There you have it right out of George Bush’s own lying mouth. After deceiving evangelicals for over 8 years George Bush finally admits that he does actually believe the Christian faith that he has claimed over all these years. You cannot believe the Bible is not true and be a Christian. The Bible is the very foundation of the Christian faith. Bush in this article claims his faith is founded on the higher power that delivered him from alcohol. God to him is just some universal crutch. Notice also that Bush thinks that other religious beliefs pray to the same God. He says he thinks God sent a son. That is not the same as believing that God sent His only begotten Son or what He sent that Son to accomplish for the salvation of the world. Bush believes in Universalism not Christianity, just like Obama and Tony Blair. In fact, there is not an ounce of Christian faith in any of them. I mention Tony Blair because he may soon become the first President of the EU and he also recently started a interfaith foundation for a one world religion.
Now, is it any wonder why George Bush played such a large role in bringing the United States to the brink of destruction? Any wonder why 9/11 took place shortly after this hypocrite took office, why the war in Iraq and why it went badly, why the economic collapse and why the government has moved into full fledged socialism? God’s hand was not on George Bush to proper this nation. Neither will it be on Obama unless Obama truly changes and becomes a Christian. That is not likely because God has given this nation what the people deserve.
George Bush, Barack Obama and Tony Blair have said that they see fundamental Christians as a danger to world peace. These people talk of God but they deny the only Creator revealed in the Bible with their own words. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, false prophets speaking in the name of a God they do not know. They are deadly enemies of true Christians. Do not be deceived.
Bush Says Creation ‘Not Incompatible’ With Evolution – FOXNews.com Transition Tracker
Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.
“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,”‘ Bush said.
“It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life,” he said. “All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. … I was a one-step program guy.”
The president also said that he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs.
I find this hard to believe. It’s been well-documented that Bush was a devout Christian and a man of prayer. I remember seeing in the debates during his first run for President, he said, “Jesus is his savior”. And he didn’t blink when he said it either. However it does seem he changed during his second term. His second term was one where he made many decisions that left his base wondering what the heck is going on, even to the point of wanting him impeached.
Who knows, maybe he’s angry at God. He’s probably had one of the toughest presidencies – ever, bar none. So many disasters, so many life or death scenarios to handle, so many people ridiculing him 24/7, how could that not change a man? Perhaps some of his advisers steered him on a bad path, if it happens with regular Joe’s, couldn’t it happen with the President too? I once heard that during WWII, the Swedes were a Christian nation and prayed that Hitler wouldn’t invade, yet he did. And since then, their faith seems to have fizzled out.
True Christians do not lose their faith because of hard times and persecution. Hard times and persecution separates out the great pretenders.
Christians in the U.S. pray that the U.S. will not go down the tubes as well but why would they believe that God would bless an America that has rejected Him? No. Those prayers will not be answered positively unless the greater nation repents. Same with why the Swedes, they did not have their prayers answered because God had taken his hand off the nation.
Some Christians think you get what you pray for. No you don’t. You only get what you pray for that is in God’s will. If your praying out of His will, do not expect your own desires to be fulfilled.
Why doesn’t this surprise me anymore? 🙄 Bush is in bed with Rick Warren, the Pope of the modern-day Laodicean church. Nothing surprises me anymore.
I do agree with Open Your Eyes that a lot seems to have changed during his second term. I do believe even true Christians can get angry at God and that they can err but if they are saved they eventually will return to God and they don’t lose their salvation.
Whether Bush is just straying or simply has never been saved, I don’t know. I guess time will tell? In any case he doesn’t show much soundness in his beliefs, especially because of his belief in universalism, that all who believe in God / god(s) pray to the same Being / being(s). If he truly beliefs that there are several paths to salvation, then he is not a Christian.
The idea that there are several paths to God is a compelling one. It’s hard to voice that there’s only one way by which men are saved because of multi-culturalism and diversity. Before 1965’s Immigration Act, America was a Christian nation for the most part. Other religious beliefs weren’t mainstreamed. But since 1965 with full out introduction and mainstreaming of other religions due to the influx of immigrants, this all changed.
Also, the first time I heard the idea that there are several paths to God and that there “couldn’t be a Hell” created by a loving God was by America’s favorite talk show host, who by the way, helped Obama win. It’s a persuasive point of view. When someone asks you, how can a loving God send a loving, caring, good person who’s a XXX to Hell when they die?
I think Bush changed in the second term because he knew that he no longer had to get the votes of Evangelicals and Conservatives. At that time his Universalism comes up, along with his flip flop on Iran, his amnesty for illegals and now his full fledged socialism. By the way, George Bush does believe that there are many paths to salvation and he thinks Allah is God.
A loving God can send loving, caring, good persons to hell because there really are no loving, caring, good persons on this earth. All are infected with sin in God’s eyes. It is like saying a leper can be clean. No, for a leaper to be declared clean he must first go to the High Priest (Jesus) and the High Priest will declare you clean because of His own sacrifice.
@Open Your Eyes: It’s never been very persuasive in my opinion. If God is loving and good he is also just. We inflict punishment and God’s wrath upon ourselves. I think only short-sighted people and those who believe in the goodness of mankind would fall for Oprah’s deceptive statements. We have a whole lifetime to turn to God and repent. But if we keep telling Him to go to hell by refusing to follow God, we are the ones who deserve hell. Why should God reward those who have mocked Him their entire lives by granting them eternal life and heaven after they died? Doesn’t make sense to me. But again, I’m sure it does to short-sighted people that are interested in celebrity gossip and stuff like that.
Not only that, God showed us the way to Salvation by sending His Son and our Creator. If people insist on rejecting that truth, in the final analysis, they themselves are choosing eternal separation from God (Hell – The Lake of Fire). God is not going to force Himself on fallen angels or men. They have already corrupted His creation and caused great suffering. Those that reject God as manifested in Jesus Christ will certainly never dwell in the new creation so they can just corrupt it again.
Open your eyes,
I cannot comment too much on Oprah, because I avoid her show at all costs. But I am concerned that you may be buying into the “how can a loving God send anyone to hell”? argument. I am going to explain a personal story that affected my family. My father was a heavy drinker and smoker for most of his life. I am the only Christian in my family who dealt with this from an eternal perspective. Despite my father’s flaws, I still loved him dearly, and watching my dad suffer as the cancer spread into his bones (an extremely painful condition) was beyond even my comprehension to bear. One day my mother asked me how could a loving God do this to my Dad. I told her that it was not God who did this, but it was Dad’s choice to not take better care of his health, and in fact, actively destroy it. But I further explained to her that God gives us rules (not unlike parents) not to crimp our lifestyles or spoil our fun, but because he loves us. Then I asked my mom that when she taught us to look both ways before we cross the street, and if we had not obeyed and been hit by a car, would she rejoice in the fact that she was right? Of course not. Any parent that asks their children to follow rules that are what is best for them, and could possibly kill them, would be devastated to see their children harmed. Since God is the ultimate perfect parent, I believe that this is exactly how he sees us when we chose of our own free will (that he gave us, by the way) to do as we wish, and even reject him and his words all together. His heart breaks at all that are lost, but ultimately it is our choice. And just as there is much rejoicing in heaven when a soul is redeemed through the blood if Christ, I believe there is sorrow in heaven for every soul who rejects the gift of salvation and is condemned to hell.
(I cannot say for sure if my father ever was saved before he died, and I can assure you that weighs on my heart. Yesterday marked the third anniversary of his death.)
God’s mercy is evidenced in the gift of Salvation offered through His Son Jesus Christ. When a person accepts this gift, they are acknowledging that no matter how “good” they think they are, that “goodness” is nothing compared to God’s perfect holiness. (Paul compared it to filthy rags). All a person needs to do to is accept Jesus’ substitute punishment for their sin. This is grace, unearned and undeserved, and is a perfect example of a loving God.
God gave us guidelines through his Word as to what is required of all of us, and each of us have fallen short. Disobedience to God is sin, and the penalty for sin is death and eternal separation from God. Like Don said, if we chose to reject God’s word, and the gift of Salvation offered through His Son Jesus, then we are sentenced to hell by our own choice.
Many paths to God may be compelling, but God’s word is clear.
As for Bush, I cannot speak for him, but I do know a person can and will deceive to gain their objectives. But it is also possible that he has become disillusioned and perhaps disconnected from his faith. He will remain in my prayers. And it also reminds me personally to stand firm in my faith because although I am not sure if you can lose salvation (Don, your help here would be appreciated) clearly many will be deceived. Isn’t there a bible verse that specifically speaks to the people who do works in his (Jesus’?) name and will have him say I do not know you?
It’s past my bedtime, but I will check back in the am.
God Bless!
Betty
Betty the passage you are looking for is.
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
In full context of the passage it is talking about false prophets not Christian believers.
