Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Howard Gardner | PentecostalTheology.com
Both yesterday and today I responded to the Calvinist/Arminian debate on another site by noting that a popular radio speaker told his congregation that not only was it impossible to lose your salvation but that if one had made a sincere commitment to Christ it was then safe to commit suicide as you would still go to Heaven. A member of this man’s own congregation thus did in fact take his own life. (I think many of you will know what radio speaker I am talking about) Additionally we had an individual just south of where I live do exactly the same thing. I attended that man’s funeral and heard the statement that the man was in Heaven beyond question as he had knelt at the alter some years back and it was thus impossible for him to have lost his salvation. To me, whether you are Calvinist or Arminian, this is a dangerous thing to be saying from the pulpit as you never know when someone on the brink might be taking it to heart. Both times my post was erased. The first time I was called a hypocrite and a liar and told to repent. I would like your opinion friends, did I do something for which I should repent? I still think individuals such as this need to be called on the carpet. Please tell me if I am wrong.
Theresa Walker [12/09/2014 12:36 PM]
I agree whole heartedly with you.
Roger Cotton [12/09/2014 12:55 PM]
I agree with you. It is unbiblical for preachers to make those statements.
Paul Hughes [12/09/2014 1:41 PM]
Calvinism is a scourge on the Church, a false construct based on extreme notions of God’s sovereignty, and continues to be, even though many contemporary advocates have mitigated some of the most overtly objectionable tenets.
Jon Ray
Ricky Grimsley David Lewayne Porter Calvinism truly has spawned great errors, many of which have even infected Pentecostalism.
You have heard people say, “God is in control”? Where does the Bible say that? It says God withdrew himself from Adam & Eve, & the devil is now “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). God is in the process of “putting all things under [Christ’s] feet,” the last enemy of which will be death (1 Corinthians 15:26). Till then, the Church is in a spiritual war. We have to pray pray pray, and walk in the power and revelation of the Holy Spirit, to not be deceived but walk in truth, to not fall away but to “endure to the end.”
You have heard that God knows the future? Is God reading tea leaves or a road map? No, He MAKES the future, according to his Plan.
Ricky Grimsley
Well God is in control in because he sets parameters and powers in their place. He doesnt meticulously control every event but he can certainly prevent them. I agree that God is making his plan happen as opposed to foreknowing it. I believe when the bible apeaks of God’s foreknowledge that is in reference to God having a plan and preserving that plan ie. Jacob and Esau. I do believe that most people do not understand God’s sovereignty and have abdicated their roles in helping the kingdom using God’s will as their excuse.
David Lewayne Porter
I do believe and agree with you on your first statement (God is in control because He sets the parameters in place and powers in their place.).
I submit that God making His plan happen works perfectly with His Foreknowledge – as in telling creation to bring forth after their kind, which it still does,, and Him creating them with their seeds within themselves as He foreknew and did.
I fully agree with your closing,
“I do believe most people do not understand God’s sovereignty and have abdicated their roles in helping the kingdom using God’s will as their excuse.
Here is a closing thought on God’s sovereignty,
James that had touched handled and been with Jesus. James had been been taught by him and said this;
James 4:13-15 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
*For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.*
So who is ALREADY in control of Tomorrow. (Notice the period and no question mark). Who controls it more than we do (even to the point and time of our death).
Ricky Grimsley
God is in control but he hasnt always decided yet.
Isaiah 38:1,5 KJVS
[1] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord , Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live. [5] Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord , the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.
David Lewayne Porter
And yet in our finite minds we can’t reconcile the scriptures that say He does.
We don’t know God fully. Nor can we.
I submit God knew Hezekiah’s reply in advance and had it in His intention to add the 15 years even before He placed him in that position to cry out with tears.
My (personal) belief that is not changing.
Ricky Grimsley
I have reconciled them for me
David Lewayne Porter
I guess then that is all that should matter.
David Lewayne Porter
The earth is the Lord’s the fulness the thereof, the world and they that dwell in it. PS 24:1
Repeated in 1 Cor 10:26&28.
The devil is the prince and power of the air, and yet said of Jesus
Matthew 8:26-27
And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!
Not just calm,
But GREAT calm.
I did not mention God owning the cattle on 1,000 hill.
God personally chose Jerusalem for Himself (ex 1 Kings 11:36, 14:21) and many more.
