And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” – Acts 5:32 ESV
Obey Him.
That is the issue in this verse. Of course some could say the initial belief is the act of obedience that is being referred to in this verse, but I wonder.
Some questions arise in my mind though.
Does God give the Holy Spirit to those who do not believe?
Does God give the Holy Spirit to those who do not obey Him?
Are these the same question? Is believing the same as obeying?
Is this an unconditional gift of the Holy Spirit to anyone who at one point believes?
If so, is one act of obedience/belief all that the Lord is looking for from us?
The Greek verb edoken (has given) is in the aorist tense. “Obey” is a translation of peitharchousin, which is a present participle. The literal translation is “obeying.” According to Robertson (Grammar, pp. 891-892) the “obeying” can come before, at the same time, or after the act of giving. It can even refer to past action still in progress. Obviously, much depends on the context.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you would like to receive daily posts from Considering the Bible, click on the “Follow” link below
I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge– even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you– so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. – 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 ESV
Security
In an earlier post, I mentioned that I would look at verses that seem to support the eternalsecurity teaching and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these passages.
Today’s passage is found in 1 Corinthians 1:8, but I would like to consider the passage from verses 4 through 9. Is Paul seeking to instruct the believers in Corinth about eternal security? Or is he breaching upon their lack of stability?
Security and Confirmation
Verse 8 clearly states that Jesus Christ shall confirm them unto the end, which must surely mean that once a person becomes a true believer, Jesus Christ is responsible to independently supply the believers security and deliver that person to God at their death. At least that is how I read it in the past and suppose it is the common understanding among those who lean toward the eternal security teaching.
But I do have a few concerns.
I would like to start with Paul’s description of the Corinthians confirmation in verse 6. The passage is telling me that the testimony of Christ was confirmed in the Corinthians. This is the very same word that Paul uses two verses later in verse 8.
So lets consider what is going on in these verses.
In verse 7, Paul states the purpose of the confirmation described in verse 6. The testimony of Christ – that is the witness/proof of Christ, was confirmed in the Corinthians via the gifts they received, the knowledge and utterance they experienced. The confirmation had a purpose. The confirmation had two participants, that is, God supplied the gifts, but the Corinthians exercised these gifts of knowledge and utterance. This is important to consider.
In verse 8, Jesus Christ is confirming the believers for the purpose of presenting them as blameless in the day of Christ.
Lets think about this.
Security Synonym?
Is confirmation a synonym (a word that means the same) for security?
As I read this passage in my earlier belief of eternal security, I would have to say yes! But the question begs to be answered honestly. Please remember that security has synonyms such as safety, defended, protected, sheltered, unharmed and shielded. Confirmation does not relate to these concepts.
But I am getting ahead of myself.
Additional Questions
Is this confirmation something that is performed only in heaven? Or is this confirmation something that is being accomplished within the believer’s life?
Of course, if it is some type of mystical confirmation in heaven that is a completely independent activity of Jesus Christ alone without the participation of the believer, then adherents to the eternal security may have a valid argument with this verse.
But if the believer participates in this confirmation by obeying the direction (however imperfectly ) of the Master, following His teaching and seeking His direction, then somehow verse 8 includes a human component, a willingness and desire to conform to a blameless life, under the power and enabling of the Lord.
The greek word used in both verse six and eight is βεβαιόω, and the root meaning is “to be firm”. When used of persons, it signifies someone who is trustworthy, someone who inspires confidence. In verse eight, the verb is in the future tense and active voice. The active voice represents Jesus Christ (the subject) as the doer or performer of the action. Let me ask this simple question – As Jesus is confirming these believers to be blameless, would it not be obvious to all about? Remember that to confirm someone is to produce someone who is firm, trustworthy, and one in whom you can trust and depend on. Would not this fruit be evident in the believer’s life? A life that is becoming more like Jesus.
He is certainly firm, trustworthy and One in whom we can place our confidence!
This is most interesting since many in the eternal security camp may speak of those who have no outward witness of Christ living in them as still being believers that are eternally secure and guaranteed entry into heaven, simply due to some statement of belief in the past.
Of course this is a very difficult statement to say in these days of sensitivity, where we must not offend any. But I wonder what engenders God’s trust in some believers who break covenant without concern about His teachings and who claim a vital relationship with Him in the midst of obvious sin and rebellion.
Consider.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you would like to receive daily posts from Considering the Bible, click on the “Follow” link below
and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. – Rom 8:17
Paul is in the middle of one of the greatest chapters in the New Testament, speaking to the church in Rome about the gospel, the justification, sanctification and glorification of the church due to the faithfulness of God. Of course, God’s faithfulness becomes an issue in the very next chapter and Paul spends three chapters explaining the faithfulness of God to Israel. Speaking on those chapters is for another post (or 40 posts!)
This post is to deal with Paul’s description of the church’s / believer’s glorification, and the relationship we have in our suffering for Him. Paul, according to my understanding, is linking the glorification of the saint with the suffering we undergo.
We are “heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him..”
Now this sticks in my craw since I have always believed it is the blood of Christ that has provided sonship for all that believe, that trust the message God has provided. How can the glorification of the child of God discussed above be dependent on the child of God’s suffering?
I suppose a viable reading would be that as children of God, based on our faith, we will inevitably suffer with Him. This may be the possible reading, but then I would imagine that the verse should be read as
…..if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided wesince we definitely shall suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Italics inserted by author
If suffering is inevitable for the believer (and I think it is – see Acts 14:22), what is Paul telling the church? Why does he introduce the “fellow heir” topic and link it, make it dependent on our suffering with Him. If suffering is inevitable, a simple admonition to endure may have been expected. (But then the Bible often does not provide what is expected!)
I think the logic for the short passage goes like this
Sons of God – led by the Spirit of God Romans 8:14
Not Sons of God – have spirit of slavery, live in fear Romans 8:15
Children of God – witness of Spirit of God Romans 8:16
Children of God = heirs of God, proven by suffering with Him Romans 8:17
As an aside, it is interesting that Romans 8:9 also introduces this “possibility” or “conditional” (if so be..) thought into a passage that for many years I saw as one of the strongest passages defending the OSAS (once saved always saved) position.
So can a person be a child of God and experience no suffering? In other words, if a child of God experiences no suffering, will they experience glorification?
This is a short post, primarily due to my lack of ability to understand this verse without my previous position influencing me.
I am very open to discussion on this (and any other post) that may cause you to question my thinking. Your challenges to my thoughts are warmly invited and I look forward to some giving my some clarity on this passage.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you would like to receive daily posts from Considering the Bible, click on the “Follow” link below
The security of the believer pops up often in the Word, under various topics. The general topic in this post is the widows list.
Widows in the early church commanded a large part of the concerns of the apostles writing when discussing church issues with Timothy. Not only did Paul direct Timothy about the support of deserving widows, but the danger the young widows fell into if included.
Paul actually commanded Timothy to refuse to “honor” (or assist) the young widows!