I think it would be helpful to you if your downloaded a free Bible search software. There are a couple of them available on the internet.
To answer your question about the possibility of losing your salvation. Christianity is divided on that issue. The Bible only teaches eternal salvation to the believer. If a person is a unbeliever he certainly is not saved. The issue then becomes, can a person who once believed stop believing? Some say yes and some say no but what is really important to me and should be important to every true believer is that the Bible teaches you cannot be lost if you believe (trust – have faith) in Jesus Christ. That is all the blessed assurance that any true believer really needs.
Those who wish to know why salvation comes through believing in God’s Son might want to read my following paper.
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/How%20one%20is%20saved.htm
Let’s say Christ died for your sins and suppose for a moment that you truly believe in Him and that you have truly been saved. A few years later, you get weary, you are disapointed at the church, and yes you even stray and you’re in a spiritual crisis. Let’s say at that point you really do lose your salvation. Then my conclusion is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was insufficient. And that surely cannot be the case. I don’t think it makes any sense to believe that you can lose your salvation and the indwelling of the Spirit if you have been predestined to receive the gift of faith and salvation in God. That you were chosen before the foundations of the earth to be part of God’s kingdom. If it were true that God saved you and you had eternal life but then somehow you can again lose it, then then the Gospel is useless and has no power to me. Faith is a gift of God, the repentance that follows is the work of the Spirit who convinces man of sin. Why would God go through all this if He knew beforehand you’d just abandon Him a few years later and lose your salvation? I believe the truth of the matter is that either you’re saved and a true believer or you have not ever been truly saved and hence not ever truly been a believer. Ultimately only God knows. That’s how I see it.
That is the once saved always saved position and it sounds perfectly logical from a Calvinist point of view. However, many in Christianity point out the scriptures that talk about an abiding faith and enduring to the end. Thus they believe if you stop believing you are no longer saved. The real question as you point out is how can a true Christian stop believing?
Many have claimed to have actually done so but you would say they never believed in the first place. So what then is departing from the faith that is talked about in scriptures and what is the great Apostasy and what is embracing doctrines of demons in the last days if no one departs from the faith? Who are the seeds on rocky ground who hear, believe but shrink away when trouble comes? What about the letters to the Churches in Revelation, or the sure scripture that says if you deny Me before men I will deny you before the Father and many other such arguments?.
I think the safe position to take is that eternal security is guaranteed for the believer. What else do real believers need to know to have eternal security anyway? Once saved always saved doctrine too often presumes they know when a person was saved or they presume that a believer can live like a unbeliever and still be secure that they are saved. It seems to me the Bible refutes that presumption. Perhaps not because saved people can actually be lost but perhaps God really does not want His Church to be presumptuous.
This is funny because I do not believe in what Evangelicals have dubbed “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine at all. I have seen these misconceptions so many times and it rather irritates me. This is not what Perseverance of the Saints stands for. Also, it’s rather ironic they tend not to be calvinists at all yet they apparently claim to believe in this calvinist principle despite the fact that they have twisted it to such a degree that it no longer represents its true nature and thus isn’t Calvinist teaching anymore. I’m not saying you have, Don. I’m talking in general here and addressing this to anyone. I think what they believe in is the doctrine of Free Grace, and that is not calvinistic.
What they really have come to mean by their view of eternal security is that once you’ve been saved you can continue sinning and still boast that you’re saved by grace and through faith. That you are saved no matter what you do. Well, I got news for them. That is the opposite of what I believe and that is not what Calvin taught either. The only reason they call it this way is because they don’t understand or misrepresent the calvinist interpretation of this issue and because they rip Perseverance of the Saints out of its context, that is they disregard its relations to the other points of calvinism such as Irresistable Grace and Unconditional Election.
I believe if man is truly predestined and saved by God, then he remains in Christ because we our old selves have died and been ressurected in Christ upon salvation. We are new creations. How could we revert to being the old creation? Can we die as new creations in Christ while we have been promised eternal life? I didn’t think so. God does not forsake the people who are among His elect as His sacrifice was for meant for them in the first place. The Spirit reprimands a person who’s sinning and going astray. Man cannot resist God’s calling and even if he goes astray and sins, he will be called to repentance. But he cannot lose his salvation through committing sin. That would lead to a salvation through works theology. Those who sin and go astray can still be saved. Those in outright apostasy were never saved.
The Puritans were “hardcore” calvinists and yet they examined themselves each day to look at their lives. They did so because the Bible urges us to do so. They questioned their lifestyles to examine whether they’re actually showing the signs of being saved and transformed through the image of Christ and thus being among the elect at all. Also, as mere human beings we are unable to know whether a person is predestined by God. One person may be saved at age 14 and the other man may seem unelected at all but may be saved at a far later age. So we can’t tell, only God knows. The Puritans didn’t tell themselves, what the heck, I’m saved, so I can do whatever I want to. Or, hey, I’m saved, I’m among the elect, you’re not ! No, that is not calvinism, that is not Christianity. That is a deceptive doctrine of demons and the product of people who don’t understand the doctrines of grace. I would have no problem to agree to disagree with a non-calvinist at all, but I do have a problem when some appropriate themselves calvinist principles that they also go on to misrepresent.
Sorry this has gotten rather off-topic but I had to get this off my chest.
By the way, I believe there’s the visible church and the invisible church. The visible church may be in apostasy but never the true Church, the invisible Church, which is all those who have truly been saved and are part of God’s heavenly Kingdom. For those interested in the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, here’s a thorough explanation on this doctrine here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.vi.html . And there are lots of other sites out there. Maybe this is not that off-topic at all since the topic is about salvation and apostasy/false prophets, though I’m afraid it’s beyond the scope of this blog to discuss all of it.
This guy has done a far better job at explaining the calvinist position than I ever could: http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2006/02/11/once-saved-always-saved/. (Which means I’ll shut up… for now 😆 )
Nasrani said “I believe if man is truly predestined and saved by God, then he remains in Christ because we our old selves have died and been ressurected in Christ upon salvation. We are new creations. How could we revert to being the old creation? Can we die as new creations in Christ while we have been promised eternal life? I didn’t think so. God does not forsake the people who are among His elect as His sacrifice was for meant for them in the first place. The Spirit reprimands a person who’s sinning and going astray. Man cannot resist God’s calling and even if he goes astray and sins, he will be called to repentance. But he cannot lose his salvation through committing sin. That would lead to a salvation through works theology. Those who sin and go astray can still be saved. Those in outright apostasy were never saved.”
I believe I understand your argument but what I quoted from you “is” some of the Calvinist argument for eternal security and I am not saying it is wrong. Those that oppose this argument would still say you could lose your salvation if you choose to reject Jesus. In other words, they would say salvation and remaining in the Body of Christ depends on man’s choice to believe or not to believe in Jesus. They believe that man has “free will” to believe where Calvinists would say that man does not. They say we are predestined to believe. Those that oppose this Calvinist belief would say if you can be born into Christ by belief you can also be removed from the Body by unbelief and they give plenty of examples from scripture often using Israel.
But then a Calvinist would reply that if you repent and believe first this is a works theology because you had to do something to get saved. But a non Calvinist would reply that repenting and believing are not works of the flesh at all.
Believe me, what I quoted is only one percent of the arguments. This whole argument of what comes first the chicken or the egg is threatening to split the Young Life Christian Youth Movement today over the order of Salvation.
That is why I say the safe position to take is that eternal security is guaranteed to the believer and that to me is the position I take. Because in the final analysis, there is no way to know if a person who departed from the faith once believed and stopped believing or if the person never truly believed in the first place anyway. Only God knows. So why lose sleep and split movements over doctrinal hypotheticals? The truth we can be absolutely certain of from scripture is that if you believe you will be saved and if you do not believe you will not be saved.
By the way, I read the link. That might be his Calvinist position but that is not the position of most Calvinists. This guy’s theology makes it impossible to know if you are saved since you only find out after you persevered until the end and are dead. It is much like the Catholics. I do not buy his doctrine at all. He mentions confessing Christians departing from the faith because they were not of the elect. Give me a break!
This goes back a few posts:
When someone asks me how a loving God can send a person to hell for all eternity, I say he doesn’t. People in their blind, hard-heartedness rebellion against the Creator choose to go to hell. If one has no interest in a relationship with God in this life, why would they want to spend eternity with him?
Hell is God’s way of saying to the one who doesn’t want to be saved, “Here, have your way.”
I see your point and I know there are many counter arguments. The problem is many people in this argument tend to overemphasize the issue of predestination to the point it may seem like a chicken vs egg debate. It really should not be. I believe only one view can be correct, and I have come to believe quite strongly that calvinism is, at the very least, closest to what the Good News of Christ really is. To me the knowledge that God has predestined me along with so many others for eternal life and the forgiveness of my sins and all while I never merited it and would never have accepted it out of my own will – that’s simply amazing. The assurance that I cannot lose salvation despite my continued shortcomings and struggles in life due to the presence of your old nature, is great comfort. This is not an excuse to say let’s sin some more as the modern-day “once saved always saved” false doctrine would lead to, but an encouragement to persevere, to live through the Spirit and be fruitful out of gratitude to God and to confirm my election (which no one should ever boast about).