Ricky Grimsley
But when did God decide to choose Jerusalem. Lol
David Lewayne Porter
At a time preceding creation (but when did He manifest that choice and voice it)?
That is where we differ in our personal interpretation (choice and plan verses when it is revealed to man), which does not change the plan of salvation.
Do a study on when the scriptures say
(In the fulness of time).
Time finally caught up with His Foreknowledge and plan.
Varnel Watson
Chose Arminianism and reject all Calvinists!
Ricky Grimsley
Im not a calvinist. I just dont see any practical difference between the two views. Whatever labels and reasons you put on the two….both of you have an unalterable future from before creation. I just dont believe that. If im wrong….God made me like this anyway…..what can I do. Lol
Varnel Watson
Wayne Scott This is why Calvinist/Arminian Dialogue excludes Pelegianism
Grover Katzmarek Sr
Wow. Unbelievable when all scripture is considered
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce you very premise is WRONG AGAIN
Arminius believed in FREE WILL
He was NO augustinian and neither was his theology as you claim
Augustine was no Gnostic – this is deleterious
Reformed Calvinist and Arminian theologies are built on Augustine’s unstable foundation of Luther as an Augustian monk, and Calvin an Augustian disciple. Free Grace predates Augustine and is built on sound contextual exegesis. Augustine trained in Gnosticsm, Neoplatonism and Stoicsm around 400AD.
RichardAnna Boyce
Augustine trained in Gnosticsm, Neoplatonism and Stoicsm around 400AD. He had strong sexual desires with 2 concubines, and was baptised into Christianity by his father Ambrose, and focused on human free choice theology teaching God’s foreknowledge allows him to predestine only those he knows will respond in faith and believe, based on deeply hidden merits to be elected. He believed in baptising infants for forgiveness of sins based on church tradition if infants die they must be guilty and be damned.
He had abandoned the Christian doctrine of human free choice for Stoic determinism. Calvinists would later call this ‘irresistible grace.’ He taught God gives a gift of perseverance to some infants to be saved. He believed a pagan idea that God receives everything He desires and God did not desire that everyone would be saved as His sovereignty was absolute. Therefore Christ only died for the elect, not wasting His energy for others. All the truly elect will inevitably persevere as God’s gift. Therefore a person can be genuinely saved and receive Holy Spirit but be damned to hell if not elected. Augustine then uses Phil 1:6 completely out of context to prove by this financial gift they cannot fail to persevere.”
Augustine’s 5 points of ‘total inability’, ‘unconditional election’, ‘limited atonement’, ‘irresistible grace’, and ‘perseverance’ = the TULIP of Calvinism. Inevitable perseverance is due to a second blessing of Spirit baptism to a select few Christians.
Both Luther and Calvin mistakenly believed that Augustine was teaching what all the early church fathers had taught, but Augustine he had tried, but failed, to continue teaching the Christian doctrine of free will of the first 4 centuries. He used the same terms but inserted Gnostic meanings into those terms. He used Gnostic interpretation of John 6:65, 14:6; and Eph 2:8-9 as proof of unconditional election against Christian free choice.
Augustine taught Pagan Determinism (DUPIED) not Biblical Predestination.
Augustine was the only major figure in Christian history to be a serious disciple of all 3 highly deterministic pagan systems.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce absolutely irrelevant copy paste that does not answer these prompt allegations
Arminius believed in FREE WILL
He was NO augustinian and neither was his theology as you claim
I am sure you have reasons for your misleading claims but they will not fly here
Varnel Watson
RT Angel Bonilla Arminians didn’t teach such a thing.
Varnel Watson
Arminius believed in FREE WILL
He was NO augustinian and neither was his theology as you claim
Angel Bonilla
?
Varnel Watson
RT John-Mark Neal Hales Did you mean to say Calvinists when you said Arminians?
RichardAnna Boyce
A change in Augustine’s systematic theology caused a reinterpretation of some of Augustine’s biblical theology. He no longer interpreted Matt 24:13 as a promise of physical salvation leading into the Millennium(since there was not going to be a physical Millennium in his new approach to eschatology). Now he saw Matt 24:13 as a promise of spiritual salvation. In his mind a new test for soteriology was born: one must endure in his Christian faithfulness until the end of his life. This verse became the driving force and final arbiter in Augustine’s soteriology.