If I understand the situation, the churches would aid widows by supplying the widows needs. The list would contain the names of the widows being assisted and Paul is trying to define the character of a widow that is deserving of inclusion on the list.
Conditional Security
Lets read the passage before we dig in.
1 Timothy 5:11-15
But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. – 1 Timothy 5:11-15
Security Problems
Some may imagine that the description above is simply Paul’s way of keeping young widows free from being on the “widow list”, locking into some benefit from the church, but not able to maintain their faithfulness to the Lord. Since the young widows have not been tested (like deacons – see 1 Timothy 3:10 – “proved”) they may slip from a faithful lifestyle to that of being idle, tattlers and gossips.
What shocks me when I read a passage like this is that of these Christian widows, some have turned aside after Satan. That can’t be good no matter how you slice it. Unless, of course, the doctrine of eternal security is true, where a Christians security is based on a single act of saving faith, and lifestyle, character and conduct have no bearing on a relationship with Jesus.
As a matter of fact, when the Lord called His disciples, He did so using the same terminology Paul uses of the widows turning aside after Satan. A very interesting passage reflecting this is found in Matthew 16.
But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Matthew 16:23-24
When Jesus states If any man will come after me…. it is the same term Paul uses of the widows actions toward Satan. Those who follow Jesus are commonly considered Christians. If a Christian follows Satan, is that person still a Christian?
If I am thinking properly, and a Christian maintains their identity as a Christian while following Satan, it empties the power of the original call on the disciples. When Jesus said to follow, He meant to follow HIM, not simply follow anything or anyone!
But what I find even more interesting is the previous verse, where Jesus tells Peter to get behind Him. When Paul tells of the widows turning aside after (or behind) Satan, some word studies explain that the term is identical to Jesus telling Satan to get behind Him.
So let’s get this picture clear – widows who once followed Jesus are beginning to follow after (behind) Satan.
Jesus simply commands Satan behind Him.
You see – Jesus is in charge of all – He has all authority – He is the only One risen from the dead, never to die again.
Following anyone else is foolhardy, and in the end, life threatening. He is the only One placed on King Davids throne, reigning over the Church and all creation. Security is found in the person of Jesus, and following Him is the key.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you would like to receive daily posts from Considering the Bible, click on the “Follow” link below
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. – Rom 11:29 ESV
In the midst of a discussion on the security of the believer, it is important to find passages that deal directly with the topic.
Many believers who follow after the eternally secure (OSAS) teaching find support in the passage we are looking at. God’s faithfulness is emphasized in the passage above, but the application of the truth to the security of the believer seems to be misapplied.
You see, a characteristic of God (His faithfulness) is revealed in this passage, but the object of God’s faithfulness is the nation of Israel, not the salvation of the individual believer.
Regarding the security of the believer, the passage is not particularly comforting.
Conditional Security
This verse is found near the end of Paul’s eschatological (end time) discussion (Romans 9 – 11) on the Jewish nation. Paul is addressing the complex topic of God’s faithfulness to the nation of Israel, and how the church is relates to the promises given to the nation of Israel.
Throughout the Old Testament, the Lord made promises to the nation of Israel. To be considered faithful, God must keep the promises to those who are of the nation of Israel.
But that is the point.
Security Question
How can the promises to the nation of Israel be taken away without reflecting adversely on the faithfulness of God? Is God an “Indian giver”? (I have actually heard this type of accusation in church about the character of God.)
Earlier in the passage, Paul defined Israel as the people of God, those faithful to His covenant, such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Such as Peter, James and John. Such as Simeon and Anna in the Temple, Zechariah, Malachi, Hosea and the host of prophets and believers that were in the physical nation of Israel.
In other words the remnant.
The Israel of God.
Today we call this group of believers the Church.
By the time Paul gets to the last few verses of Romans 11, he is making his closing argument. God’s gifts and calling are without repentance. All those who follow the Messiah receive the gift and calling of being of the nation of Israel, with all of its promises and benefits.
But please notice that it is God’s gift and calling that are without repentance. Since it is a covenant between two parties (God and the believer), we cannot assume the second party in the agreement has no bearing on the successful completion of the covenant. Paul is defending God’s faithfulness to the covenant, not the believers responsibility in the covenant.
Earlier I mentioned that the passage gives little comfort to the eternally secure position. It is important to remember that this topic had to be addressed due to the loss of covenant that the physical nation of Israel was experiencing in the early days of the church. As a matter of fact, the reason the physical nation of Israel lost the privileged status of the Sinaitic Covenant was their constant rebellion against the covenant the nation entered into with God.
The faithlessness of the physical nation of Israel resulted in the loss of covenant privilege. Paul is reminding us that we cannot shift the blame to God, or assume God’s faithfulness will ignore rebellion.
The Babylonian and Roman seiges on Jerusalem seems to lay that false security to rest.
Consider.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you would like to receive daily posts from Considering the Bible, click on the “Follow” link below
4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,
5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.
9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,
10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Recently I attended a Sunday School class that was decidedly of the “once saved always saved” persuasion and we were spending some time in the passage below. Once we arrived at verse 6, the teacher mentioned how important this passage was and how he found comfort in it. He was exulting in the good work of God, that is, to supply Christian security to believers based solely on initial faith at the moment of conversion.
But I had questions.
I don’t think Paul is addressing the eternal security of the believers in Philippi.
He is writing to one of his very favorite church groups. The context is their fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now. Lets break this down a bit.
When Paul mentions fellowship, what is he talking about? The word Paul uses for fellowship can also be translated as partnership, or participation. The Philippians were partnering with Paul in the gospel. Is it simply the fact that they were Christians like he was and therefore they had fellowship?
Possibly.
But why is he defining the time limits so precisely, why does he have the ending clause of “from the first day until now”. I think when Paul uses “now”, he is referring to a very specific partnering, but is being incredibly delicate.
Out of all the churches planted by Paul, the Philippians had one (of many) qualities that made it stand out from the rest.
They loved Paul.
And he was reminded of this love on numerous occasions.
Consider what we know about the first day of Paul’s experience with this group of people.
Acts 16:15
And when she (Lydia) was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Acts 16:33
And he (the Philippian jailer) took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. 34 And he brought them up into his house, and set meat before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.
Also, the last time Paul visited with the fledgling church, after his release from the jail.
Acts 16:35-40
35 But when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go. 36 And the jailor reported the words to Paul, saying, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore come forth, and go in peace. 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they now cast us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and bring us out. 38 And the serjeants reported these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans; 39 and they came and besought them; and when they had brought them out, they asked them to go away from the city. 40 And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.
These three passages teach us a number of important characteristics of the Philippian church.
They were an inviting church. Both of the main characters of the church (Lydia and the jailer) invited this trouble maker into their homes. I did a quick review of the book of Acts and could not find another church that was as inviting to the apostle. As a matter of fact, I didn’t find any church that expressly accepted Paul into their lives as the Philippians did.