I refuse to accept Arminianism because I believe my salvation is due to God alone and not thanks to any of my works or my own choice because I am depraved by nature and sinful and therefore not able to live as Christ wants me to. One is saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ, which as the Bible states is a gift from God. The Spirit convinces man of sin and leads one to repentance and salvation. True faith produces fruit through the Spirit that lives in man and sanctifies him. God calls us to perseverance and to work out our salvation, not to work FOR our salvation. Those that fall from the faith in times of hardship and persecution only show they professed faith but did not *possess* God-given faith (as the author of the article I linked to said) and therefore not the Spirit either.
I used to believe in the Arminian view that you can reject Christ as your personal Savior and God’s gift of faith and grace out of free will, although I wasn’t aware at that time that this was my position and I hardly knew anything about these issues. I still respect those who hold on to that since I was lead to profess faith in Christ through a person who is of that persuasion. But I can no longer in any way endorse this view because in reality it can lead to a different gospel. I don’t think this is a useless debate because this is about one’s salvation. If one says “once saved always saved” even if you keep sinning, and the other says true faith produces fruits and perseverance [and a number of people were predestined to salvation] (as I believe), and the next one says you can fall from grace and still end up in hell, or you have to adhere to all the rites and sacraments of the Holy [fill in] Church and stuff like that, well, then this does seem like an issue that is well worth studying. Which of these gospels shall we teach then?
I understand the point you’re making Don, and I sure do agree it’s better to keep to the basics (faith and repentance). But when people come up with questions about security, faith, election and so on – what are you supposed to tell them? I believe we need consistent doctrine. There’s only one true Gospel of Christ, not several. Of course we may make too much of an issue out of some things but that doesn’t mean all these views are incorrect.
PS: where did he wrote Christians departing from the faith b/c they’re not the elect. I believe what he was saying is that those were professing Christians. We don’t know who exactly is elected and who isn’t so I don’t think he’s actually saying that. A true Christian would be one of the elect by definition.
Nasrani, You say there is only one truth as if either Calvinist or Arminian theology had it all? I like what Chuck Missler says “they both are correct in what they affirm and they both are wrong in what they deny”. Both views are taught in scripture and a scholar in either can demolish the arguments of the other from their own interpretation of the scriptures. They both can use the very same scriptures but put opposite meanings on them. It is not as cut and dry as you might think and that it is the reason it is a theological position that divides Christianity.
I argued against Calvinism for awhile even though I was just playing the devils advocate and here is my own conclusion from all that. Calvinism is the best intellectual biblical argument that man can come up with, with his own limited mind. Calvinism comes from the view that God being sovereign can and does do whatever He pleases and only the elect that were predestined by Him to be saved will be saved. All the rest are vessels of wrath made by Him to be predestined for eternal destruction. They could believe and be saved but being dead in sins they will not and thus have no choice in the matter.
Calvinism does not fail on intellectual grounds it is a very well thought out biblical theology that has a consistent argument for everything. That is why a true Calvinist would say that you have to believe in all five points of Calvinism or you are not a Calvinist at all. Because if one point is not true then in any final analysis the whole theology fails. So that is why any true Calvinist will defend each point to the death. Now in reality most in Christianity only agree with two to four points of Calvinism. Most baptist leaders call themselves 3 point Calvinists. But to a true Calvinist that position is laughable. There is no such animal.
Arminian theology on the other hand is more of a heart argument based on the nature of Jesus as displayed in His sojourn on earth, rather than a intellectual systematic theology. They see more of a loving God in Jesus who came to save all mankind and not just a God reveling Himself to His created Elect and making a display to the angels. The Calvinist God created most people with no real opportunity to be saved. They might deny that but if man is dead in sin and cannot hear to be saved unless you are elected by the Spirit to hear, this is exactly what they are saying.
A good Calvinist theologian can usually demolish the inconsistencies of Arminian theology because as I said Calvinism is the best head knowledge theology ever conceived but even in doing so it does not adequately answer the loving nature of our Savior as displayed in His life on earth. At least not to me and others who are not five point Calvinists. Did Jesus come to whomsoever will believe or just to pre-choosen elect?.
As I said, I do not take a firm position in either theology because I see truth in what both affirm and error in what they deny. I cannot fully explain that statement either but I know it to be true. Man does not have the mental capability and does not live in enough dimensions to be able to understand the mind of God. How God can be totally sovereign and still allow man to have free will choice to believe only God knows. These issues will not be resolved before the second coming the points have already been argued for hundreds of years to know avail.
Dave Hunt was one of the latest to attack Calvinism in a book called “What kind of Love is This” James White of The Dividing Line broadcast then wrote a book demolishing Dave Hunts arguments. Then they had some debates on White’s broadcast and they wrote a joint book with points and counterpoints. You know what? Nothing at all was resolved. Those who are Arminian by persecution think that Dave Hunt won the debates. Calvinists obviously thought James White won. Someone who is impartial probably would think that White won as well because he is a better debater and as I said it is the best thought out consistent theology man can think up while those who are not five point Calvinists take various views on the same issues.
I think God laughs at all this presumption about Him that we make with our limited minds. It is like pots trying to figure out the nature of the potter when they are sitting on a shelf looking at the shadow of the potters head.
In some ways the theology reflects the people who hold it. I hope people do not think I am a racist when I say this but as a broad generalization I think those who hold to five point Calvinism tend to come from very intelligent ethnics who often are people who think with their heads and come across as cool by nature. Therefore the God in their theology appears to aloof, authoritative and even cold. They have their Christian doctrine all figured out for themselves but they seem to be a little short in the heart area.
Arminianism on the other hand, tends to be more popular with ethnics that are not quite as intellectual. These people tend to think more with their hearts. They are often very warm people by nature and some have a strong personal relationship with Jesus Christ but they do not know theology as good as their cooler Calvinist brothers.
I am sure that statement got me in trouble
Having said all that, there are also those like on the link that try to explain their theology to answer some of the arguments against their position but in doing so they just raise additional arguments. One could spend years rehashing all the positions that have already been presented by both sides and all you will accomplish is a huge waste of your time. This is a major issue in the Church but it has little to do with one’s own salvation. So I suggest anyone who really cares be convinced in their own mind and just more forward.
Yeah, I see what you mean Don. It’s true that the whole issue of predestination is mind-bogling because as mere human beings our logic and perception of this world seems to fall apart when we take the position of God’s election to the extreme.
I must admit I still have my doubts about certain Calvinist positions and I’m probably more of an Armyralidst than a 5-point calvinist. I have read intelligent rebuttals of calvinism, and intelligent articles (including that of Missler) saying both can be basically correct or wrong depending on how you look at it. Perhaps there is a truly Biblical middle ground? I don’t know.
One of the things I find difficult about calvinism is the issue of human responsivenes.. Does man not have any responsiblity at all if it’s all up to God? Doesn’t he have a conscious? Also, there are those who don’t believe in inherited sin (e.g. Orthodox church) so if that is true the Total Depravity point would fall. Anyway, these are all issues that I would like to further learn about but in the meantime I know I am saved and I’m not doubtful about it. I do want to learn more about this because I like to be able to look at things more in perspective and understand the Gospel not only for myself but also in witnessing to others. I guess more than reading about different theologies it’ll be up to me – and all of us – to read the Word itself in these matters.
I don’t know what you’re saying calvinists vs arminians is true. It could be but the way I look at this is that there can only be one Gospel. So either calvinism or arminism is ultimately correct, OR both are imperfect – which is highly likely, I admit.
The way I see it is that calvinism looks at it more from a godly point of view and the arminian more from a human point of view. Basically, can you say you “accepted” Christ and “repented” ? If so, doesn’t that imply you can also “reject” Christ or choose not to repent? From an arminian point of view that would make sense, but from a calvinist point of view you might say you accepted Christ but it was due to God’s will for you. You can go on like this for ages.
One thing I think we ought not to forget. Election is real and so is predestination, even Arminius believed in these things. Faith is a gift of God, no matter whether you’re arminian or calvinist. In the end, no matter how you look at it, you can do nothing to earn true faith and to be justified because we would be nowhere if it weren’t for Christ’s sacrifice. So whatever your position, only God is worthy of our praise.
By the way, I was just thinking… If Calvinists are cool, does that mean Arminians are uncool?
