand the doctrine of Calvinism very well. I have watched debates, read books (although not the one you referred to), talked to others, and by the way I raised to believe in certain points of the TULIP in the baptist church. So I would say my familiarity with Calvinism is better than average.

        To settle the THD disagreement remember that Calvinism teaches that children are totally depraved and not capable of doing anything good whatsoever. If they cannot do anything good, then what does that leave them with? It leaves them with deserving God’s wrath despite the fact that they can’t do any better??? How can they possibly be responsible for something that they are not responsible for? That’s not the spiritual wrath I read about. That wrath is earned, not given freely (Romans 6:23). We don’t earn condemnation by being born any more than we earn justification by being born again.

        Psalm 51:5 is clear. The first 4 verses David says it’s all my fault and he doesn’t change his story in verse 5. It was the same hyperbole that Job used when he said he came from his mother’s womb guiding the widow (which is something not possible according to THD).

        You said, “Without original sin, you have people dying free of sin.” I say with original sin you have everyone dying in sin – including babies on their way to Hell. No one being true to Calvinist doctrine will deny this.

        You said, “This makes statements in the Bible that “all have sinned” simply not true.” The ALL refers those who have reached the age of accountability (Deut. 1:39; Jonah 4:11). Read Romans 7:9. When was Paul alive spiritually before the Law? Never, according to Calvinism this is impossible because he would have been born dead, but Paul said he was! Tell me friend according to your understanding of all, is “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to ALL men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to ALL men, resulting in justification of life” (Romans 5:18) telling the truth? The free gift of justification to ALL men? Not according to Calvinism – not according to Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace. Nevertheless, there you have it. ALL men were given that gift that resulted in justification of life.

        Do you see the point? The ALL of Romans 3:23 refers to those who have chosen to walk in Adam’s steps just as the ALL who are justified are those who have chosen to walk in the steps of Jesus (Romans 3:26; 5:12, 18-19).

        If you take the whole Bible into consideration you will a God who implores ALL of mankind to come to Him. Not just some “unconditional elect.” If you take the whole Bible into consideration you will find that man chooses to sin, and that God chose to give His Son for the whole world that whosoever believes Him might have life. THD and the rest of Calvinism is a complete misrepresentation of God’s omnipotence and the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2).

        To your last part when you said, “and will die in their sin unless they receive forgiveness through Christ’s death.” My friend remember, according to Calvinism’s THD they are already dead in their sin, and without the Unconditional Election of God’s choosing they have no hope of finding life in Jesus, and because of Limited Atonement not everyone CAN receive forgiveness through Christ’s death because Christ didn’t die for everyone!

        You see how awful it is to warn people about dying in their sins when they can’t do anything about it! That’s the falsehood of Calvinism for you, not the truth of the gospel.

  • J. Randal Matheny 8:12 pm on March 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine,   

    Doctrine Matters 

    by Johnny O. Trail

    A sermon provided from an online church source seeks to expand the role of women in the worship assembly. It is incredible to consider the lengths that some are willing to go to legitimize unscriptural practices. The error contained in this series regarding the role of women in worship is legion in nature and space would not allow an adequate refutation of doctrines espoused by the one proclaiming the message. One or two comments deserve some attention.

    In arguing for expanding the role of women, the speaker says, “Jesus saves and not our doctrine.” In another place, the same speaker says that we are “safe in Jesus not in law keeping.” The implication of these statements seems clear—doctrine regarding practice and observance of worship is not important. Students of God’s word beg to differ. (More …)

     

  • TFRStaff 4:52 am on March 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, heresy, ,   

    The vanishing of heresy 

    by Hugh Fulford

    Several months ago I read Phil Sanders’ book, A Faith Built on Sand: The Foolishness of Popular Religion in a Postmodern World. This is a sequel to Phil’s 2000 book, Adrift: Postmodernism in the Church. Both are deserving of a serious read by all who would be aware of what is taking place in the contemporary world of Christendom.

    Chapter 8 is titled “The Vanishing of Heresy.” Phil begins the chapter with a 1987 quote from J. I. Packer:

    “The net result of all these impulses to pluralism is that … there are just about as many theologies as there are theologians to devise them; the concept of heresy has almost lost its meaning; and loyalty to the institutional church has for the most part taken the place of loyalty to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, for no one is quite sure any more what the essence of that faith really is” (p. 89).