Verse 35 to 40 need a bit more background to understand what possibly happened during Paul’s final moments with the church. You see, the Philippian church was a Roman colony and as such had the Caesar’s eye on it more so than some of the other churches in the area. A government town. Paul, I think, used the injustice of the beating and imprisonment to broker a deal with the leaders of the City. I thinkit may have went something like this.
Paul “You realize I am a Roman citizen and the beating and imprisonment you subjected us to was illegal?”
City Official “Please leave our city without tattling on us”
Paul “The law of the Romans strictly forbids the beating and imprisonment of a Roman without a trial.”
City Official “Please leave our city without tattling on us”
Paul ” I have friends in the city that I care deeply for”
City Official “?”
Paul “Do we understand each other?”
In the final moments of Paul’s time with the Philippians, he may (or may not have) mentioned that he had discussed some issues with the city officials, He definitely encouraged the new believers, sharing the love of Jesus with them and saying their goodbyes.
Paul “You realize I am a Roman citizen and the beating and imprisonment you subjected us to was highly illegal”
But wait – remember in chapter 1, verse three, where the apostle state they have shared in the gospel from the first day? It is obvious that the Philippians shared with Paul and his companions their homes, their lives and their goods.
Wow – Carl – there is nothing in the previous passage that says the Philippians gave of their goods to Paul.
Granted, that may be a stretch, but they loved him and I think they gave him some moolah, you know – cash. Also, if you look at the end of the book, specifically verse 15 of the fourth chapter, you will find that this church was the only church that supported Paul when he left them behind.
Consider
Philippians 4:10-19
10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. 12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. 14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction. 15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. 16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. 17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. 18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. 19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.
So lets get this straight. The Philippians supported Paul at the following times * When he left the Philippian church the first time * Twice in Thessalonica * At least one in Corinth * At least once in prison (the reason for the writing of this epistle)
Wow – Carl – there is nothing in the previous passage that says the Philippians gave of their goods to Paul in Corinth. (My my my – nothing gets by you now, does it?)
Consider
2 Corinthians 11:9
and when I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want; and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.
Paul could take gifts from the Philippians since they loved him. (They were not questioning Paul’s motives or reluctant in supplying his needs as some others were.
So, lets get back to the original issue.
What is the good work that Paul is referring to in the beginning of the book?
I humbly submit that he is referring to the Philippian church actively partnering in the gospel through supplying the apostles physical needs.
The “once saved always saved” teaching simply isn’t there!
Guess we will have to look somewhere else for that teaching!
Maybe a commentary?
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you would like to receive daily posts from Considering the Bible, click on the “Follow” link below
Decades ago, when I was just a youngin’ in the Lord, I was befriended by a mature believer. Golly, it was so long ago, I forgot his name, and yet his witness has stuck with me.
He was a safety shoe salesman, hocking his wares from construction site to construction site in a large panel van. He covered an immense geographical region, and was often on the highway. As we got to know each other, he would find me occasionally reading my little New Testament, and would speak of his experiences with God.
One passion Frank had (let’s call him Frank), one passion he had was to speak in tongues. Now remember, I was very young in the Lord, and primed for any teaching. I had little to no discernment and found I gave men much freedom in their influence over me. (In other words, I didn’t test the teaching like I am instructed to!). I was entranced by his witness, listened to his stories and enjoyed his friendship very much.
Frank would drop by and tell me glowing stories of the Lord personally teaching him mysteries that were modern day messages directly from God, directed for him, and all he could reach. He was so charismatic (I mean that in both his personality and theology), it was hard to not be swept away with the excitement.
Until he spoke of a time he was driving down the 401 (North America’s busiest freeway), between Windsor and London Ontario, and he was “slain in the Spirit”. Wow! What does that mean Frank?
He described the rapturous utterances he spoke, of his shaking uncontrollably, and of his visions. His visions, that required his eyes to be closed. While on the busiest highway in North America. While travelling 100 km/hr. In a large panel van!
Golly. Something just don’t sound right!
He spoke of the Spirit guiding him into all truth and of the mysteries the Spirit was revealing in the last days, of the Spirit working through the gift of tongues to bring about revival and renewal, of the Spirit Spirit Spirit.
Enter George.
I have spoke of this fine believer in an earlier post. (See Story Time – Christian Accountability – Obey) During one of my visits with George, he spoke of a “shy” member of the Trinity, a member of the trinity that seeks to be in the background. What heresy am I hearing now? Golly, what is a young believer to do with so many influences?
George wasn’t in the habit of telling me magnificent stories of personal revelations, of visions and utterances. He simply sat down with me, and opened up the Word to the following passages.
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. – John 15:26
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 16:13-14
George looked at me, and spoke of the witness of the Spirit to be of Jesus, not of the Spirit. Whoa – coming from my time with Frank, it only made sense that the Spirit would speak of itself – how could we as believers not admit the message, visions and utterances were not from the Spirit? Why, that is simply logical, reasonable and popular!
But George challenged me with the written Word, and not with his feelings or his personal testimony in this area of faith.
Did Jesus want us to focus on the Spirit of truth? Is His message to His followers to focus on the Spirit, or to judge the source of the message by the content of the message. In other words, if it bears witness to the Savior, and glorifies Him, it is from the Spirit. The Spirit is the “shy” person in the Trinity, seeking to show off Jesus, and not Himself.
Golly, even though the Spirit has the authority of the Godhead, Jesus reveals that He (the Spirit) will not speak of His own authority. During this age of the Body of Christ, the Spirit mimics Jesus’ self humiliation while He was on the earth, and steps back from any attention grabbing, in order for all the glory to go to the Risen Savior.
My friend – consider your focus, who you are looking to. Looking for the gifts of the Spirit is misdirected, has caused trouble in the church before and will cause divisions in the Body today. It is abundantly clear in the written Word, that the Savior is the Lord, and that as we look to Him (and no other) that we will understand His will and know the truth.
But be warned. To walk as He walked includes a humility and servanthood that is not popular amongst many in the church, many who are supposedly providing glorious messages that God personally provides to them. Those who provide messages directly from God actually become the focus of the message, and the Lord is simply a means to an end for these messengers. I am convinced that the mystical messages are at least a distraction for the believer, for any mystical message that speaks the same as the Bible is unnecessary, and any message that speaks differently than the Word should be rejected.
His message has been given to us. Crack a Bible and read it. Keep your eyes on Him. And let the Spirit do what He desires, and not what you want!
I was driving home from helping my son install some ceiling fans, and as I was listening to Free Bird, it occurred to me that some within the Christian faith claim the Bible teaches “perseverance of the saints”. I know – an errant thought, but stick with me for a minute.
But first, let’s look at the verse that stirred my thinking during the middle of Free Bird, and then we can delve into the dark crevices of my thoughts.
1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Perseverance of the saints is not a troubling teaching in my mind, but to be practical, we have to admit that it is a time dependent truth for each of us. Some believers will use this verse to claim that only true Christians remain faithful, and with that I have no argument. True believers continue to believe.