😆
If being neither hot nor cold in the letter to Laodicea means not being Calvinist or Arminian all three point Calvinists are in big trouble 😎
How are these people who are involved in “The Secret” and using the “law of attraction” achieving what appear to be manifestations of what they’ve visualized/attracted? From the stuff I’ve seen of it, there’s no real deity involved, they just believe it’s a law of the universe, like the law of gravity.
(I remember about 10 years ago, reading a Christian book that said you should not “visualize” or imagine things to happen. Previously before reading that, I just naturally would visualize myself performing well in various sports and visualizing a successful performance and expecting it and it dramatically helped. And it helped me to be more amibitious with school and planning for the future, etc. But after reading that bit about “not visualizing” I sank into a mire where I wasn’t gainfully employed, our old home was an embarrassment, our marriage had constant fights, my health wasn’t very good, etc. All of the successful people in sales, sports, art, project management, IT, etc. visualize a positive outcome they want achieved and expect it to happen and work to fulfill it.)
Then I look at the so-called “name it and claim it” Christian movement. Yeah, some of it turns me off with the heavy prosperity preaching and I’m not so sure I buy into the giving money seeds idea because I gave a ton of cash when I couldn’t afford it hoping for big money breakthroughs and I never made $400,000 or anything near that. Though my standard of living has certainly improved from the embarrassment it used to be. It does certainly seem there’s validity to it because the Scripture says we’re created in the image of God, and that we are God’s children, and we know that God spoke creation into existence.
In Mark 11:23-25 Jesus said in the KJV, “He shall have whatsoever he saith.” Or in the NIV, “Whatsoever things you pray for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them.” The LORD also says in that chapter that what He did to the fig tree, you can do too.
And the LORD would repeatedly say in the Gospels, “Be it unto you according to your faith” and “Go, your faith has healed you.” That plus, “Whatsoever things you pray for, BELIEVE that you receive them, and you shall have them.” Doesn’t this indicate we have to develop our faith to the point where we can believe God can move in something?
You look at the Book of Acts, and it appears the Apostles basicly declare what they want to happen when praying for a sick person.
Just like anything else, I would think, this is tempered with, what you pray for must be in the will of God. So could it be that this principle of speaking things into existence must be in line with the will of God to happen?
When you review the Scriptures you’ll see that before Christ had a big meeting where people were healed and delivered, He’d usually spend the previous night in prayer.
So I guess my point in saying all this is, I think the idea of declaring the WORD over your life, family, nation, etc. is probably valid. However, I don’t like the hype I see with the Secret and similar books and videos. Why does this method of praying that Jesus spoke of seem to work for non-believers too? After all, if all it took was, “Dear Heavenly Father, please help XXX with XXX.” then the world would be a lot better place. Stats show about 80% of the nation prays. Seems like even with a nation that’s 10% Christian, with God on their side and the tool of prayer, there should be a lot more headway made. How can non-believers who don’t have a God that answers their prayers stand in the way of believers? I wonder if the Church in general doesn’t really know how to pray and I have to admit, I’ve gotten a bit confused too because what you see in OT is different from ACTS.
What say you?
@ Don: 😆
@ Open Your Eyes, I believe we should always pray and think as Jesus did: “Yet not as I will, but as you will'” (Matthew 26:39) God doesn’t have to listen to us, He’s sovereign. Lots of people think they can bend God’s will through the Spirit but the Spirit is God and He cannot sin against Himself. God knew us from before the foundations of earth and He doesn’t change. I think the Bible tells us to conform to GOd’s will and to be transformed through the image of Christ. We ought to be a radition of Christ. We also ought to be humble. God will exalt the humble and low. But you are not truly humbling yourself if all you’re really interested in is the hope that it will give you wordly rewards. That is not true humbleness. True humility is a fruit of the Spirit. Anyway, those are some thoughts that came up…
I should add, true humility is a fruit of the Spirit in that it seeks to exalt and honor God and doesn’t have personal gain in mind at all. Hope that clarifies.
Open your eyes,
I am not going to comment on the first part of your statement since I think you basically came to the conclusions.
Your final paragraph re-quoted below begs questions.
“So I guess my point in saying all this is, I think the idea of declaring the WORD over your life, family, nation, etc. is probably valid. However, I don’t like the hype I see with the Secret and similar books and videos. Why does this method of praying that Jesus spoke of seem to work for non-believers too? After all, if all it took was, “Dear Heavenly Father, please help XXX with XXX.” then the world would be a lot better place. Stats show about 80% of the nation prays. Seems like even with a nation that’s 10% Christian, with God on their side and the tool of prayer, there should be a lot more headway made. How can non-believers who don’t have a God that answers their prayers stand in the way of believers? I wonder if the Church in general doesn’t really know how to pray and I have to admit, I’ve gotten a bit confused too because what you see in OT is different from ACTS”
My answer is the method that Jesus gave for praying was given in what is commonly called “The Lord’s Prayer”. Yes we are to expect what we pray for because we are suppose to pray for what we know is in God’s will. “The Lord’s prayer” example says to pray “Thy will be done” “give us this day” (what we need for today to live on). It does not say to visualize things into existence or to pray for worldly success.
If people on earth have earthly success it is earthly it does not mean that God is answering their prayers. Remember that Satan was given all authority to give what he wants to people on this earth. The rich, powerful and the successful on this earth generally are not the godly they are those that are serving the God of this world – Satan.
There also is nothing wrong with thinking positive. Why would anyone expect any success in life if they never thought they would succeed at what they try? Would a bird fly if it thought it would fall to the ground. Would a cat jump off a fence if it thought it would not land on its feet? God designed humans to work and create success for himself and for others. That is not the same as believing that you can think good things into existence like in “The Secret”.
The female Geru (Oprah) of “The Secret” cannot even think the fat off of her own body. If she really wants to lose weight she will have to physically work at it. Good things on earth do not come about by those visualizing good things. They come about from people who do good things.
You make some basic wrong assumptions when you say 10 percent that believe and pray should make more headway. What makes you think that these ten percent are praying for the same thing or even praying in God’s will? If it is not God’s will for this nation to prosper anymore because of her sins, why would God answer the prayers of those who pray to presume that He should bless such a nation? They ought to pray that God will provide for them and their family not that God would bless a nation that might be under His judgment.
Also, who says we do not have great influence with God? The only thing that is keeping this world from self destruction is God’s people on earth. When they are removed this world will begin its self destruction. Further, the spiritual warfare might not be visible to you or even understandable but it is certainly going on. God is interested in bringing His people to spiritual maturity not worldly success and prosperity unless this was His plan for them to be good stewards. So set your mind on heavenly riches because all the rest will certainly soon pass away. Your Father already knows what you need on this earth so why pray as if He does not? Therefore, the just shall live by faith.
Like I said, Jesus gave us the prime example of how to pray in the “Lords Prayer”, use that format when praying and no Christian will go wrong in prayer. Expect to manipulate God or spirits by your words, thoughts or secret techniques and you are really into witchcraft.
It’s been a few months since anyone has commented on here, but I’ve only just read it and it’s interesting to me, because for the last couple of years, I have had a disagreement with an inlaw about George Bush and him being born again.
People are so quick to believe a person is saved, just because they say they are.
I knew he wasn’t saved, but my inlaw wouldn’t have it. It’s not her fault though as she only knows what she sees on the news and does’nt read about what people have said about Christianity.
When I was first saved, I had to be taught that you could lose your savation, it did not come naturally, and this is because it is a lie.
The Bible teaches security of the believer, we couldn’t do anything to save ourselves and we can’t do anything to lose what God has freely given us.
I feel so sorry for people who are in churches that teach them that they can lose their savation and twist the Scriptures that are not speaking about the true believer. How can they have joy in their savation, when they are taught such lies. Can a person who believes you can lose your savation, be truly saved? I don’t know, maybe they just need to get away from the people that are saying that what the Lord Jesus Christ has done is not good enough.
”These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
believe on the name of the Son of God.’ 1 John 5:13.
“He that BELIEVETH on the Son hath everlasting life:. . .” John 3:36.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9.
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. . . For by one offering he hath PERFECTED FOR EVER them that are sanctified.” Hebrews 10:10-14.
“And The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and WILL PRESERVE ME unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” 2 Timothy 4:18.
Love in Christ, Rachel.
Salvation comes by one’s belief and trust in the work of Jesus Christ. Those that say a person who once believed can decide to reject the Lord can build a case for their view from scripture. The “you cannot lose your salvation people” will say the person who rejected Jesus was not really saved. It all really becomes a chicken or egg argument. I like to stay on safe ground and say that the scripture guarantees salvation for the believer. It does not guarantee salvation to those who do not believe or even claim they no longer believe. I also think that a Christian should know if they are saved or not but there is a lot of bad teaching that is confusing believers on this issue.