When the Reformers came along over a thousand years later, a
revival in the study of Augustine’s writings had been in vogue for over a
hundred years. His amillennial eschatology still held. But the Reformers
sought to make a change in soteriology. Justification could be declared in the court room of heaven at an instant in time. One could be declared righteous by God in his position, yet still retain sin in his condition: simul iustus et peccator. This was a monumental change in soteriology, enough to effect the Reformation. If they had followed through on a good system of theology, the Reformers would have examined their eschatology to see how their new approach to soteriology might cause changes in their understanding of the future. But they did not develop a good system.
Instead they tried to amalgamate Augustine’s theology with their own.
The result was an alloy of contradictions.
Varnel Watson
Augustine was no Gnostic – this is deleterious Augustine taught that salvation cannot be gained merely by the soul receiving proper moral and doctrinal instruction and by following the example of Jesus and the saints. Rather, salvation involves the entire inner renewal of the soul by divine grace, received as a free gift from God through prayer and the Sacraments of the Church. The teachings of this period of St. Augustine’s life, such as his treatise “On Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants,” became standard fare for theology in the West, both Catholic and Protestant, and were largely endorsed by the Western Council of Orange in 529.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce I would like to counter you blah blah with actual quote from Augustine It will do you good if you do not blindly copy paste but actually take time to read what he wrote and not what others wrote about him
Saint Augustine’s comments on sins of the flesh. It is interesting that Saint Augustine begins the passage noting that some argue that the sins of the flesh are not sins, precisely the same argument that is made in our time. Saint Paul mentioned, and refuted, this argument in his epistles, so it is as old as Christianity. The sins of the flesh are not the most dire of sins, rather the reverse, that pride of place going to the sin of pride, a sin I have ever struggled with, and that caused Lucifer to fall from Heaven to Hell. However, sins of the flesh are sins, being a perversion of the love that is at the heart of Christianity. Lust is ever an inadequate substitute for love, and attempting to make it a substitute is at the core of many of our social problems today, treating people as things, means to our own gratification, rather than children of a loving God that we love with fidelity and self-sacrifice, to mirror in our lives some minute fragment of the love that God lavishes on us. Here is Saint Augustine on sins of the flesh:
Let no one say in his heart, God cares not for sins of the flesh. Do you not know, says the Apostle, that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy. Let no man deceive himself. But perhaps a man will say, My soul is the temple of God, not my body, and will add this testimony also, All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. Unhappy interpretation! conceit meet for punishment! The flesh is called grass, because it dies; but take heed that that which dies for a time, rise not again with guilt. Would you ascertain a plain judgment on this point also? Do you not know, says the same Apostle, that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God? Do not then any longer disregard sins of the body; seeing that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God. If you disregarded a sin of the body, will you disregard a sin which you commit against a temple? Your very body is a temple of the Spirit of God within you. Now take heed what you do with the temple of God. If you were to choose to commit adultery in the Church within these walls, what wickedness could be greater? But now you are yourself the temple of God. In your going out, in your coming in, as you abide in your house, as you rise up, in all you are a temple. Take heed then what you do, take heed that you offend not the Indweller of the temple, lest He forsake you, and you fall into ruins. Do you not know, he says, that your bodies (and this the Apostle spoke touching fornication, that they might not think lightly of sins of the body) are the temples of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you have been bought with a great price. If you think so lightly of your own body, have some consideration for your price.
RichardAnna Boyce
he changed his theology.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce blind claim – show me where Cite a quote Why did he changed it Where did he write about changing it
Born Bad: Original Sin and the Making of the Western World, author James Boyce explores how the concept of a human nature permanently corrupted by Adam and Eve has had a pervasive effect on the Western moral experience. And AUGUSTINE said it was your fault for your sin in your body not the devil https://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/st-augustine-and-original-sin-ze0z1505zken
Louise Cummings
Troy Day Great article.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce The “Three Stages of Sin” according to St. Augustine
The 13th century Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas informs us (Summa Theologica 2.1. Q. 72 Art. 7):
For Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12) describes three stages of sin, of which the first is “when the carnal sense offers a bait,” which is the sin of thought; the second stage is reached “when one is satisfied with the mere pleasure of thought”; and the third stage, “when consent is given to the deed.”