The time component is what sticks in my craw, when I hear that some believers that are living today, claim that they are in a contract with the God of the universe that is iron clad, and without conditions. That initial faith is their ticket to heaven. They will end up in heaven no matter what happens, no matter what they do, or no matter what occurs in their faith.
Let me try to explain it as I heard it in my head as I was conversing with myself on the way home – Don’t worry – I turned Free Bird off during my self conversation!! Carl – admit it – You were talking to yourself!
Carl – 1 John 2:19 teaches that true believers continue in the faith
Anti-Carl – Yes that is true, and those that left the faith were either never a believer, or that they abandoned the faith.
Carl – Oh I am sure the author intends the reader to see those who did not continue in the faith to have never been a believer
Anti-Carl – So you say, but lets get practical. Are you a believer?
Carl – Of course.
Anti-Carl – How do you know you will continue? Can you foresee the future?
Carl – Of course I cannot see into the future, but God will keep me. He has promised.
Anti-Carl – Many folks have claimed a promise from God and yet have walked away. What makes you better than them?
Carl – They were liars, even self deceived.
Anti-Carl – Again, the only assurance you have of eternal life is that you have faith at the point of death. Until that time, you cannot guarantee anyone of your continuance, since it is expressed in action (continuing with believers) as opposed to simply a feeling or a belief. It seems the security you boast in is highly time dependent and somewhat fragile until the end.
Carl – I refuse to hear you anymore!
Remember, dear reader, that the Lord’s promises are many times conditional on our heart response, our obedience, our listening and doing. Our faith is not to be based on head knowledge alone, but on a willing heart that seeks to follow Him.
Your thoughts?
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion. If you know someone this blog may bless (or challenge), send them a link, so they may join us in our discussion
This passage, in relation to conditional security is apparent when we realize the apostle is writing to believers, as is obvious in the opening verses, where he rejoices that some (vs 4) are walking according to truth, (implying some of the children are not walking in truth). He goes on to speak of deceivers going out into the world, a separate group from the church it seems. (vs 7).
His warning to the believers are to watch, to hang on to the truth, do not lose what you have gained, but to win a full reward.
Then John writes vs 9, where he speaks of one who goes ahead of the true teaching, not abiding in the teaching that has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 1:9
9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
The deceivers were against Christ, speaking of Him as only a man, or only as God, not the God-man. (I understand two forms of Gnosticism were rising in the church at the time, either restricting the humanity of the Messiah, or the Deity of the Messiah.
That bit of information was a freeby, since the issue in this post is the responsibility of the believer to maintain the true teaching of the Word, in relation to the Son of God.
It seems John was giving the church a choice. You can abandon the teaching of Christ, and not retain God, or you can abide in the truth and have both the Father and the Son.
I can’t see how John would be addressing two different parties (lost and saved) in the same phrase, unless I was committed to a teaching that didn’t allow this consideration.
9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.”
Sunday school class was very good this weekend. We started in the book of Joshua and reviewed the portion of Scripture above. During our discussion, a lady made mention that verse 9 is a great promise that should give us courage. I honestly tried to be quiet but I just couldn’t. So I broke my silence – something that happens too often I fear!
Is not the command “Be strong and of good courage” first in the passage? Is not the last phrase – “for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.” a result of obedience to the command to be strong and courageous? Is not the context of the entire passage an exhortation to be courageous? I suggested that if Joshua did not obey, God would not be with him. That this verse actually contains a conditional promise. I also reminded some that this is somewhat similar to Jeremiah’s situation in the first chapter of Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 1 :17
Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them.
Jeremiah was being warned – obey or be confounded (confused) in front of the enemy.
We chatted for a few minutes and one believer noticed that there was no “if” in Joshua 1:9, therefore it could not be conditional. I admitted that that was an argument for their position and was willing to consider it. A bit more chatting, but I became distracted by the passage again. I always assumed the verse said …. for the LORD thy God “WILL BLESS” thee whithersoever thou goest, – but it doesn’t strictly say that. Just that God would be with Joshua/Israel. I think that is possibly a different scenario.
Consider Joshua being afraid instead of being strong and courageous. God would not be with him. Not a comfortable situation!
I’m thinking the conditional/unconditional issue isn’t the central issue. God promised to be with Joshua, and the command was to be strong and courageous.
It has been months since I have touched this subject and have numerous verses to offer my dear readers to consider in relation to the topic at hand.
Of course, I am not putting forward that thought that we can loose our confidence by a single sin, or even a prolonged backsliding (to a point), but there seems to be a preponderance of verses in the Word that provides the possibility of the believer walking away from the faith, and that this action has eternal consequences.
The verse under consideration today is 2 Corinthians 1:24
2 Corinthians 1:24
24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.
Golly Carl, this very verse speak of our security in the Lord Jesus! Yes. That security is in the Lord Jesus, yet Paul does not say … “you stand firm in your Savior”, but you stand firm in your faith.
That faith which is yours.
My concern is for those who throw away their faith, their confidence in the Savior, the slow and imperceptible drifting away that is so common amongst the pulls and temptations of our modern life. (Consider Hebrews 2)
I will readily admit my fire is not burning hot as it was when I first believed, and with that I confess my weakness. Of course, I consider some of this diminishing of fire to be necessary in order for wisdom, understanding and patience to take hold of my life. That is an aspect of maturity and growth.
Yet I wonder…
The truth of the matter is that the lure of this materialistic life is a great danger and I fear that my faith may shrink at times.
My Savior is great and He is the One who rescues me, and yet I need to accept the responsibility of this relationship He has invited me into.
1 Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone,
2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith,
3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this.
4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know.
5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.
6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love and reported that you always remember us kindly and long to see us, as we long to see you–
7 for this reason, brothers, in all our distress and affliction we have been comforted about you through your faith.
8 For now we live, if you are standing fast in the Lord.
Oh how he loved them Thessalonians!
Paul proves his love when he speaks of going without, of sacrificing his brother Timothy and to be left alone in Athens due to his concern over the Thessalonians.
But what was Paul’s concern?
Though he had warned the young believers of distress, pain and suffering to enter into their lives, he was concerned that these forewarned trials might still nullify his work in the believers.
You see, Paul’s concern was their faith. For these believers to be “moved” by afflictions is a threat that Paul could not endure. Would the believers maintain faith in the midst of trials?
It seems Paul’s faith in the Thessalonians faith was a bit weak – but fully understandable, since the Thessalonians faith was being tested, and their faith seemingly hadn’t been tested prior to this. Beyond all this, Jesus is the only One we really can trust to be fully faithful!
But what else was Paul trying to infer/imply?It is interesting that the term “moved” in the Greek, generally refers to a dog waggin his tail.
Strongs Concordance
Moved – σαίνωsaínō, sah’-ee-no; akin to G4579; to wag (as a dog its tail fawningly), i.e. (generally) to shake (figuratively, disturb):—move.