They cannot build a case using Scripture, they twist Scripture. The Scriptures they are using are not talking about true born again believers. The catholic church use Scriptures to teach works based salvation, but we all know that works don’t save. There are many Scriptures that teach security of the believer and Scripture does not contradict itself. It’s simply a lack of understanding of Scripture and I would say to any born again believer that is reading this and holds to this bad teaching, not to worry, if you truly believe that Jesus Christ died for you personally, you don’t need to worry about the Scriptures you don’t understand, just fully lean on Christ and ask him to reveal to you the true meaning of the Scriptures that appear to teach loss of salvation.
If anyone is reading this and you are not saved, salvation is simple, the Lord Jesus Christ has done it all and you can’t do anything to get to heaven. All you need to realise is that you are a lost, guilty and hell deserving sinner, but you don’t have to go to hell, the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered, bled and died for YOU, all you have to do is trust that what he did at calvary was enough to save you. He is the sinless, spotless Lamb of God and the only one who can save you. Completely trust that and you have salvation, it’s that simple. The moment you believe, you will receive the Holy Spirit and are sealed by him.
Are you theologian in chief? Or did you misunderstand what I just said or repeating what a “once said always saved” teacher told you about them twisting scriptures? I have heard every aspect of both arguments and the arguments come from learned Christian scholars who study the scriptures. I am telling you that both can build a strong case for what they believe and they are not doing it by twisting scriptures.
I clearly said the scriptures teach the eternal security of the believer but that is not the controversy. The controversy is can someone who once was a believer have the free will to choose to reject Christ and salvation. Eternal salvation people will say they never believed and the “you can lose you salvation crowd” will say they once believed but they freely choose to now reject Christ and they will quote Hebrews and other passages.
I am not saying they are correct but if it was so easy a problem to resolve through the scriptures even evangelical Christianity would not be divided on this issue. I say the only safe ground is to say that the scripture promises eternal security to the believer. If a person knows that they are a believer they can be assured that they have eternal security.
The rest of what you said I agree with.
The word’s scholar and theologian don’t impress me in the slightest. Both sets of ”learned scholars” cant be right.
We are given the Holy Spirit to teach us all thing’s through the word of God and although some are gifted as teachers, some have taken it upon themselves to teach and they are not Spirit led at all.
A person who is saved is being kept by God himself.
Can’t you see what you are saying, you say you believe the eternal security of the believer and then you say can a believer choose to reject Christ, therefore being lost and not eternally secure after all.
I have read both sides of the argument too, over and over again and I have learned that the Scriptures used to teach that a believer can be lost are teaching something else entirely.
Where is your reading comprehension?
I never said both sets of scholars are correct. I said that they both can present valid arguments for their positions from scripture. You seem to think that those who see anything differently than you are twisting the scriptures. That is not the case and by saying that you become a false accuser of the brethren.
If you think you got the Holy Spirit and now can properly discern all scripture you are very naive and absolutely wrong. The scriptures say that God gave the church teachers for the equipping of the saints. I suggest that you learn from them.
Again, where is your reading comprehension? I put in bold a number of times that I believe in the eternal security of the believer. I never said a believer can be lost.
There is a difference between “once saved always saved theology” and the belief in eternal security for the believer. But you apparently think they are the same thing. They are not. One theology is presumption the other is absolute truth. I will say again, if people want to be on solid ground they will take the position of eternal security for the believer.
I would have to agree with Rachel on this. My position is that if a person can lose his salvation then personal works become the criteria of salvation rather than faith. Man became corrupt and so did his ability to choose between good and evil. We would not be capable of truly believing and trusting in Christ as our Savior if He didn’t draw us to Him and if the Holy Spirit did not first convince us of sin. It would seem that a person who renounces his supposedly God-given faith was never convinced in the first place but was drawn more by the spur of the moment.
I think this is what the parable of the sower is about. Some hear it and are very enthusiastic but they lose their faith in times of hardship because their faith had no roots. Those who have heard and do God’s word are truly saved and have received God’s gift of Faith because we wouldn’t be capable of doing God’s Word (good works that please God) if it weren’t for the Spirit in us. And obviously only a true believer has the Spirit.
Divine faith is not merely the knowledge of Christ but the conviction that He is God and the only way to salvation and to obtain His grace and eternal life. It is a gift of God because faith by our own efforts would be shaky and we would never have any assurance of eternal life. That is why God seals a saved person with the Spirit. We become His people, His “property” and surely God won’t forsake what He died and paid for? Those who are truly saved will persevere to the end. If not, that would lead me to conclude that Jesus’ sacrifice was insufficient and we might as well live under the law.
God bless.
Btw, I just saw your latest response Don. I fully agree there’s a difference between the ‘once saved always saved’ doctrine and eternal security for the believer. I found your earlier two posts a bit confusing and I must have misunderstood what you were saying.
The Scriptures do not teach that a born again believer can reject Christ.
I am born of the Spirit, a new creature, sealed by the Holy Spirit. I would need to be un-reborn again to walk away, it is not taught in the Scriptures. God is the one doing the keeping.
Only one who is not a child of God can reject Christ.
I don’t understand all Scripture and while on this earth, I never will, but it does not mean that I can’t be right about anything.
I do not disagree with either nasrani or Rachel that a believer cannot lose their salvation. I do not know how many times I have said that now. One of the main arguments but certainly not the only argument from those who are against the “once saved always saved” position is based on this passage.
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Those who take this scripture straight forwarded are not twisting scripture. The claim that those who teach this resort to twisting scripture is the issue I brought up with Rachel because she claimed they did. I know some teachers say it does not mean what some think it says so spare me the views. I already know them. Obviously some Christians believe this passage says that some can be lost and this is only one passage of many that they use. If you actually heard their full argument you would know a strong case for their views can be built on scripture without resorting to twisting scripture.
There are many theologies where Christians put more weight on certain scriptures while explaining away other scriptures that seem to conflict. That is why there are so many different denominations and why Christianity is divided on many issues. To say that your position on theology is based on scripture and other denominations that disagree resort to twisting scripture is very naive or dishonest.
I am telling everyone that believes in eternal security that if they really want to be on real solid ground instead of saying you believe in “once saved always saved theology” you say that you believe in “eternal salvation for the believer”. You cannot go wrong saying that because believers are not unbelievers and believers cannot be lost.
If nobody yet understands what I have been saying all along I simply cannot make you comprehend.
I do understand what you are saying, but I will say, ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED!
It is not a theory, like evolution, the Scriptures teach this doctrine, there is no doubt. So if the Scriptures teach this doctrine, they cannot teach loss of salvation, which means anyone who ends up in hell, will be there because they NEVER believed.
I know that a person who is saved, is saved for all eternity. I know, for sure that I have been saved and my Lord Jesus Christ, the Rock on which I stand, will keep me by his power.
You’re right when you say, at face value the verses in Hebrews are not being twisted, but when the Scriptures that teach eternal security are known to someone and they still teach that these verses are teaching loss of salvation, then something funny is going on. I know people that say, a person who believes and teaches loss of salvation, has never been born again themselves, but I don’t know about that for sure.
If I came across a verse and it seemed to contradict eternal security, or any other important doctrine, I would simply know that I don’t understand the verse and I would not worry about it, as I know it can be explained, it’s just that I don’t understand it yet.
Rachel, It seems you are only here to argue. So this is the last time I am going to explain it all to you. You are wasting my time. Your next post on this topic will not get posted.
As I have been telling you certain Christians find “once saved always saved” passages in the Bible and certain Christians find passages that they believe dispute that concept. Some will tell you that salvation is a process. They will say that you are in the process of being saved and you are actually only saved if you persevere to the end. Scripture does teach this and that is why a Calvinists like Nasrini will say a Christian will persevere to the end because God will make them. However, most of these people are not Calvinists they will say that man has free will to reject Christ. Again, I am not saying I believe this but they do. What you think you know, may or man not be correct, but I assure you your belief carries no weight with those who do not see scripture your way.
There is nothing funny going on with them. There are dozens of passages that can support the falling away of Christians. Even end time prophecy says that some will fall away from the faith. You will say they were not believers. But many others will say they fell away.
The people who say that those who believe and teach that a person can lose there salvation have not been born again themselves are frankly legalistic liars. They cannot possibly know that and it is absurd. They are saying that there is not a believer in whole evangelical denominations and that not a pentecostal believes! What nonsense!
Also who really cares what you do with passages that you do not understand, obviously you still have a lot to learn. The question is why do good biblical scholars see the same passages differently? I will tell you. The scripture is not totally clear on all things and perhaps that is by God’s design. Why should God make it clear that people only have to confess Him once with their mouth and think they can live the rest of their life like hell because they think they were saved by uttering the magic words?
I suggest you carefully read 1 John and the letters to the seven churches in Revelation and you will see why people can read these passage and come away with entirely different conclusions.