I can outline this simply as follows:
Stage 1: Concupiscence of the Flesh. The senses (e.g. the sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing) perceive something that causes delight.
Stage 2: Contemplation (believed to take place in the heart; the actual biological functions of the brain and heart), in which the mind delights in the sense impression, and stays with it, rather than referring it to God, its creator, as Augustine enjoins).
Stage 3: Consent of the Will. This is when actual sin takes place physically in the body
This was written by Aquinas after Augustine was dead – meaning he could not change his theology like you claim It was his final stance on sin in flesh and body
Varnel Watson
Eusebius was a Bishop in the Early Church who is considered the father of “Church History” for his extensive writings in ecclesiastical history. He wrote, “On the Life of Pamphilus,” “Chronicle of Universal History,” and “On the Martyrs.” He clearly laid out the position of the Early Church on this topic when he wrote, “The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature!”
RichardAnna Boyce
Troy Day, i agree with your comments about being extremely catious about publically stating your theology on suicide. A Supine temperament (dependent) is waiting for someone to tell them it is ok. However i do believe that believers who suicide, and same applies to apostacy (obviously due to unimaginable trauma) go straight to heaven. But only God knows to what degree they will lose rewards in the Millennium, for being unfaithful to Jesus as Lord in this life. There by the grace of God go i.
Louise Cummings
I have heard people say your brain gets sick , just like any other part of your body. If you come to a place you don’t realize what you are doing. Then I don’t know how to answer that , if it really does come to that place. All I know that is just in the hands of God.
Louise Cummings
I don’t think he is teaching Bible. We do have a free choice to be saved and go to Heaven or sin , and be lost. And Babies doesn’t go to hell. I believe they , at least have to know right from wrong. Babies are created by God. And we are to love , Cherri’s , and teach them. But as a baby , they wouldn’t know how to comprehend. I gave all five of mine to the Lord before they were ever born and ask Hid to use them for His Glory. But they still have to come to a place that they are old enough to believe Jesus is the Son Of God. And realize I’m the one who has to except Jesus as My Savior. I forgot what all else he said. But we are not predestine to go to hell. We were all predestine to go to Heaven. But we can’t go unless we make the choice to go. Jesus paid the price on Calvary for everyone. But then He said we have to believe and ask forgiveness of our sins. And except Him.
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce when you separate sin in the flesh and say its just there and not in the spirit you’ve approached dualism and bordelined gnosticism Its that simple
RichardAnna Boyce
Free Grace is not dualiasm but teaches:- Gal 5:16 I say then walk by the Spirit, you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. Paul’s argues in Galatians that man’s performances of “doing” or “not doing” are not the basis of the Gospel, but Christianity is the dynamic of God’s grace by the presence of the Spirit of Christ showing unbelievers His divine character. Holy Spirit is greater than flesh, and we choose to allow Spirit to be in control.
Our flesh will be present until our death and God is not reforming the flesh. In our flesh dwells no good thing and is capable of doing worse things than before we were saved.
The Judaizers dealt with flesh by the law to restrain it, but under the new covenant it is Holy Spirit using grace. Romans 6:14.
Gal 5:17 ‘Flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.’ It is not the Christian who has to fight against the “flesh” by “dying to self” but it is the Spirit of Christ who sets His desire against the flesh as we are open to the Spirit in faith. The performance of religion is avoided by the grace provision of God in Christ.
When Paul explains that flesh and Spirit are in opposition to one another, he is noting the behaviour conflict between them in spiritual warfare. Paul also deals with the same behaviour conflict in Romans 7:14 8:13. The two conflicting motivations are not equal like the Yin-Yang dualism. Verse 16 already notes the supremacy of the Spirit’s power in the Christian. But the Christian “flesh” is not killed off making us perfect with no conflict. It must also be noted that the conflict is between “flesh” and Spirit, not between an “old man” and a “new man” (cf. Eph. 4:22,24; Col. 3:9,10), not between an “old sinful nature” and a “new godly nature” Eph. 2:2; II Pet. 1:4 even though some versions of the Bible mistranslate these words in such a way as to create ambiguity and misunderstanding of Christian identity.
Varnel Watson
“Free grace” teachers insist that “some believers don’t love the Lord” (Love the Lord–Or Else!, Bob Wilkin, Grace in Focus, July-August 1995). However, Scripture teaches that all true believers will evidence some measure of love for God.