Isn’t that interesting, that Paul uses such a word. Somewhere else in his writings he refers to troubles as being not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed in us.
Paul is referring to trials “moving” the believer. Is he implying the trials have the potential to control the believer? Like a dog controls his tail? Am I making too much of this?
Maybe.
But if trials have the potential to control a believers life, and if the believer being controlled by these trials would nullify the work of the apostle….
But alas, Paul had no reason to fear that his work in the believers would be in vain. They were standing strong in their faith, exhibiting love to each other and desire for the apostle.
Which implies that apostles work being in vain (empty) would be that they did not stand strong in their faith.
Strongs Concordance
Vain, κενόςkenós, ken-os’; apparently a primary word; empty (literally or figuratively):—empty, (in) vain.
Hang on Carl – according to some great Bible teachers, if these Christians were not strong in their faith, they would still be Christians. The work of the apostle would still be evident, just a bit dimmed and blunt.
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Can Jude be any less blunt?
Wow – these Israelites, whom Jesus saved out of Israel, were destroyed by Jesus later, due to absence of faith.
Did I read that right?
OK, so Jude may be talking of the people, the family of Israel, the tribes, the entire gaggle of people that were delivered from Egypt. I get that.
But those that Jesus destroyed? No that is not what I think it means!
Jesus destroyed those who did not believe.
Those without individual faith are destroyed by Jesus.
Let that sink in. Can it get any more disturbing to the modern Christian to hear a statement such as this!
OK, lets get back to the point. Could the first deliverance refer to simply being delivered from the tyrants of Israel? I’m thinking the first deliverance was a type, a foreshadowing of a greater deliverance, of a greater salvation, of a greater redemption intended for all who saw the acts of God, heard the words from Moses and internally exercised faith in the God of Israel.
What was the difference between one who was destroyed and one who wasn’t, even though both had been delivered? The duration of their faith separated these two groups of folk – all believed once, some believed continuously.
Only one condition, and that condition is the individuals duration of faith in the Savior, and Jude is preaching this story to believers.
Seems kinda obvious as to the intent of the author. One condition to avoid destruction in the Christian experience.
And that condition is continuous faith. Dang the people above made the one decision to join the deliverance from Egypt. And were destroyed. By none other that the One who initially delivered them.
Remember Jesus did not say “You must become born again” (referring to a point in time!)
Nope – He didn’t say it that way, and that wasn’t His message.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
They desire a better country!
Because of this desire, that is the desire that the Old Testament saints had, that is their witness of being strangers and exiles on the earth.
Therefore…
Because these saints did not think of their previous land, (because if they did they would have returned), God is not ashamed to be called their God.
What?
Something is missing here. The Old Testament saints decided to think and speak of a better country, a better place to be, a better homeland. This decision to think and speak this certain way impacted God’s attitude towards them.
God’s attitude was determined by these Old Testament saints decision to think correctly. And the result of God not being ashamed? He has prepared for them a City
Oh, to have right thoughts, to be aligned with His thoughts in the midst of a busy day, full of distractions, concerns and problems. Desire a better country, brother and sister! Desire the heavenly one, where the Heavenly One is. May He not be ashamed to be called our God.
4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus,
5 that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge–
6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you–
7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that I would look at verses that seem to support the eternal security teaching and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these passages.
Today’s passage is found in 1 Corinthians 1:8, but I would like to consider the passage from verses 4 through 9.
Is Paul seeking to instruct the believers in Corinth about eternal security? Or is he breaching upon their lack of stability?
Security and Confirmation
Verse 8 clearly states that Jesus Christ shall confirm them unto the end, which must surely mean that once a person becomes a true believer, Jesus Christ is responsible to independently supply the believers security and deliver that person to God at their death. At least that is how I read it in the past and suppose it is the common understanding among those who lean toward the eternal security teaching.
But I do have a few concerns.
I would like to start with Paul’s description of the Corinthians confirmation in verse 6. The passage is telling me that the testimony of Christ was confirmed in the Corinthians. This is the very same word that Paul uses two verses later in verse 8.
So lets consider what is going on in these verses.
In verse 7, Paul states the purpose of the confirmation described in verse 6. The testimony of Christ – that is the witness/proof of Christ, was confirmed in the Corinthians via the gifts they received, the knowledge and utterance they experienced. The confirmation had a purpose. The confirmation had two participants, that is, God supplied the gifts, but the Corinthians exercised these gifts of knowledge and utterance. This is important to consider.
In verse 8, Jesus Christ is confirming the believers for the purpose of presenting them as blameless in the day of Christ.
Lets think about this.
Security Synonym?
Is confirmation a synonym (a word that means the same) for security?
As I read this passage in my earlier belief of eternal security, I would have to say yes! But the question begs to be answered honestly. Please remember that security has synonyms such as safety, defended, protected, sheltered, unharmed and shielded. Confirmation does not relate to these concepts.
But I am getting ahead of myself.
Additional Questions
Is this confirmation something that is performed only in heaven? Or is this confirmation something that is being accomplished within the believer’s life?
Of course, if it is some type of mystical confirmation in heaven that is a completely independent activity of Jesus Christ alone without the participation of the believer, then adherents to the eternal security may have a valid argument with this verse.
But if the believer participates in this confirmation by obeying the direction (however imperfectly ) of the Master, following His teaching and seeking His direction, then somehow verse 8 includes a human component, a willingness and desire to conform to a blameless life, under the power and enabling of the Lord.
The greek word used in both verse six and eight has the the root meaning of “to be firm”.
When used of persons, it signifies someone who is trustworthy, someone who inspires confidence. In verse eight, the verb is in the future tense and active voice. The active voice represents Jesus Christ (the subject) as the doer or performer of the action.
Let me ask this simple question. As Jesus is confirming these believers to be blameless, would it not be obvious to all? Remember that to confirm someone is to produce someone who is firm, trustworthy, and one in whom you can trust and depend on.
Would not this fruit be evident in the believer’s life? A life that is becoming more like Jesus. He is certainly firm, trustworthy and One in whom we can place our confidence!
This is most interesting since many in the eternal security camp may speak of those who have no outward witness of Christ living in them as still being believers that are eternally secure and guaranteed entry into heaven, simply due to some statement of belief in the past.
Of course this is a difficult statement to say in these days of sensitivity, where we must not offend any. But I wonder what engenders God’s trust in a believer who breaks covenant without concern and who claims a vital relationship with Him in the midst of obvious sin and rebellion.
Our last post on this topic dealt with the question
“Is all the Bible to be read literally?”
We discussed the literal definition of the word “literal” – Oh how boring…., and genres of literature that passages within the Bible fall into. (somewhat interesting….)
This post, I would like to focus on the question
Is the message intended to be taken literally?
This is the heart of the message I am trying to communicate!
The intended (or true) meaning may be clouded or completely in error if taken literally.
Sometimes the message isn’t completely clear and the author will correct the misunderstanding. The following passages are offered to try to explain this concept.