If you want a real life experience go to a forum that does not believe in “once saved always saved theology” and debate them. Will you be able to logically defend your argument for your “once saved always saved theology” on that forum? I assure you they will chew a novice like you up and spit you out and they will do it just using scriptures.
The Scriptures are clear on the issue of once saved always saved, you just don’t understand them, just as I don’t understand everything that you do.
Oh, and btw, if I were to go on one of the forums you mentioned, I know that they would not chew me up and spit me out as you so nicely put it, as I could show them exactly what the Scriptures they use really mean. Of course they wouldn’t listen, but I am not afraid of them and I’m sure they might not agree with me, but they would probably be a lot nicer in disagreeing with me.
You might do it than because I am tired of wasting my time explaining something to someone who cannot comprehend what I said.
Rachel, what we mean by this Once Saved Always Saved “doctrine” is the widespread belief among many Evangelicals that once you’ve said that magical prayer asking Jesus to come into your heart or something the like, you are saved and nobody or nothing can take that away for you, even if you sin.
This is not Biblical teaching. Although in a way it seems to suggests eternal security for the believer, it is really another way of saying that if you belief, you’re saved, that settles, and now you can do whatever the hell you like because you’re saved and you’re going to heaven regardless of what lifestyle you lead.
Well, the Bible also tells us believers to work OUT our salvation. And since we are indeed sealed with the Spirit, we are to live through it and that does require effort and perseverance. I do not believe that person who continuously sins against the Holy Spirit and mocks Christ can truly be saved.
Like I said, FAITH as a gift of God is not merely the knowledge of God’s salvation plan for us, it is the belief, indeed the conviction brought to us by the work of the Holy Spirit that you are sinful and deserve eternal punishment, that Jesus Christ is your only Savior and your only guarantee for eternal life. The devil and his demons believe in God and they fear Him! But they do not have FAITH. The same is true of many of these people who’ve said their little prayer and then go on to sin like no others, using Once Saved Always Saved as their motto. Some do not even seem to fear God like the fallen angels do.
Here’s another calvinistic position on eternal security:
http://www.carm.org/christianity/miscellaneous-topics/eternal-security
I agree with the author and with Don’s about the attitude we should have toward those who would disagree.
I hope this clarifies. If not, then so be it.
nasrani
Rachel, The rest of what you said on that post has been deleted because what you said has no place here.
I have explained to you over and over the issues but what can I do if you cannot comprehend them? Don’t tell me that I do not understand the “once saved always saved” issues when I have been explaining them to you all along.
I said from the beginning that I am well aware of both sides of the argument and I simply am not going to say that “once saved always saved” theology has to be correct. I say the scripture teaches that eternal security is guaranteed to the believer. If you still cannot grasp that concept or accept what I know to be true try to live with it.
You might try your deleted whining routine with your pastor or local elder sometime when you do not agree with his teaching. See where that gets you. I do not know why some Christian woman think they have some God given right on the Internet to lecture Christian elders that are only trying to teach them something.
Good article. Here is what they can throw at you from the other side of the debate if anyone really wants to look into their arguments.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm
Bible.ca is another one of those sites. It has a lot of interesting and thought-provoking articles, some of them are quite good. However, in matters of doctrine, I think it can also be quite extreme and simplistic in their approach. It takes a very fundamentalistic Sola Scriptura position that entirely rules out any Church tradition or creeds, it rejects both Arminianism and Calvinism, denies the rapture and literal 1,000 year rule of Christ on earth. It also says that Jesus’ sacrifice abolished the Old Covenant and that we are not to keep the ten commandments. Nevertheless it does affirm the essentials of Christianity and and they’re certainly not postmodernists. It has some very good stuff on the Trinity, Islam, the gift of tongues, biblical archaeology, etc. I find it worth checking out simply because it’s challenging, as I often find myself in total disagreement with the views of the site.
nasrani
Don’t be fooled by the non-denominational claim of Bible.ca. Steve Rudd runs that website and he is a Church of Christ pastor and the list of thousands of non-denominational associated churches he speaks of are also Church of Christ.
Church of Christ is very legalistic and although they get many things right on certain Bible teachings they get many things wrong on others and seem to miss the Holy Spirit. No musical instruments are allowed in most of these churches and water baptism by their methodology is required for salvation. Some would even call the Church of Christ a cult. Its hard to broad brush them because there are different branches to this denomination and differences between the leaders in this denomination.
http://www.chocd.org/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Church%20of%20Christ/cult.htm
Certainly the Boston Church of Christ aka. International Church of Christ is a cult.
It irks me when known denominations claim they are non-denominational in order to deceive people to come to their church. Church of Christ are about as non-denominational as Southern Baptists.
Hmmm, do I sound like I’ve been fooled by those people? I think not. 😉
I thought they were reconstructionists with all that talk about the “New Testament church”.
The Jesus is Savior website is just plain horrible. They even teach against the moderate consumption of alcohol and have endless rants against beer. Another very similar site is http://www.jesus-is-lord.com – who knows, maybe it was authored by the same folks behind the Jesus is Savior website. I don’t think there’s anything that can beat the websites of the Westboro Baptist Church though… It can get really ugly if fundamentalist sites also drag in far-fetched conspiracy theories involving freemasons.
I guess that in the minds of a lot of these people, all the Catholics and Orthodox are lost because they’re cults and even if they affirm the Nicean Creed they won’t qualify because all creeds are somehow deceptive and wrong. Even the Lutherans and Calvinists during the Reformation were just a bunch of heritics if we have to believe some of these people. I suppose that the Anabaptists are the true catholic church to these people. Funny, if it weren’t for the historic churches then there would not have been a Reformation and no such principle as Sola Scriptura in the first place. And no defense of basic doctrines by the Church Fathers against the abundance of heresies in the earliest centuries of Christianity either… But that’s all tradition to these folks and therefore wrong by definition. Uhm, so the Nicean beliefs are not biblical or what? Hmmmm.
Frankly all this is why I’m wary of a lot of these Evangelical or whatever fundamentalist and legalists just as much as their Emergent counterparts. They preach Sola Scriptura but they end up emphasizing non-essential doctrines or things that aren’t even really in the Bible at all and condemning all who disagree in the name of “love”. They reject all tradition and support biblical innerancy but they end up supporting the innerancy of their own narrow interpretations instead, where the liberal Emergent ones question biblical innerancy and end up relativizing even basic doctrines and Christian morality.
Frankly I don’t reject tradition. As long as it doesn’t go against the teachings of the Bible, then it is permissable and I think it can offer a framework of a kind. How did the Bible get its present form? Surely not through direct revelation from God listing what books were to be included and which ones had to be left out? Unfortunately in mainstream churches it seems that the traditions or rituals is all they’ve left and they lack understanding of the Gospel. So they end up being either very liberal in scriptural matters or very legalistic in their defense of certain traditions that are scripturally wrong. In other words, no denomination including the self-described non-denominational ones are perfect.
Anyway, that’s how I see it. But I have the feeling this is all getting slightly off-topic. 😆
Actually I am glad you changed the subject because the “once saved always saved” dialogue was getting very annoying and as I said before, but allowed more posts anyway, but now firmly reaffirm, nothing more will be posted on that topic on this thread.
I agree with most of what you said about these legalistic fundamentalist churches. I am sure they will say they are just being biblical but they choice not to see that their narrow minded Bible interpretations are wrong.
I know from what I heard of the Church of Christ “non-denomination” denomination I would not set foot in one. Many people have attended these legalistic churches and did not got saved until they came out of them. Water baptism saves no one. The Catholics and Lutheran leadership also teach the water baptism ritual (they would say sacrament) makes one a member of the Body of Christ. They are also wrong and in this area just as legalistic as their legalistic brethren in the fundamentalist camp.
As for the conspiracy theories that tie into the Freemasons? Do you know that many Church of Christ members are Masons? I am in the process of writing an article on the Illuminati conspiracy theory now but with all the other things going on I do not know when I will finish it. I do not even know how long that article will get until I said all I want to say about that topic. Perhaps I will get it posted this weekend or early next week.
I personally believe that the author of Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Savior website is the same person. By the way they think that TV is “hellivison” But the person does lie about the NKJV and he makes the claim that the scholars of KJV were “inspired”
Don I appreciate u giving the link to Dan Corner’s site. Now I know why the other side of the argument thinks the way they do. I do think though that Dan is using eisegesis when interpreting scripture. I believe we can lose fellowship with God but we cannot lose our salvation. Those who were saved begin with would be chastised by God. If they do not accept the chastisement of God. God will take them home prematurely. Jack Kelley writes a good Article on this subject. http://gracethrufaith.com/selah/eternal-security/osas-the-whole-story/#more-116
Don, I know these Once Saved Always Saved posts are getting annoying but I just wanted to put my thought out there.