I can certainly understand where the “free grace” teachers are coming from on this point. My own life evidences that I sometimes choose to love sin more than the Savior; and if John 14:21 teaches that love for the Lord Jesus Christ will be manifest in obedience, then it is obvious that when I am disobedient to Him, I am not loving Him at that time. We all know that none of us obeys constantly, perfectly, or with the purest motives.
However, I believe there is scriptural warrant to say that all believers have at least some fundamental, basic measure of love for God. The only way I can see the dilemma resolved is if the basic love for God which characterizes all believers is not the same degree of love referred to by Jesus in John 14:21 (rather than to assume that some believers never love Jesus at all, as the “free grace” teachers say).
This is not hard to understand, because we see this in human relationships. I have a fundamental, ever-present measure of love for my family; however, I do not always manifest this love to the degree that I ought, nor are my emotions toward them always constant. To ask, “Do you always love your wife?” and, “Does your behavior always demonstrate that you love her?” are two different questions. I always love her, but I don’t always have the same degree of affection for her. Sometimes I show grand romantic gestures or loving acts of service to demonstrate my love for her; sometimes I argue with her, especially when I want my own way. Sometimes my emotions for her overflow, and sometimes they only trickle; however, I never cease loving her.
I believe that all believers do love the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not always love Him with the same degree of consistency or fervency. Sometimes we manifest our love with heartfelt obedience, and sometimes we choose to delight in sin for a season more than in the Savior. But some measure of love is never absent; even in sin, the Spirit produces sorrow for having displeased Him. It must be stressed, however, that loving the Lord does not make us fit for heaven; our love is not meritorious, but is resultant from and evidential of the new birth. Consider the following verses:
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce So, following your argument, you can say then that when you witness to someone about Christ, and that someone avers or professes that Christ is his Savior and that he or she believes that Christ saved him or her, that person’s salvation is not really “there yet” until that person fully understands the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ and believes them as well as believe that Christ is the Savior and no other ?
Now let’s take this same line of thought to the Arminian camp. So there you go, the invitation has been given, and the choir is singing “just as i am” (which by the way means the sinner is to come to Christ and be accepted by Him just as he is with everything he is: sin, guilt, wrong theology, wrong doctrine, wrong practices, falsities, lies, etc), and this sinner comes and sobs and wants to “accept Christ” and he is led into the “witness room” and someone shows him the Roman way and he professes Christ as Savior and prays the sinner’s prayer, and when asked if he truly believes he is saved, he says “yes, on this date and time I was saved”.
But he doesn’t know much about Christ yet !
He doesn’t know that he needs to follow Christ into the waters of baptism, he doesn’t know about the absolute power of Christ’s blood, he doesn’t know about His resurrection (he has heard of it, but he doesn’t yet really actually believes it, just like some of the apostles).
So, until he understands, then he is to be “patronized” and called a “brother” and do we cross our fingers and hope he gets to understand and believe everything and then and only then can we actually say he is a brother and he is a soul for whom Christ also died ?
While it is not news to me that Bob Wilkin is a heretic, the boldness of his heresy is shocking. In an article he titled “Scavenger Hunt Salvation Without a List”, Dr. Wilkin states:
“To be born again, eternally saved, all one needs to do is believe that Jesus Christ guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it..(passage list)..What about the virgin birth, the Trinity, Jesus’ bodily resurrection, Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross, Jesus’ sinless life, Jesus’ miracles, the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit, the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union, and on son? Knowing these things certainly makes it easier to believe in Jesus for eternal life. But does it follow that we must believe these things to be saved? No.”
While most of us would agree that one does not have to understand the hypostatic union, the theology of the Trinity, or things like that to be saved, it does not follow that such things can be rejected and a person still be saved. Bob Wilkin has set up a strawman by defending his position by asserting that “the apostles didn’t believe these things when they were born again”. Some of the things Wilkin is referring to were not yet revealed when the Apostles were saved. Yet, once those things were revealed, the Apostles believed them. To assert that a person can deny those things and still be saved is error. At salvation a person may not have a full grasp of those things, but a person who is truly coming to faith in Christ will not deny them (2John 9).