Lets see if some of the messages Jesus gave in the Gospel of John were meant to be taken literally.
A Literal Temple
When Jesus said “Destroy this Temple”, the religious leaders understood the literal temple. Might this have been a mistake?
John 2:18-21
18So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?”
19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
20The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
21But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
A Literal Rebirth
When Nicodemus came to Jesus, Jesus told him he must be born again. Did Nicodemus take this literally?
John 3:3-9
3Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
8The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”
A Literal Well
When Jesus told the woman at the well about living water, and she asked Jesus about a bucket and the depth of the well, was she taking Jesus’ words too literally?
John 4:9-11
9The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”
11The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?
A Literal Lunch
When the disciples came back from the town, after Jesus discussion with the woman at the well, they were confused about what Jesus had eaten. Maybe the disciples understood Him too literally?
John 4:31-35
31Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”
32But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.”
33So the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought him something to eat?”
34Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.
35Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest.
His Literal Flesh
How about when Jesus taught that His flesh was to be eaten and His blood was to be drank. Should that be taken literally?
John 6:48-52
48I am the bread of life.
49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
The Person of Christ
How about the “I am” statements in the Gospel? Shall literalness help us in our understanding of the person of Christ? Shall we consider the Messiah to be…
A Literal Light
John 8:12
12Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 9:5
5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
A Literal Door
John 10:7
7So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
A Literal (Path)way
John 14:6
6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
A Literal Vine
John 15:1
1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
John 15: 5
5I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Two final points come to mind at this time.
Many times throughout the gospels, those who took the sayings of Jesus too literally either
Were in a state of confusion, but eventually found clarity,
or
refused to consider anything other than the literal understanding.
Those who were confused but hungry and teachable eventually got the message. Those who refused to consider any other understanding seemed to be associated with His enemies.
Throughout the gospel, there are thousands of instances where depending on literalness causes confusion. And thousands of instances where it occurs in Johns other writings. Thousands! Even in Revelation. Thousands I tell you, thousands!
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.
First off, let me perfectly clear – I’m not saying we are not to read the Bible. Gosh golly nooooo. Read the Bible. Wrestle with it. Struggle with the Word. Argue with Him until it becomes clear. Honestly, if this post is competing for time that you could be reading the Bible, shut me down! Read the Bible instead. It will do your soul good.
Now that you have understood my stance on Bible reading, I suppose I am simply asking that when you read the Bible (remember you should read the Bible), are all portions of the Bible to be read in a strictly literal manner?
Is it true that the best method of understanding the Scriptures is to interpret the message literally?
I suppose that depends.
First off, lets make sure we understand what the term “literal” means.
in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
(of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.
of or pertaining to the letters of the alphabet.
of the nature of letters.
expressed by letters.
affecting a letter or letters: a literal error.
noun
a typographical error, especially involving a single letter.
Like I said, reading the Bible literally depends on a number of factors. Let’s consider some of those factors.
The Genre of the Passage
Different genres demand different approaches to interpretation. Types of genres include historical narrative, law, wisdom, psalms, prophecy, apocalyptic, gospel or epistle
In a historical narrative passage, such as the taking of the census before the birth of the Messiah, or the crucifixion of the Savior, literalness serves us well.
In an apocalyptic genre, such as in Revelation, where the writer describes scorpions with stinging tails, it would be wise to consider the genre before committing to a literal interpretation of the passage.
As an aside, it is not a literal interpretation to say that the apostle is describing fighter helicopters. That is an effort to interpret John’s vision by defining what he described as an object that is familiar to 20th century western culture. A literal interpretation will be that the scorpions are scorpions.
A Figure of Speech
Is the writer/speaker using a figure of speech. Some types of “figures of speech” are below with examples from the Bible
Hyperbole– an extravagant statement; the use of exaggerated terms for the purpose of emphasis or heightened effect.
Jesus used hyperbole often to teach those listening.
Consider Matthew 5:29
29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
Irony/Sarcasm– The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning. A statement or situation where the meaning is contradicted by the appearance or presentation of the idea. When used to taunt or ridicule, it is called sarcasm.
When the Pharisees went to trap Jesus in His Words, John records their saying with irony. The Pharisees didn’t mean it but the irony is is that He is true, teaches the way of God, etc.
Consider Matthew 22:15-16.
15Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words.
16And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.
Or for a good example of sarcasm, lets take a look at Elijah
1 Kings 18:27
27And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
Paradox– A statement that appears to contradict itself.
Jesus used this method in His teaching very often.
One example is in Luke 16:19-31
Those who live in poverty and destitution while being looked down upon by the rich and powerful are really the first in the Kingdom, while those who are rich and powerful while looking down on those who live in poverty are really last in the Kingdom.
The first will be last, and the last will be first.
Or consider
Matthew 22: 1-14
1And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying,
2“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son,
3and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.
4Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’
5But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business,
6while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.
7The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy.
9Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’
10And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment.
12And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.
13Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Just as those who are initially invited to the son’s wedding reject the invitation, those who are initially left out of the wedding plans are accepted as insiders at the wedding banquet. The insiders are out, and the outsiders are in. (If you desire to further study the paradoxical statements of Jesus, I would refer you to http://www.renewtheology.org/paperCFreeman1007.htm .)
The historical/cultural use of a word/topic/phrase in the scriptures.
A good example of this is the phrase “an evil eye”. In my past reading of the gospels, when I came across the phrase “an evil eye” I understood it to refer to an eye full of hate or maliciousness. After considering the historical use of the term in the Old Testament, I now understand the term to refer to a greedy covetous person. Without the historical use of the term being considered, I could not have come to that conclusion.
Recently another good example of an incorrect use of a cultural phrase occurred in my office, when I noticed my boss had gotten a haircut. I made mention that he had “gotten his ears lowered”, without thinking that that phrase may be cultural. As a Canadian in Texas, this sometimes happens! I had to explain that his ears weren’t actually lowered but that his hair was higher’d, (huh?) Canadians can be so hard to understand sometimes, eh?
Our next post will continue considering the Bible’s message, specifically the intention of the Biblical message.
Hope you continue to visit and open up a discussion.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.
Previous posts in this series were based on a pamphlet provided to me in my search for direction regarding local church membership.
Since my discussion with Cody, I tripped over a blog that discusses the dangers of signing a church covenant, a very fitting epilogue to our discussion on membership
This is our final post on this instance of local church membership. If you have followed the posts through to this one, I would love to hear from you. Please drop me a line. As always, if you read something in this discussion that concerns you, please take the time to send me your comments or reply within the post. I look forward to hearing from you.
Previous posts in this series were based on a pamphlet provided to me in my search for direction regarding local church membership. A brother named Cody sought to help me and I wish him well.
When I replied with the previous responses, I did not hear from him for a period of time. Of course, I feared I may have come off a bit strong, and in the interest of maintaining communication, reached out to him again.