Justin I never disagreed with those who hold the “once saved always saved” position and I certainly believe in the eternal security of the believer. I teach the same thing on this issue as Jack Kelly. I was saying that there are some Christians that do not believe this and they can make a good case from scripture as well. Jack Kelly is an astute good man in fact his site and mine have reciprocal links.
Personally I would not become a member of a Church that teaches a believer can lose their salvation.
I knew you believed the eternal security of a believer. I was just putting my thinking out there. It is amazing though how Protestant Churches are teaching Catholic doctrine as if it was Scripturally correct.
Justin, it looks like all roads will again lead to Rome just before the Antichrist is revealed
Reading a bit about Calvanism and Arminianism in this thread, I thought this perspective might be helpful:
Both Calvin and Arminius were trying to get around the seeming paradox of how God could foreknow human events and yet allow for free-will in human individuals. I believe they were trying fit these things into the context of the limitations we have to live within (time, in particular).
First, there must be free-will or the concept of love has no meaning whatsoever: a “robot” cannot love because it cannot chose for or against someone of its own volition; this is where the Arminianism concept of Agency appears. There are many scriptural verses that support this. (The bad news is that Arminianism has to claim that people can lose their salvation, and the scriptures that teach otherwise have to be reinterpreted to mean other things.)
Second, God is sovereign. To be completely sovereign over His creation, God must be all-knowing. In particular, it is assumed that to be omniscient, He must control what is decided by his creations; this is where the concept of Election appears in Calvinism. There are many scriptural verses that support this. (The bad news here (for us) is that God has chosen who will be saved and who will not be, and the scriptures used to demonstrate our free-will are reinterpreted to mean other things.)
How can the two be true simultaneously?
How can God be responsible for Electing people and the people be held responsible for their choice by God (Agency)? Why bother to pray?
I believe that neither Calvin nor Arminius properly accounted for the fact that God created the universe (time/space/matter) and is therefore not subject to any of its limitations.
In particular, God created time, and He is not limited to it as we are. He exists outside the plane of that dimension. Though He can step into it at any point (as Jesus did when He became incarnate), the things we see as paradoxical about knowing and doing things (in the context of time) simply do not apply to God.
God “stands” outside of time and can therefore “see” all the choices made by His human creation, from start to finish. Scripture supports this. BUT the fact that He knows what choices will be made does not mean that He makes them for His creation. It’s this ability to step-outside-of-time that bypasses the paradox of agency vs. election. Unlike the view from within the limitations of time, God’s foreknowing does not require that He be the cause of that which is known.
Think of our 3 1/2 dimensions (space and time) as if they were a sheet of paper. On that paper, there are lines drawn from the left to the right. All the lines are relatively short, all proceed from the left to the right. At the very left-most part of the page, we see a line representing Adam. On the right is the very end of time as we understand it. Each of these lines reprents a human life; their leftmost point, their birth and the rightmost, their death (or their exit from time). Each line veers to the top of the page (towards God) or the bottom of the page (away from God). Some lines end pointed up (saved) and some down (unsaved). God created this, so He is not part of this; He is not locked into the paper itself (as we humans are). (He did “jump into” the paper as Jesus incarnate, so there is a line representing Jesus.) Now, since God is other than the paper, He can see the entirety of the paper all at once: in a real way, EVERYTIME is NOW for Him. He can look a any particular life and see how it progressed from start to finish. He knows what a person will ultimately choose without forcing the person to choose one way or another. At the same time, EVERY choice, EVERY sin can be enumerated from this vantage point. This is how Jesus was able to pay for every sin ever committed, for ALL OF TIME! Now, it’s possible for God, seeing someone like Pharaoh who would not choose Him anyway, to “confirm” the hardness of his heart – God saw that Pharaoh would be an unbeliever, so to make a point, He “pushed” Pharaoh “hard” over to that choice – He “hardened his heart.” Likewise, God, knowing who will ultimately choose Him, can work in their lives so that “all things work to the good of those who love God…” So praying matters!
I’m sure that this analogy is imperfect, but it helps me to get my mind around these things and to take scripture at its word.
So I am neither Calvinistic nor Arminian! I think both are correct about some important things and both are wrong about important things. By the way, nothing says you have to believe either one to be saved! They were thinking like humans instead of considering God’s position as the creator of time and the universe with all that implies!
I hope you find this analogy useful and encouraging! 🙂
Basically I am a Calvinist. Here are some good articles by John MacArthur that talks about this issue.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-273
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-274
The problem with this view is that it presumes that man still has a free will. Adam and Eve were endowed with free will. And yes, we are still able to choose between a lot of things. But the Bible deals with man from a spiritual perspective. Are we truly capable of choosing to do good? No, we are not. From a godly perspective, good works are those works done out of faith and to the glory of God alone.
From a purely human and therefore earthly perspective, we might say that man can choose to do good but this is really not the case. For instance, one might be given the choice to either donate money to an orphanage or to keep the money and go to the cinema instead. If that person chooses to donate the money to the orphanage, we might say that was a good work and that the person was able to make this decision due to his free will.
Now, does this apparent good work have any merit for God? This person might just as well have been motivated by his self-interest because he secretly wishes to reassure himself that he is not all that bad and that he did a noble thing, deserving praise. Of course from a human perspective he did the right thing, regardless of his true motivations. But the reality remains that this person’s actions mean absolutely nothing to God and will have no influence on his afterlife because his actions were neither done out of faith or to the glory of God. Man is corrupted by nature – this includes his free will.
Abraham was justified by Faith and it was counted to him as righteousness. God chose his Israelite descendents to be His people, but not all of Israel was elect – God exterminated many of them because of their sinfulness and in some instances we read He even hardened their hearts. Likewise, the Body of believers is invisible, but there is a visible Church and people also. That is why there are many who appear to fall from the faith or become apostates. The elect shall nonetheless be saved. They can be said to be the “Israel of Israel”, similar to how not all of the Israelites were truly elect despite all of them being “of Israel”.
The election cannot have meant to be a mere foreseeing because this would lead to a situation where God elects people based on their works or other personal qualities. Everyone, ranging from the mass murderer to the humanitarian worker, is equally corrupt by nature and therefore utterly unable to come to true faith and do truly good works that please God.
If the election was based on a foreseeing, then why did God choose the Israelites at all since 95 % of them were pretty much as pagan and as lost as the Gentiles? And yet He did choose the Israelites, for the sake of those whom He elected and to His glory and plans with this world. St. Paul says “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” – Ephesians 1:4-6
It follows that if some have been predestined according to God’s glory, some have been rejected. Of course this difficult for us to understand with our limited human capacities and our own corrupted notions of “justice” and “goodness”, but it is nonetheless the truth. What is important for us to realize is that the election is secret and it would be wrong for us to try and determine who’s elect and who is not. I believe that the issue of free will comes up only because of our limited human thinking. We want to understand things too much from a human perspective.
Yet despite all this, the Bible nowhere says that man does not have to repent. As one who has come to accept Calvinist doctrine, I urge everyone to repent of his sins. Why? Because Jesus told us to spread the Gospel to all nations and because the election is secret and a godly matter, hence not something we should be preoccupied with in dealing with others. It is only by the work of the Spirit that man can truly receive faith, repent, turn away from sin, and be transformed to the image of Christ through the indwelling of the Spirit. But from a human point of view, this still means that man has to convert and accept Christ, and that is what we indeed must preach to all men.
God bless.
A case can be built that man still does have free will. That is why there are “free will” denominations. You can argue this until the cows come home and nothing is going to be settled and that is why there is a division in Christianity on this. What Brett and I have been saying it that both views can be true in what them affirm and wrong in what they deny. We cannot understand many things because we are limited but God is not. For hundreds of years theologians have tried to explain the Trinity and all attempts fail. There are some things that we will not understand until we get to the other side. Anyone can argue the well formed theology of Calvinism but your getting a one sided picture unless you heard all the arguments against Calvinism. I am like Brett on this subject. I will not be labeled as Calvinistic nor Arminian and I have heard most of the arguments. If the best theological minds divide on this issue I certainly am not going to now solve it. I also will not just give arguments from theologians on one side of this issue.
But really, this is a comment section on George Bush and taking the Bible literally it is not a debate site on Calvinism.
There probably aren’t that many hardcore Arminians because most Evangelicals accept at least about three out of five of the points of “Calvinism” (though Reformed theology is a lot more than that of course). I used to be convinced of man’s free will and ability to reject Christ’s grace because that’s how I used to understand it from Scripture and that’s how it was taught to me. Hence I leaned quite strongly toward Arminianism: you can resist God and you might even be able to lose your salvation (Lutherans teach this too, btw). I believe that, taken in its entirety, however, this theological system is heretical, but not all that defend parts of its teachings are necessarily Arminians, heretics or apostates. I defend Calvinism because I believe it is biblical and best explains God’s redemptive plan, not because I believe that believing “in” Calvinism will save you nor because it would somehow provide the truth or the answers to absolutely everything. I don’t believe there’s always a middle of the road. However, the Bible is silent on a lot of issues, including many details regarding predestination, which is why even Calvin himself did not strongly emphasize it, it is only the hyper-calvinists who have distorted predestination to the point where many have become fatalistic and oppose evangelization, but that is not even what Calvin, John Knox, Spurgeon, Whitefield and so many others taught.