Now, we come to the biggest error of all. In his article, as seen in the above quote, Bob Wilkin denies that a person must believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus in order to be saved. He asserts that such belief is helpful, but not necessary. My friend, may I say up front, that his statement is nothing shy of soul damning heresy! The Bible is clear that in order to be saved we must “believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead” (Rom 10:9). In fact, when the Apostle Paul is defining the Gospel that saves he includes the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ:
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved…for I delievered to you as of first importance what I also recieved, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the thrid day according to the Scriptures” -1Cor 15:1-4
Bob Wilkin is stripping the Gospel of its very heart by denying that a person must believe in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in order to be saved. In fact, the Apostle goes on to chastise some of the Corinthians for not believing those things (1Cor 15:12-19). The results of denying the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus are tragic (we are still in our sins, we are false witnesses of God, our faith is worthless, we will perish, etc). In fact Paul stated earlier that we are only saved if we “hold fast” the Gospel he preached (1Cor 15:2). Therefore the people Bob Wilkin is “winning to the Lord” apart from the message that Paul preached are lost in their sins. Apart from faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord from the dead there is no salvation.
I want everyone here to know that, as of this point, I consider the Grace Evangelical Society to be heretical and under the condemnation of God (Gal 1:6-10). In this group I put Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges, and others who teach their blasphemous heresy. I pray that the rise Lord would open their eyes, and the eyes of their followers, before their error costs them their eternal souls.
RichardAnna Boyce
Troy Day, when i evangelise using John 3:16, and the unbeliever then believes in Jesus to receive eternal life; i believe God does not look at the new believer in the FLESH (a believer who doesnt understand death burial resurrection, or doesnt show any signs of loving God etc etc); but sees the new believer in the SPIRIT (a BELIEVER for eternity). So continuous faith is not a condition of eternal life security. If the new believer has any condition attached to their believing, then they will never have any assurance they are eternall securely saved. For those who don’t believe Free Grace, they should evangelise this to the unbeliever and tell them they are signing up to a conditional future!!!!!!!!!!. Of course, the moment after conversion, the unbeliever should be discipled that Jesus is their Lord; and that being unfaithful to Jesus, including immature love as the believer matures, then they will be in danger of losing rewards in the Millennium; as all believers will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Varnel Watson
gnosticism @ its best
Varnel Watson
RichardAnna Boyce IF your sin is dead but your are still sinning your FLESH is still alive and you need entire sanctification #simple Lyndsey Dunn Joe Absher Do you adhere to ENTIRE Sanctification? The HOLY SPIRIT wants ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/entire-sanctification/
RichardAnna Boyce
sin NATURE is dead, crucified with Christ, but i admit to sinning each day. Don’t you???????????
Varnel Watson
We know that no one begotten by God sins; but the one begotten by God he protects, and the evil one cannot touch him. 1 Jn 5:18 – if you have a problem with that take it with John. I am but a messenger here to serve you
RichardAnna Boyce
1 John 5:18 The inner man, born of God, has the inborn capacity to resist the pollution of evil and thus lies outside of Satan’s reach.
In saying that the regenerate inward person (cf. Rom 7:22) keeps himself, John is not saying that one’s inner self can somehow prevent all sin in the Christian life (cf. 1:5-10). What John means is that God’s “seed remains in” the regenerate inner self (cf. 3:9) as the controlling element of his born-again nature and is impervious to even the slightest contamination from the wicked one. Believers’ failures are due to the sinful “programming” of their earthly bodies, as Paul himself taught in Rom 7:7-25.
But try as he might, Satan cannot really touch the believer. But if a believer lets him, Satan will use his failures to lead him to further failures. So after every sin, a believer ought to rise from his confession to God, knowing that he is the same inwardly holy person he was before he failed!
Lyndsey Dunn
Troy Day Yes, of course. The gospel plainly calls for Sanctification. However, glorification is a whole other level. Although we are completely sanctified, if we slip and sin we have an advocate with the father. John explains this well. There is no such thing as free grace , but there is also no such a thing as faith without grace. A righteous man intends to live righteously in his heart as Abraham trusting in God. In our faith based action his grace empowers us to carry on. His empowering grace is sufficient for us to live a holy and sanctified life until that day of glorification.
Varnel Watson
Lyndsey Dunn the GOSPEL also plainly calls for REPENTANCE but RichardAnna Boyce free grace dont need it for salvation