Cody – As I watched you lead the study the other night, I saw a young man who wants to follow the Lord and disciple those he has a chance to. I would challenge you to consider what you are teaching, that is, that you focus on the Word of God and not some man’s teaching about the Word of God. (We spent less than 10 minutes reading the Word that night and the remaining time referring to a booklet.)
In my own studies recently, I have been in Mark 7. In that chapter, the Lord rebukes the religious leaders of the nation. I have to ask myself – How is the requirement for a believer to enter in to church membership any different than the Pharisees requirement for the disciples to wash their hands prior to eating. Both teachings are obviously constructed out of good intentions to protect the “layman”, but the Lord didn’t seem to accept this teaching.
Mark 7:1-13
1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem,
2they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.
3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders,
4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)
5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
6And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
7in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”‘ (that is, given to God)–
12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Jesus referred to the Word of God in His defense for the disciples. As a proponent of church membership, I would ask you to do the same. Either refer to the Word of God for your teaching, or admit that your teaching considers the Word of God to be insufficient for the needs of this time.
If you have followed the posts through to this one, I would love to hear from you. Please drop me a line. As always, if you read something in this discussion that concerns you, please take the time to send me your comments or reply within the post. I look forward to hearing from you.
11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry
12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.
13 Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.
15 For some have already strayed after Satan.
The security of the believer pops up often in the Word, under various topics. The general topic in this post is the widows list.
Widows in the early church commanded a large part of the concerns of the apostles writing when discussing church issues with Timothy. Not only did Paul direct Timothy about the support of deserving widows, but the danger the young widows fell into if included.
Paul actually commanded Timothy to refuse to “honor” (or assist) the young widows!
If I understand the situation, the churches would aid widows by supplying the widows needs. The list would contain the names of the widows being assisted and Paul is trying to define the character of a widow that is deserving of inclusion on the list.
Security Problems
Some may imagine that the description above is simply Paul’s way of keeping young widows free from being on the “widow list”, locking into some benefit from the church, but not able to maintain their faithfulness to the Lord. Since the young widows have not been tested (like deacons – see 1 Timothy 3:10 – “proved”) they may slip from a faithful lifestyle to that of being idle, tattlers and gossips.
What shocks me when I read a passage like this is that of these Christian widows, some have turned aside after Satan. That can’t be good no matter how you slice it. (Verse 12 actually states the widows had “abandoned their former faith”.)
Unless, of course, the doctrine of eternal security is true, where a Christians security is based on a single act of saving faith, and lifestyle, character and conduct have no bearing on a relationship with Jesus.
As a matter of fact, when the Lord called His disciples, He did so using the same terminology Paul uses of the widows turning aside after Satan.
A very interesting pasZxsage reflectingzz this is found i2n Matthew 16.
Matthew 16:23 – 24 2 am is a w1q
23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me.b. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
When Jesus states “If any man will come after me….” it is the same term Paul uses of the widows actions toward Satan. Those who follow Jesus are commonly considered Christians.
If a Christian follows Satan, is that person still a Christian?
If I am thinking properly, and a Christian maintains their identity as a Christian while following Satan, it empties the power of the original call on the disciples. When Jesus said to follow, idHe meant to follow HIM, not simply follow anything or anyone!
But what I find even more interesting is the previous verse, where Jesus tells Peter to get behind Him. When Paul tells of the widows turning aside after (or behind) Satan, some word studies explain that the term is identical to Jesus telling Satan to get behind Him.
So let’s get this picture clear – widows who once followed Jesus are beginning to follow after (behind) Satan.
Jesus commands Satan behind Him.
You see – Jesus is in charge of all – He has all authority – He is the only One risen from the dead, never to die again.
Following anyone else is foolhardy, and in the end, life threatening. He is the only One placed on King Davids throne, reigning over the Church and all creation. Security is found in the person of Jesus, and following Him is the key.
Previous posts in this series were based on a pamphlet provided to me in my search for direction regarding local church membership. A brother named Cody sought to help me and I wish him well.
When I replied with the previous responses, I did not hear from him for a period of time. Of course, I feared I may have come off a bit strong, and in the interest of maintaining communication, reached out to him again.
As I have been thinking on this topic, I have considered 9 questions.
One question will be offered for comment in the following posts
Consider and respond, or again, if you want to discuss just let me know.
Does Local Church Membership facilitate church discipline effectively?
This might be the most convincing argument for local church membership, if the church is modeled after an organizational structure, but the church is modeled after a family, so this argument is only effective if the premise of organizational church life is considered to be the norm.
Since this is not what the New Testament models the church after, we have to reconsider our thinking.
An example is always helpful for me.
As I have sought to be involved in local churches, being members for many many years, I have seen many families leave the fellowship and move onto other churches. Not so often, I have seen individuals leave on bad terms, (whether under formal discipline or not, I don’t know, even though the Lord says the final step in discipline is to bring the offender before the whole church) These disciplined folk usually end up in either another local fellowship, or end up wandering aimlessly. In my opinion, it seems that the discipline did not have it’s intended effect, that is, the restoration of the believer to the church.
What is the answer?
Make the offender miss the group – that is, reach into the offenders life (prior to any offense) and invest time and effort so that the offender will miss the group. Having a name taken off a list is not that effective!
Most, if not all offenders would admit that the reason they may have considered coming back to the original fellowship is because they missed the people, not the fact that their name was off a list.
So I have to ask you – What is the purpose of the list in relation to the act of discipline?
Matthew 16:18
18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Our next post will address a final question concerning the teaching of local church membership. I do hope you will join me in my discussion with Cody, and supply comment or correction from the Word for our mutual edification.
If you read something in this discussion that concerns you, please take the time to send me your comments or reply within the post. I look forward to hearing from you.
2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
Security
Not this type of vacuum – Oh never mind….
You know it has been a few years now since it “clicked” that the New Testament didn’t arise out of a vacuum.
The New Testament is the flower that grew out of the Old Testament, and as such, is supported by the law and the prophets.
With this “revelation” I have finally took time to notice when the New Testament authors use the Old Testament writings.
Such is the case in 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, where Paul the apostle uses an Old Testament passage about Adam and Eve to warn the believers of the dangers inherent in listening to a false teacher.
What does this have to do with Security?
First off, lets consider the goal of Paul’s warning. He is seeking to strengthen the believers thoughts of sincerity about the Christ. Could Paul have been worried (fearful) of the slippery slope of these believers falling away from the Master?
Singleness of mind towards the Lord is the topic here, and the context supports this. Within the very verses we are looking at, Paul introduces other spirit’s, other gospels, other Jesus’s and other teachers.
These teachers were introducing alternatives to the people of God, alternatives that competed with the truth. We must remember that security is based on truth, not on how we feel about something or what we want the truth to be. True security is independent of our feelings. But our feelings and fears sometimes desire to be placated, which makes us susceptible to those who are willing give us teaching simply to make us feel better.