    Packer’s (and Phil’s) point is that—speaking facetiously—heresy is now a thing of the past. It does not exist today! The only “heresy” that exists in our postmodern world is the assertion that something is heresy! Every cockeyed notion, theory, doctrine, practice, and belief is to be uncritically accepted. No one is to be told that they are wrong. Interestingly, however, one postmodernist recently told me, “The Bible is wrong about many things!”

    Later in the chapter Phil observes: “The preaching in churches of Christ has changed in the last generation. Over time the church has become afraid to say much of anything with conviction. Preachers preach much love but little truth, much grace but little repentance, much salvation but little obedience, and much on relationships but little on relating responsibly to God Himself. Some speak much on believing and confuse their listeners by speaking little on what to believe” (p. 100).

    The notion exists in many quarters that preachers ought not to emphasize doctrine “because doctrine only divides.” The idea is that we should “preach only Christ.” But to preach Christ is to preach “doctrine.” It is “doctrine” to affirm that Christ alone is “the way, the truth, and the life,” and that no one comes to the Father except through Him! (John 14:6). But there are multiplied millions who do not believe that Christ is the only way to God. Therefore, Christ Himself is divisive. He said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I came not to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).

    What does it mean to preach Christ? Can we preach Christ without preaching what He taught? Can we preach Christ without preaching the doctrine of Christ? Philip the evangelist preached Christ to the Ethiopian eunuch and the eunuch asked to be baptized (Acts 8:35-39). How did the eunuch know that he needed to be baptized unless in preaching Christ to him Philip had told him what Christ said one must do to be saved? Jesus said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

    The apostle Paul did not subscribe to the idea that doctrine is not important or that there was no such thing as heresy. He named “heresies” as one of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-22). He further warned that “the time will come when they [the professed people of God, hf] will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (II Timothy 4:3-4). In this respect, the ones of whom Paul spoke were like the wayward people of God in the Old Testament who said, “Do not prophesy to us right things; speak to us smooth things…” (Isaiah 30:10). Translation: Don’t tell us what we need to hear; tell us what we want to hear. Don’t rebuke us for our sins; rather, show us how we can continue in our sins and still be good church members. Show us how we can be religious without having to be righteous! Make us feel good about ourselves! Such are the times in which we live.

    hugh’s news & Views
    Hugh Fulford
    March 7, 2012

     

  • J. Randal Matheny 10:34 am on August 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, ,   

    No divine truth fails to apply to man’s need and service. All doctrine finds usefulness in daily faith. What God says always makes a difference to his creatures. “Every Scripture is … useful.” As well, no faith can be exercised apart from truth. Every spiritual movement springs from an oracle of the Lord. We are God’s evangelists, all of us, and his words, all of them, bring life, create meaning, provide strength, establish purpose, and issue forth in fellowship with his glorious presence.

     

  • Richard Mansel 9:55 am on August 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , ,   

    Foundations and False Doctrine 

    A false doctrine, no matter how artfully constructed, is still a false doctrine. No building can be successfully built with a shoddy foundation.

    Paul said our faith should be “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20).

    We each have a sobering responsibility to pore over the Word of God (2 Timothy 2:15), to see if we are truly living as God’s people (Ephesians 4:1).

    We build the foundation of our faith on the rock of Jesus, so we can withstand the forces of sin.

    ” Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall” (Matthew 7:24-27).

    We must have the courage to examine our doctrines and be certain they are Biblical, so as to please God. False doctrines have no transformative power, in that it does not elevate us into the arms of God (Romans 12:1-2). Rather, it drags us down into the displeasure of our Lord (Galatians 1:7-9).

    We must beware what we teach because it DOES carry a heavy price (John 12:48) on our souls and those of the world (Matthew 28:18-20). Build carefully by the Lord’ building codes.

     

  • Richard Mansel 12:04 pm on April 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine, ,   

    Greatest Problem in the Church 

    If you asked most people in the Lord’s body, to name the biggest problem in the church, most would probably say false doctrine. While that is certainly plentiful, that would not be an issue if we had better men in leadership. Accordingly, I think the biggest problem we have in the Lord’s church is that we need more godly Elders.

    Do we encourage young men to work toward becoming Elders? Is it even considered a priority any more? Why do we have so many congregations over 10o members that do not have Elders? How do we change that?

    What do you think is the greatest problem in the church?