I remember in 2000 or 2001 when Bush said this when talking about Islam, Christianity, etc., “we all pray to the same God.” I hate to be the bearer of bad news for W., but I pray to The Great I AM, not Allah.
If the man is a Christian he is either well backslidden or just used Christianity to get elected President.
I am now inclined to think that GWB used Christian-sounding words as a way to help get himself elected.
There is no doubt that he has some morals and strength imbued through his exposure to cultural-christianity (which derives these from true Christianity). I bet that he thinks he is a Christian, but with the way he is articulating his “faith,” it *seems* that he does not have a saving understanding of who Jesus is.
In a certain (and very real) sense, I no longer care what happens to this nation, or even the world, or even Israel. I know how the story “ends” (at least for this and the next age).
I am homesick; I want to see Abba as He sees me, and I want to enjoy Him in that context. What I *DO CARE ABOUT* is individuals, and that is what keeps me here on earth in His love. Nations may fall, but I want my neighbors (wherever they are in the world – and I know many)…I want them to be saved!
Maybe I should put this another way: I have become dispassionate about my nation-of-birth, because my “nation-of-rebirth” is the Kingdom of God. I am His; I long to be redeemed, but I am and will forever be an example of His unfathomable grace (if *anyone* has needed His grace, it has been me – between what I have done to others, what was done to me, what I *am* and I am not). I *VERY MUCH* feel as a pilgrim passing through this world on my way home.
There are nice things in this world, and I *pause* to smell the roses, but I realize that everything here is very temporary, so I appreciate without “owning” (or being “owned” by anything here). To me, this deep-in-my-heart realization is a *major blessing* from our King of Love. I disconnecting from the world (in a good way) and am becoming more solidly connected with Him – honestly, this is the best (and really only, for my circumstances) way for me to prepare for the unpleasantries to come here in the USA.
Sorry Don, I’m veering off-topic again…
I agree with John MacArthur on this issue. This doctrine does gives alot of folks trouble and I will admit it is a hard pill to swallow. And even Paul struggled with this issue in Romans 9
Well in that case, George Bush is even more of a moron then I thought he is … Jesus in Revelation referred to a “lukewarm church of Laodicea” he will spit out of his mouth … so George Bush: wherever your sorry bleep goes, be sure to always carry a parachute, for: “in hour you don’t expect it, the Son of man cometh” ! Amen !
Responding to FRANK’s post: you can bet your bottom dollar that Bush played the “christianity card” to get elected, only tell me this about the 2nd time around:
Since the abortion loving supreme court got him back in for the back nine, WHO OF THEM is a christian then ? OR .. did he no longer need the “christian card” and substituted the Joker ?
Keen
Thought I’d give my two cents here:
“Rachel, what we mean by this Once Saved Always Saved “doctrine” is the widespread belief among many Evangelicals that once you’ve said that magical prayer asking Jesus to come into your heart or something the like, you are saved and nobody or nothing can take that away for you, even if you sin.
This is not Biblical teaching.”
There actually is nothing unbiblical or wrong in this statement (though I can understand your consternation that prayer is more emphasized over the substance of faith, and more so as a formula rather than focusing on the object of one’s faith, since prayer is essentially how one expresses their willingness to receive Christ towards salvation). However, so long that a person is truly saved (regenerate), the basic element of the statement (without the facetious “magical prayer” cliché of course) is true. As well, if the believer is truly saved, and becomes familiar with this teaching, thinking they can do whatever they want, they will be chastised which can be very unpleasant, this usually not a subject that is brought to the forefront of such discussions. It can actually be so severe where it can even include the sin unto a premature death. Otherwise, they never were really saved. The real issue is that God is faithful to His own; His Finished Work will stand and yet He will not be mocked.
“Although in a way it seems to suggests eternal security for the believer, it is really another way of saying that if you belief, you’re saved, that settles, and now you can do whatever the hell you like because you’re saved and you’re going to heaven regardless of what lifestyle you lead.”
That is because too often the abuse is never distinguished from the essence of the truth which derives from divine viewpoint. This leads to many rejecting the truth without ever distinguishing and qualifying the abuse from the doctrine in itself, or at least clarifying the terms. That’s why the phrase “once saved, always saved” is really synonymous to eternal security, only one carries baggage that has never been dealt with in an objective manner.
“Well, the Bible also tells us believers to work OUT our salvation. And since we are indeed sealed with the Spirit, we are to live through it and that does require effort and perseverance. I do not believe that person who continuously sins against the Holy Spirit and mocks Christ can truly be saved.”
2 John 1:9, in the NASB, states that if one goes too far, then it’s a manifestation that they do not know God. It’s never revealed in scripture that it was a matter of having known God at least at one point in the past tense. It continues in the revelation of Luke 8:18 where “what they seemed to have even that is taken away.” This is reinforced line upon line by the fact that Jesus will say to those who claim to have known Him that He never knew them. If at one point in the past a person was born again, regenerate, a new creation then Jesus could never have said this to them. It would defy Galatians 4:9: “But now that you know God–or rather are known by God” a revelation of God’s divine viewpoint of a genuine believer’s positional standing before Him which is eternal in nature, His disposition towards one of His own.
“Like I said, FAITH as a gift of God is not merely the knowledge of God’s salvation plan for us, it is the belief, indeed the conviction brought to us by the work of the Holy Spirit that you are sinful and deserve eternal punishment, that Jesus Christ is your only Savior and your only guarantee for eternal life. The devil and his demons believe in God and they fear Him! But they do not have FAITH. The same is true of many of these people who’ve said their little prayer and then go on to sin like no others, using Once Saved Always Saved as their motto. Some do not even seem to fear God like the fallen angels do.”
Again, there’s quite a discrepancy in Christianity to distinguish what the scripture actually teaches as opposed to the derived assumptions made from the teaching. This skewed approach becomes a false inroad when understanding this doctrine. The way of God is being mischaracterized in revealing the truth of God’s nature and character. This approach obviously affects one’s attitude towards the doctrine, causing many to reject it (somewhat understandable yet still inexcusable). Shallow abuse should never cause shallow reaction. Sober thinking with a passion for Christ is so much the cry these days.
This article and subsequent comments bring us to a relevant point – rebirth.
Is George Bush born again? Are YOU born again? And if you are born again can YOU lose that relationship with God? Can YOU lose that new creation within you? That is something for each of us to establish for ourselves and from God’s word.
I do not know if George Bush is born again although by his fruits I would suggest he is not, and on the other hand I can say with reasonable confidence that Don Koenig is born again because of the fruits so evident in his testimony.
For anyone new to this article and comments, and unsettled as to their eternal security I suggest you follow a lead Don gave early in the piece, and read and digest what the Bible has to say. http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/How%20one%20is%20saved.htm
Don, there is another point I would like to make in line with so much of what has been commented upon here, and that is that FAITH IS NOT THE SOLE PREROGATIVE OF CHRISTIANITY. The ability to believe can be found in children, Atheistic evolutionists, ungodly religion et al; it is built into all God’s rational creation. As such it IS a gift of God but it seems to me that how we utilise faith is an act of our volition – our free will, e.g. in atheistic evolution, ungodly religion or in Christ the Lord.
It seems to me that every command to believe is proof of man’s freewill. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” is a simple statement of fact including an encouragement to act positively. In effect we are being told, “You have the God given ability to believe, therefore in the interest of your eternal soul, act upon the knowledge received”.
Exactly…the issue isn’t our faith…everyone has that in some degree from the mundane to the lofty…but the issue is and always was the object of our faith
“Can YOU lose that new creation within you?”
You might as well ask if you can undo the fact that you were ever born…free will is free, but there is only so much within the capacity of man that he has control over. Certain decisions made have consequences that leave us beyond our control to undo or change.
Brian,
When people say they have belief or faith it has to be founded on truth. People have belief in lies all the time and they have faith in people like Obama. You must have faith (or trust) in the God of Creation and believe in his righteousness to save, (Jesus),regenerate us, and then guide us into paths of righteousness through His Holy Spirit.
Yes, there are commands to believe and be saved. No Calvinist would deny that. What they would deny is that the already dead can hear and choose to believe.
But, like I have said this post is not a debate on freewill for man to make the choice to be saved verses a sovereign God drawing his elect to salvation. There are good arguments on both sides. This post is on belief of George Bush.
Since Bush is now water over the dam. I will be closing the comments on this post.