This is exactly what happened in the Garden with Eve, which makes Paul’s reference to the deception so applicable. The alternatives that were being introduced to the Corinthians were such that they could not exist in harmony with the truth.
So where does a believer find security?
The people of God had to make decisions between two different types of messages, and the text is stating that they were “open-minded” enough to allow these teachers to guide them.
Accepting alternatives to the truth, as believers, was of great concern to Paul. Why did he use the Garden of Eden as a picture of what was going on?
Could he have implied the same results? You see – accepting the alternative message condemned Eve. Although she continued to exist, her security vanished the moment she sinned.
For those who seek to defend the “Once Saved Always Saved” teaching, it may have been better if Paul used a different Old Testament example!
Security can only be found in a Person, and the faithfulness of that Person creates the security. Will we listen to Him above all others, and in the process, find the security we so desperately want?
Previous posts in this series were based on a pamphlet provided to me in my search for direction regarding local church membership. A brother named Cody sought to help me and I wish him well.
When I replied with the previous responses, I did not hear from him for a period of time. Of course, I feared I may have come off a bit strong, and in the interest of maintaining communication, reached out to him again.
As I have been thinking on this topic, I have considered 9 questions.
One question will be offered for comment in the following posts Consider and respond, or again, if you want to discuss just let me know.
Does Local Church Membership assist in performing the work of the Body?
In one discussion with a brother, (he calls himself a pastor – I tell you this so you may understand the dilemma my question poses -) I asked the following question.
Would you rather have a faithful believer that is not a formal member of your church, or a formal member that is not necessarily faithful?
I don’t remember him answering.
Since I cannot find any place in the Scriptures that clearly demands this practice, the Body of Christ must be able to perform all of it’s duties without the imposition of this practice. Not only does the New Testament teach this, Christian history affirms the same.
The imposition of a formal church membership is associated more often than not with religious organizations that persecute believers. Thankfully as believers in the west, we do not live in this condition today!
In the passages that specifically describe the working of the Body of Christ, (universally or locally), local church membership teaching or instruction is painfully absent.
It seems the Lord will build His church.
Matthew 16:18
18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Our next post will address another question concerning the teaching of local church membership. I do hope you will join me in my discussion with Cody, and supply comment or correction from the Word for our mutual edification.
If you read something in this discussion that concerns you, please take the time to send me your comments or reply within the post. I look forward to hearing from you.
1 The Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded,
2 and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The LORD is with you while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.
Asa the king was a good king.
He understood where his security lay.
The history of the following passage is the battle between the children of Israel (specifically the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) and Zerah the Ethiopian. Turns out that Asa had an army of 580,000 men, while Zerah had close to double the men, coming in at one thousand thousand men (1,000,000 men), with 300 chariots! In the midst of this threat, Asa sought out God and God gave a tremendous victory!
After the victory and the mop up operations, that brought in much booty for the children of Israel, the prophet Azariah comes out to meet the king and his troops. His message to Asa is found in 2 Chronicles 15:1-2
Asa was informed of his conditional security in the following three phrases.
The Lord is with you while ye be with Him – Security!
If ye seek Him, He will be found of you – Security!
If ye forsake Him, He will forsake you. – Not so much!
Seems simple enough. Not much to debate on this passage, or so it seems.
Of course, the direct application of security is for the king and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, during their lives, but this promise given is instructive for us to consider.
The children of Israel could claim a status before the Lord that no other nation could lay hold of. They had incredible promises and privileges.
Rom 9:4
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.
5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
And with all these privileges, the children of Israel, as the Old Testament Theocracy, is no more. Brought to extinction close to 2000 years ago, the children of Israel had the kingdom taken from them…
Matt 21:43
43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.
I suppose the loss of the Kingdom itself speaks of the conditional security before the Lord and Master of the Covenant. Continual rebellion (see an earlier post on Leviticus 26) brought about many, many efforts by the Lord to bring them back to the faith, with the final judgment falling upon the nation that showed their hatred of God by the crucifixion of His Son.
Conditional security of the believer is pictured often in the history of the nation of Israel. I think of Romans 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:11 when reading the Old Testament and the history of the nation as a warning for myself. So often I can place myself in the shoes of the men in the stories I read.
Rom 15:4
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
1 Corinthians 10:11
11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
And yet I have hope. In the midst of rebellion, I can choose to cling to the One who rescues, Who is the Deliverer.
But I digress…
A Good King, with Good Fruit, Reminded of his Conditional Security
As a recap, let’s remember that Asa, as a good king, had called out to the Lord at a time of need, had experienced God’s security (a great deliverance), and, as the following passages teaches, was following God’s leading.
1 Kings 15:11,13-14
11 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done. …
13 He also removed Maacah his mother from being queen mother because she had made an abominable image for Asherah. And Asa cut down her image and burned it at the brook Kidron.
14 But the high places were not taken away. Nevertheless, the heart of Asa was wholly true to the LORD all his days.
Even the book of Chronicles gives high marks to King Asa, and the author of the Chronicles seems to be reluctant to give praise in comparison to the author of the book of Kings. (Check it out.) It seems the book of Kings generally grades in the political arena, where Chronicles grades in the religious area of a king’s life.
2 Chronicles 14:2-7
2 And Asa did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God.
3 He took away the foreign altars and the high places and broke down the pillars and cut down the Asherim
4 and commanded Judah to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, and to keep the law and the commandment.
5 He also took out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the incense altars. And the kingdom had rest under him.
6 He built fortified cities in Judah, for the land had rest. He had no war in those years, for the LORD gave him peace.
7 And he said to Judah, “Let us build these cities and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars. The land is still ours, because we have sought the LORD our God. We have sought him, and he has given us peace on every side.” So they built and prospered.
So Asa had a great victory after calling on the Lord, had a great track record up till this point in his life, and then, it seems out of the blue, comes along the prophet Azariah, to give the assurance of God’s presence. That is IF Asa sought Him and did not forsake Him.
Fruit of the Conditional Security Teaching
Is it not usually claimed that the conditional security teaching is a teaching of fear and threats? It seems the opposite is happening here, where a godly man is reminded that he is with the Lord and that he needs to continue to seek Him out. And Asa’s track record bears witness that the message was fruitful.
It is important to understand that a teachings veracity is not to be based on its fruitfulness but on its truthfulness. Nevertheless, a true message, delivered and understood correctly, will produce fruit (eventually).
A true message understood correctly by a soft heart that seeks to follow the Master will respond with an admission of weakness and a desire to follow.
A true message understood correctly by a hardened heart will respond with argument, denial, blameshifting, name calling and such.
Does the Bible lend itself to a LITERAL reading?
Irony/Sarcasm– The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning. A statement or situation where the meaning is contradicted by the appearance or presentation of the idea. When used to taunt or ridicule, it is called sarcasm.
As a recap, let’s remember that Asa, as a good king, had called out to the Lord at a time of need, had experienced God’s security (a great deliverance), and, as the following passages teaches, was following God’s leading.
Considering the Bible 