     

    • Mike Riley 9:44 pm on April 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Richard, in my view, the greatest problem in the Lord’s church is indifference toward the authority of the Scriptures, with regard to instrumental music, marriage-divorce-remarriage, authority of elders, frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper, etc.

      • Richard Mansel 9:49 pm on April 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        All of these are serious problems. My point is that if congregations across the brotherhood had strong leaders, then these things would not be so prevalent.

  • Richard Mansel 10:06 pm on June 19, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, , ,   

    Selective Grace 

    It is amazing how people are so confused about grace and doctrine. Read and comment, please.

     

  • Mike Riley 9:23 pm on June 3, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , celibacy, doctrine, , originate, pretty, questioning, ,   

    ‘Wives’ of Catholic Priests Speak Out Against Celibacy 

    Looks like there are some pretty angry women out there questioning the soundness of the Catholic doctrine regarding celibacy. Hopefully, they’ll start questioning some other false teachings that originate from their Catholic Papa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100602/lf_afp/vaticanpopereligionabusewomen

     

  • Mike Riley 12:55 pm on March 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , buried, doctrine, , , , , , , , slaves,   

    There are two verses about obedience in Romans 6:17-18-NKJV that are significant:

    “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.”

    We must obey “from the heart” that form [pattern] of doctrine that Paul preached and taught (1 Cor. 2:1-2; cf. Gal. 6:14; Philippians 3:7-10). What was the pattern? The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4). We die to sin, we are buried in the watery grave of baptism, and then we rise to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-4).

    What a beautiful picture of salvation!

     

  • Mike Riley 12:59 am on December 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , doctrine,   

    More Americans Mix & Match Religions 

    From MSNBC News, comes this report about Americans liking the mix-and-match, build-your-own approach to various religions

    Americans believe in all kinds of “isms” as well as the New Age idea of reincarnation, astrology, etc.

    The article goes on to say:

    “The report Wednesday from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life also shows tremendous growth over the past three decades in the number of Americans who say they have had a religious or mystical experience.”

    Brethren, we’ve definitely got our work cut out for us. The spiritual ignorance in our country is appalling! We’re dealing with a similar society that Paul dealt with in Acts 17:16-34, where anything goes, religiously speaking.

    Evangelism is the key component in our fulfilling Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16, and in keeping the Lord’s church alive and vibrant.

     

  • mtmcvb 8:30 pm on December 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , doctrine, university   

    http://www.reporternews.com/news/2009/dec/08/acu-prepares-to-welcome-and-interview-finalists/

    Not sure if this is the kind of news folks want to read. ACU is interviewing President candidates for the school. Notice this quote from the article “Is that (Church of Christ affiliation) something that should be preserved or do the candidates think it is time to move away from that connection?” Pamplin said he wants to know. “Specifically, should the church of Christ membership requirement for board members and faculty members be maintained or not?”

    I believe the school has been going the wrong way for decades. But this is an outright admission that they are officially thinking of dropping the relationship. Yet they also state they want to be the premier Christian University in the nation. That statement tells a great deal.

     

    • Richard Mansel 8:47 pm on December 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Unbelievable. I mean it isn’t surprising from the way they have conducted themselves. But, still, to see it in print in such a blatant repudiation of truth is still staggering. They apparently believe Christians are in denominations, as well. *sigh*

    • Mike Riley 8:49 pm on December 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      About 40 years ago, this question would have not even surfaced among faithful followers of Christ. We can now plainly see what two generations of not strictly adhering to the spiritual principles found in the saving gospel of Christ, is doing to the Lord’s church.

      It’s obvious to me that the leadership at ACU wants churches of Christ to be like the denominations around about them (cf. 1 Samuel 8:1-7). They may not say it outright, but that’s what they are promoting by this statement in the article: “it is time to move away from that connection.”

    • Randal Matheny 9:49 pm on December 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      I emailed Dr. Pamplin and asked him for clarifications about his statements in yesterday’s newspaper report.

      • Randal Matheny 11:43 pm on December 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply

        I already heard back from Dr. Pamplin. I’ve asked him permission to share his clarification in places I haunt on the Internet. Suffice it to say, however, that he does not support the removal of the requirement that board members and faculty be members of the church.

    • Weylan Deaver 10:20 pm on December 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      More evidence that a school should die with its founder?

      • Randal Matheny 12:08 am on December 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply

        I’ve often thought about that, Weylan. And other ministries, as well. Mine, for instance.

    • Kim Pamplin 3:36 pm on December 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      Here is a question sent to me by Emily Peters, the Abilene Reporter-News writer, together with a portion of the exact text that I emailed to her.

      Peters: “What kind of questions might the faculty want to ask incoming presidential finalists?”

      Pamplin: “Some of the questions that faculty members will ask relate to how the candidates perceive ACU’s continued relationship with the churches of Christ. Is that something that should be preserved or do the candidates think it is time to move away from that connection? Specifically, should the church of Christ membership requirement for board members and faculty members be maintained or not?”

      I and many of my colleagues are not encouraging a move away from CofC. However, we want to know what the candidates’ views are because their opinions will greatly affect the future of the university. I’m sure you agree that we absolutely must ask these questions of these candidates.

      mtmcvb: The title of this post, “Must Christian College President be a Christian,” seems to be extended from my comments. However, I believe you will agree that I never made any statement regarding whether or not the current presidential candidates should be members of the church of Christ. In fact, the prospectus for the position is very clear about this requirement.

      Your statement, “But this is an outright admission that they are officially thinking of dropping the relationship,” attaches “official” to my words in the interview. I should clarify that the requirements for full-time faculty and board members to be active members of a church of Christ are set by the board, and only they can make that change. At any rate, I can only speak as a faculty leader. I cannot speak officially for the university.

      Mr. Riley, I can see how my comments might have been misinterpreted, but I can assure you that I absolutely did not mean to imply that I think “it is time to move away from that connection.” I personally believe that the CofC requirement for faculty and board members should be retained. I think we must ask these questions to candidates, and I’m guessing you would ask these questions also if you believe that the CofC relationship is important to maintain.

      Thanks to Mr. Matheny for bringing me into this conversation. I would be happy to continue to discuss my views with you if you like.

      Kim Pamplin
      Chair Elect of the Faculty Senate
      ACU

      • Richard Mansel 7:34 pm on December 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply

        Thank you for your reply Dr. Pamplin, but it fails to solve all of the problems.

        You say that you believe that the next President should be a member of the Church of Christ. That is good. But it by no means resolves the problem. The fact that it is under consideration that the next President does not have to be a member of the Lord’s Church is a serious issue. That it is even under consideration may have serious repercussions.

        It may create a perception in the minds of their students about how they should view the importance of the church. If you want to be one of the premier Christian universities in America and the President isn’t a Christian, then do you not open yourselves up to saying that people outside of the Church are Christians? How is that Biblical?

        There is a much different definition of the Church and of a Christian emerging in the Church and that is very worrisome. This is opening a door that you may not be able to close again.

        • Kim Pamplin 2:01 pm on December 11, 2009 Permalink

          The next president of ACU must be an active member of a church of Christ. This requirement is not under consideration. It is firm. No one has suggested that our next president might not be a member of the Lord’s church.

  • J. Randal Matheny 11:58 pm on December 6, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine,   

    As small congregations, at SJCampos and Taubate, we know one another well, and are close. We don’t want to remain small, but we do want to continue developing that mutual love and fellowship we now have. Our congregations are also strong in the “healthful teaching” of the truth of the gospel.

     

  • J. Randal Matheny 4:31 pm on December 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , doctrine,   

    Any Way I Can 

    My preface — Iran is much in the news these days, so that makes Don Petty’s stories about that country in the 1970s even more interesting. As always, Don draws a moral to the story. This from his latest email to his 70 brothers. Here’s Don …

    Back in 1975 in Iran, I was invited to a weekend retreat by a spokesman for the ESP, the English Speaking Pastors. He laughed lightly and said, “Would you come if we called it the English Speaking Preachers?” (More …)

     

  • J. Randal Matheny 6:13 pm on December 4, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: doctrine, ,   

    Brazilian churches are rapidly heading for a division. Faithful brethren do not have much tolerance for digressive practices. The Internet address for congregations that believe the NT does indeed serve as a pattern for our faith and practice will be http://irmaos.org (irmãos = brethren). We’re justing getting started with this spot.

     

    • Laura 2:11 pm on December 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply

      I am sorry to hear it is happening there. As you are aware, this has been going on in the USA for quite some time.

      • Randal Matheny 2:24 pm on December 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply

        Yep, and they’re bringing it here. Not to mention the influence some of our people get directly from their religious neighbors.

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,083 other followers

%d bloggers like this: