25 thoughts on “Are you dying inside? (Part 2d1c)”

• 

  Reply ↓

  Jan May 12, 2018 at 3:20 pm

  Praise God! He knew what He needed to do to bring us into His eternal kingdom. He’s so good! Thank you for the well-written article!

  • 

    Reply ↓

    The Form of the Fourth Post author May 13, 2018 at 4:58 am

    Jan!! Thank you so much for that encouraging feedback. You are a Phebe (Romans 16:1) in my book.

    Amen! God is good!!

• 

  Reply ↓

  Phil May 14, 2018 at 12:16 am

  I believe you are interpreting the Bible with an incorrect hermeneutic. The Bible speaks of belief. That belief is in Christ, God’s son. It is belief in what Christ has done for us on the cross. You must repent of your sins and depend on Christ’s blood to save you. Salvation also requires faith. Our faith is also in Christ’s blood redeeming you from the penalty from your sins. We must be consciously aware of our faith to be saved. Instead of trying to prove you can be saved with no knowledge of Christ because babies may have an exception, you must first show there is a way to be saved without any knowledge of Christ. But to be saved without knowledge of Christ is a false gospel. Salvation requires faith. Salvation requires belief. Although it is God who elects us, who chooses us, and who raises us spiritually from the dead, the way that he works this is through a conscious knowledge of His Son. Without knowledge of Christ no man can be saved. Without obedience to Christ as Lord we can’t be saved. Good works do not show evidence of salvation unless they are done to God’s glory. Fruit is only fruit if it comes from a heart of love for Christ.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF May 15, 2018 at 8:12 am

    Dear Phil,

    Always a pleasure to hear from you. I know you’re very busy and I thank you for your feedback.

    Also, I appreciate your diligent study of the Bible and your willingness to openly proclaim your understanding of the Bible, whether it is popular or not. I honestly believe we would be better off as a nation if there were more Christians like you.

    l also believe that your salvation doctrine is significantly unbiblical. And one reason this matters to me (this statement right here is not an argument, of course) is that I think it reduces or negates the amount of peace we are supposed to experience as disciples of Christ.

    You said I was trying to prove that “babies may have an exception”. However, this entire article, and the one before it, were intended to show that my soteriology provides *zero* exceptions for babies. No exceptions are needed, because I argued repeatedly that regeneration happens the same way (but at different ages, per God’s timeline) to *all* of God’s elect. It is a work of God and does not require our consent. Since no consent on the part of the person being born again is involved, this method works just as well on babies as it does on big people. I supplied many Scriptures to defend my position. Disagree if you want, but I must ask you to explain what makes you think I am arguing that babies get an exception. I am arguing precisely the opposite! The Gospel Coalition article, that you linked me to, is where the exception is being defended. *That* is where the exception is being advocated….not my blog.

    We have a lot of significant things in common though. You believe there is one God. So do I. We both believe in the Trinity. We both believe salvation is impossible without the work of Christ on the cross. We both take a fairly literal view of Genesis 1-2, and have shared various excellent, logical reasons for this view with each other. You have encouraged me!

    We can and do sharpen each other. Proverbs 27:17 says:
    “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.”

    In the spirit of iron sharpening iron, here are some of the questions (or implied questions) I have asked you in prior discussions, that I have gotten no response on. To keep this from going too long, I am only pasting my part of the discussion….but I include the link for anyone who wants to read the whole thing.

    From https://www.theformofthefourth.com/2018/03/10/are-you-dying-inside-part-2c7/#comment-37:

    ONE
    The whole verse:
    [Act 2:38 KJV] 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    You are using this verse to prove that you have to repent in order to be saved. So I can use the exact same logic to prove that you have to also be baptized to be saved. After all he tells them to repent AND be baptized. Do you believe you have to be baptized in order to be saved? If not, why does he tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

    TWO
    OK, so 7 verses after verse 14, there is a verse which does sound like judgment day. But just ONE verse after the “judgment day”-sounding passage, we find this:
    [Mat 7:24 KJV] 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
    Is this a verse about heaven and hell as well? If so, this is works based salvation, because he’s talking about hearing his sayings and DOING them. And he uses the house metaphor, which suggests a long pattern of consistently doing God’s will. I hope you agree that when he’s using the house and storm metaphor, he’s not talking about eternal judgment. Because then you would be affirming works-based salvation, in my view. And if you agree this is not talking about eternal judgment, even though it is only ONE verse after the judgment day passage, then I ask you again: Where is your proof that verse 14 (which is 7 verses prior to the judgment day passage you mentioned) is talking about heaven and hell?

    THREE
    I John 4:9
    [1Jo 4:9 KJV] 9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
    A fetus lives through its mother without knowing her name….or even having the ability to speak or reason. I don’t see how this verse makes your case.

    FOUR
    I John 4:15
    [1Jo 4:15 KJV] 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
    Confessing that Jesus is the Son of God is EVIDENCE that someone is dwelling in God. How do you make this verse say that you have to confess to get saved?

    FIVE
    [1Jo 5:1 KJV] 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
    I wrote a whole blog post about this. It says that if you believe in Jesus you are already born of God. What are you trying to prove with this verse?

    SIX
    [1Jo 5:10 KJV] 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
    Making God a liar is bad. Adultery is bad. A married man ogling another woman is bad. Does everybody guilty of these sins go to hell? Where is your proof that everybody who makes God a liar is going to hell?

    SEVEN
    [1Jo 5:13 KJV] 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
    OK so the book gives us several ways to know we are children of God. The book does not give us a SINGLE thing we need to do or say in order to legally BECOME children of God. If we believe in Jesus Christ, then we are born of God. Does this imply that if we are born of God then we believe in Jesus Christ? No. If you are a poodle then you are a canine. Does this imply that if you are a canine then you are a poodle?

    EIGHT
    Romans 10 says if you believe and confess you will be saved. John 3:16 says if you believe you will be saved. So did these people in this verse go to heaven or hell?
    [Jhn 12:42 KJV] 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

    NINE
    I would be interested to hear how you reconcile “few there be that find it” with:
    [Rev 5:9 KJV] 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
    or with:
    [Rev 15:2 KJV] 2 And I saw as it were a SEA [as opposed to the lake of fire in Revelation 20 and 21….a sea is bigger than a lake!] of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
    or with
    [2Pe 2:7-8 KJV] 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds;) [Even Lot was a just and righteous man according to Scripture, so he must have gone to heaven….doesn’t seem like a very narrow gate to me]

    TEN
    But if you are accusing me of saying that you do not have to physically hear the preached (or read the written) gospel of Jesus Christ and consciously assent to it and then repent of your sins in order to be saved, I stand guilty as charged. And I would offer the account of Cornelius, which was the subject of the latest blog post 2c7, as proof of that. I cannot accept that he was a depraved sinner, given all the things that are said about him before Peter shows up. I don’t think you can reconcile that with the description of man’s depravity in Romans 3 and Romans 1. And yet….he was not a Christian before Peter showed up, which is why he worshiped Peter when he arrived. Don’t know exactly what his religion was, but it sure as spitfire wasn’t Christianity.

    Now moving on to https://www.theformofthefourth.com/2018/03/17/are-you-dying-inside-part-2c8/#comment-38
    ELEVEN
    I have a hard time with your argument, because it seems like you are conflating Christ with the knowledge of Christ. Are we never allowed to distinguish those? I don’t know the underlying logical principle you are using. How many people who passed through LAX on December 31, 1999 know who Diana Dean is? She foiled a bombing plot targeting LAX for that very night. Yes, I know this is not a perfect analogy. But I’m just making the point that you cannot categorically claim that knowledge of a person is necessary in order to be saved in any way by that person. You can’t make that blanket statement.

    TWELVE
    And yet, in the article you linked, an alternate path for babies is proposed. Is there an alternate path or not? Contrast that with my beliefs, which is that everybody who is regenerated is regenerated in the same way. There is NO alternate path. God’s people, whether they are babies, street preachers, Old Testament Levite priests, or, yes, even Muslims, are all regenerated the same way. God breathes new spiritual life into all of his elect children in the same way, on his own timetable (and they are totally undeserving of it, and no preacher or tract is involved at all):
    [Jhn 3:8 KJV] 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.

    May God bless us in this continued dialogue! Thanks again!

    Blessings,
    TFOTF

• 

  Reply ↓

  Phil June 12, 2018 at 1:08 am

  Hi – It looks like you picked a word from my response and responded to that, rather than to what I was trying to convey. I apologize for using the word “exception”, you are right, you are trying to show there is no exception. This was not the intention of my comment. My intention was to state that your arguments are undermining what the Bible says about both Faith and Belief. By arguing that salvation does not require belief, you also undermine faith. If we do not have to believe, then we do not need to have faith. However both belief and faith are mentioned all over the New Testament. Faith is a conviction based upon hearing. But how can people have convictions if they don’t believe? How can they have convictions if they don’t hear the gospel?

  Here are my responses to the other discussion points (sorry for my delayed response!):

  ONE: Acts 2:38 – Baptism is not required for salvation based on other verses. We must evaluate the Bible as a whole. Clearly from Acts 15 and Romans 4 Salvation is by grace through FAITH alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, and that this is not a result of works. Thus Baptism cannot be required for salvation.

  TWO: Matt 7:24 – The rain in v.25 represents divine judgement. If we do not believe in Christ, repent, and (as fruit) live our lives in obedience to him then we will go to Hell. The one who placed his faith in Christ stood firm, the one who did not listen to Christ’s call for repentance and obedience was judged. This is not works based salvation, works based salvation is explicitly denied in scripture, we both agree on that. Back to verse 14, the reason I believe the word “life” means eternal life, is because Jesus says to enter by the narrow gate. We must be entering somewhere. That somewhere is contrasted in the verse with the other wide gate that leads to destruction. When we hear the gospel, we have a choice to either choose life, or choose eternal destruction. I do agree with you that it is only God who can awaken our souls, but I add that this awakening enables us to believe. I add this because the Bible speaks of both God choosing us, and that our own Faith is required for salvation (Eph 2:8-9).

  THREE: 1 John 4:9 – Lost the train of thought with this one. Let me know what your question is or we can drop this one.

  FOUR: 1 John 4:15 – You can restate the verse to say, if you do not confess Jesus, then God does not abide in you. So a person has no evidence of salvation if they do not confess Jesus. For example, 1 John 2:23 says no one who denies the son has the father. Muslims explicitly deny that Jesus is God’s son. No Muslim can be saved who believes that.

  FIVE: 1 John 5:1 – I agree with you that it is God who chooses who is saved. However I disagree that anyone can be saved who does not believe the gospel. This verse states that those who are born of God are those who believe. My understanding of what you are saying is that there can be people God saves who do not believe as well. In Mark 16:16 Jesus says “whoever does not believe will be condemned”. See also 1 John 5:10.

  SIX: 1 John 5:10 – The verse says those who make God liars do not believe the testimony. V.11 explains what the testimony is, “that God gave us eternal life”. So if we do not believe God, we make him a liar, and God has not given us eternal life.

  SEVEN: 1 John 5:13 – You are right that there are multiple evidences of saving faith. But we don’t get to pick one evidence. All of the statements in 1 John are from God, and they are all true, and all at the same time. A Christian is one who believes in the name of the Son of God, who practices righteousness (3:10), who confesses his sins in repentance (1:9), who has the Holy Spirit inside of him (4:13), who loves God and obeys his commandments (5:2). These are all evidences. We can’t just pick one (IE: doing good deeds), and not have the others. The reason we can’t do this is that these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.

  EIGHT: John 12:42 – The rulers and Pharisees did not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Even the demons can believe that Jesus is the Christ without giving their lives over to him. Many were not saved. However some did come to faith later, like Nicodemus. The testimony of verse 43 is that these folks loved man more than God.

  NINE: Rev 5:9 – This verse is stating that by the time the Seals are opened, there will be those in Heaven from every tribe, tongue, and nation. I think we agree on the interpretation here.
  Rev 15:2 – Yes, there are many millions, perhaps billions that will be eventually saved.
  2 Peter 2:7-8 – I agree Lot went to Heaven.
  In Luke 13:23, the disciples explicitly ask Jesus “will those who are saved be few?” Jesus’ answer is that the door is narrow again! He doesn’t tell us how many will be saved, only that the way is narrow. We are called however in the great commission to preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19). So I believe that Jesus will not return until the gospel has been heard in all nations, tribes, and tongues (based on Rev 5:9).

  TEN: Cornelius in Acts 10 – We do know that people went to Heaven prior to Jesus’ death on the cross. We also know (from Hebrews 10:12) that it was Jesus’ blood on the cross that paid the penalty for their sins. Cornelius was a good Jew. Acts 10:2 said he was devout. It was obvious that God wanted to save Cornelius, in that he miraculously sent Peter to give him the gospel. In 10:43 Peter references belief, explaining Peter’s view of salvation. Acts 11:14 further explains, Cornelius was told in his vision, that Peter would declare a message to him by which he WOULD be saved (future tense). So he was not a depraved sinner prior to this, he was under the definition of a devout Jew prior.

  ELEVEN: The reason I state that knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation, is that this is referenced all over the New Testament. Acts 4:12 – “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” In Acts 28:19, Jesus commands us to make disciples in the NAME of the father, son, and Holy Spirit. In Romans 10:14-17, we are told that we must call on HIM, believe in HIM, and that faith comes through the word of CHRIST. John 3:18 says “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the only Son of God”.

  TWELVE: I would rather not get caught up in the tangential argument that babies or mentally handicapped folk can be saved. You and I agree on this, however it is not explicitly stated in scripture. So this is a conviction of mine, and I agree with the scripture that seems to imply they are saved, but would not fight a battle over this conviction.
  John 3:8 – This verse is saying that the Holy Spirit is not controlled by humans, God chooses who is to be saved. It does not however contradict other scriptures like John 3:18 that we must believe in Christ.

  This is an enjoyable discussion, thanks for your replies!
  In Christ,
  Phil

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:43 am

    Wow. I have never had to think this hard about the Bible. I love it!

    In case anyone is wondering what is going on here: Phil and I are both Christians having a respectful, invigorating discussion about the Bible. I know Phil and he is a godly man. We both believe (Phil correct me if I am wrong) that man is depraved by nature and has no hope without God. God sovereignly chooses a group of people and he saves every single one of them by his grace.

    Phil believes that as part of the outworking of this salvation, every elect person (except people who die in infancy and mentally handicapped people) will hear the Christian gospel, place their faith in Jesus Christ the Lord for their salvation and be born again (I may have the order wrong, sorry Phil), and then show a pattern of good works for the rest of their lives, despite occasional stumbling. As such, all non-Christians go to hell.

    I believe that while the outworking of election has many glorious aspects, it is far more limited and more expansive than what Phil believes, all at the same time…..with the result that I believe heaven will have a lot more people than Phil believes. Allow me to briefly explain: I believe the outworking of election is that every elect person (regardless of their lifespan or mental abilities) will be born again independently of their will, independently of any preacher or Bible. This event then causes a radical change of heart, a sort of spiritual resurrection, such that born again people act better than people who are not born again, and they have the ability to believe the gospel (and this ability is called, in a word, faith). They have a new nature. A new birth. They may not ever hear the gospel, and even if they do hear it they may have a wide range of reactions to it….but they still go to heaven. Therefore, I reject Phil’s position that all non-Christians go to hell.

    So, we are debating the salvation, the eternal destination, of billions upon billions of people throughout the world and across the millenia. That is why this is such a big deal. We are seeking the answer to a crucially important, age-old question:
    [Job 9:2 KJV] 2 I know [it is] so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?

    Thanks for reading and God bless you.

    PHIL:

    Hi – It looks like you picked a word from my response and responded to that, rather than to what I was trying to convey. I apologize for using the word “exception”, you are right, you are trying to show there is no exception. This was not the intention of my comment. My intention was to state that your arguments are undermining what the Bible says about both Faith and Belief. By arguing that salvation does not require belief, you also undermine faith. If we do not have to believe, then we do not need to have faith. However both belief and faith are mentioned all over the New Testament. Faith is a conviction based upon hearing. But how can people have convictions if they don’t believe? How can they have convictions if they don’t hear the gospel?

    TFOTF:

    It seems like you are appealing to Romans 10 to make your point, but you also cite that passage in item 11 below, so I will try to address it there.

    Anyway, you are saying my beliefs undermine what the Bible says about faith and belief. That is an understandable reaction on your part, since I am advancing a doctrine which is only preached from a small minority of today’s pulpits, and this doctrine denies that the gospel is any kind of instrument of eternal salvation from the lake of fire. So, you say my doctrine is undermining faith and belief. I get it.

    I first want to respond on a personal level, not only to you, but to anyone reading this who may be having the same reaction. I want to emphasize that I LOVE talking about Jesus! He is the light of the world and my only 100% reliable source of comfort and wisdom and truth. I love reading about him. I love telling others about him. I love taking my kids to church and teaching them the Bible at home. I love writing about Jesus via this blog (which no one pays me to do, and I carve out the time for despite having a full-time secular job, and being married with 3 kids). I want to spread the gospel to as many people as I can. Recently, a friend of mine who reads this blog visited a church I recommended to him, and I was super stoked about this!

    Although Paul identified elements of other religions that he could use to point people to the one true God, I claim that Christianity is vastly more beautiful, more true, and more complete than all other religions. Any god different than Jehovah God is a false god.

    To be clear, I know full well that the Bible and belief in Jesus are super important to you as well! Don’t worry, I’m not trying to start a God point contest. But, since I am claiming that the gospel is NOT the way God saves people from hell, and you are saying this idea undermines what the Bible says about belief in Jesus, I thought it was important to share some personal context with you (and anyone else reading this blog). Yes, I am a sinner, a broken man….but I know who my Savior is, and I treasure and sympathize with the last words of David:
    [2Sa 23:5 KJV] 5 Although my house [be] not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all [things], and sure: for [this is] all my salvation, and all [my] desire, although he make [it] not to grow.
    The words of the desperate father resonate deeply with me, as someone who stumbles but tries to follow Jesus Christ:
    [Mar 9:24 KJV] 24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

    So, in my attempt to contend for a more precise description of our disagreement, I say this: Instead of undermining what the Bible says about belief, I am merely arguing that you are placing too much weight on belief, and not enough weight on the blood of Christ and the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. That being said, belief in Jesus is HUGELY important to me, on a very personal level, as I tried to show above.

    Now, I want to move on to the more nitty-gritty aspect of this discussion. I am fully aware that all the of the personal facts above do not per se validate my beliefs about salvation. Your statement “both belief and faith are mentioned all over the New Testament” is true…but it merely proves that belief and faith are important concepts in the Bible. I want to examine with you the meaning of the various occurrences of “faith” and “belief”…not talk about how frequently they are mentioned (granted, you did allude to Romans 10, but I will get to that later). This is especially important to me in light of the fact that a given word can mean different things in different contexts. For example, Hebrews 11:8 tells us that Abraham went out by “faith” way back in Genesis 12. But (correct me if I am wrong) you believe that Abraham’s moment of eternal justification before God (and regeneration?) occurs in Genesis 15:6, which is quoted in Romans 4:3 in the context of justification by faith. So, if the faith in Genesis 15:6 was the faith that justified him, does that mean that the faith in Hebrews 11:8 / Genesis 12 is a different kind of faith?

    Now I’ll try to address the numbered points, with separate comments for better readability.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:47 am

    ONE

    PHIL:

    Acts 2:38 – Baptism is not required for salvation based on other verses. We must evaluate the Bible as a whole. Clearly from Acts 15 and Romans 4 Salvation is by grace through FAITH alone. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, and that this is not a result of works. Thus Baptism cannot be required for salvation.

    TFOTF:

    [Act 2:38 KJV] 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Agreed. But you didn’t answer my follow-up question: Why is baptism mentioned in Acts 2:38? You brought up Acts 2:38 to prove that Christian repentance is mandatory to be saved from the lake of fire. I am asking you to explain why it says “…Repent, AND be baptized…”

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:52 am

    TWO (a)

    PHIL:

    The rain in v.25 represents divine judgement. If we do not believe in Christ, repent, and (as fruit) live our lives in obedience to him then we will go to Hell. The one who placed his faith in Christ stood firm, the one who did not listen to Christ’s call for repentance and obedience was judged. This is not works based salvation, works based salvation is explicitly denied in scripture, we both agree on that.

    TFOTF:

    Please tell me how your interpretation of this passage conforms to the story of Lot, a man that you already affirmed is in heaven now. Did he live his life in obedience to Christ? Did he stand firm? Did he listen to the “call for repentance and obedience”? I want to draw a distinction here between the thief on the cross and Lot. I know you agree both of them went to heaven. With the thief on the cross, you may argue that he wasn’t saved or regenerated or justified until that moment on the cross, and for the short remainder of his life he tried to obey Christ. You cannot argue the same thing with Lot, because of this passage:
    [2Pe 2:7-8 KJV] 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds;)
    Lot already possessed a “righteous soul” while he lived in Sodom. How did that happen? If you think this happened by any other means than regeneration, please provide an alternative chapter-and-verse explanation of how Lot obtained a righteous soul. My chapter-and-verse explanation is here:
    [Jhn 3:8 KJV] 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
    My point is that Lot did NOT stand firm, even after he came into the possession of a righteous soul. He spent many many years (the majority?) of his life living contrary to what he knew was right (for example, a father is supposed to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, per Ephesians 6:4, but he was not doing this).
    Lot built his house on the sand. The rain of divine judgment finally came….and his house fell, and great was the fall of it. This does NOT mean he went to hell. Can you prove that Jesus’s architectural metaphor has to refer to the great white throne of judgment? You clearly believe that’s what it refers to….but how do you prove that what is HAS to refer to? I just gave a Scriptural example which I think fits perfectly with Jesus’s metaphor, but does not refer to the lake of fire.

    TWO (b)

    PHIL:

    Back to verse 14, the reason I believe the word “life” means eternal life, is because Jesus says to enter by the narrow gate. We must be entering somewhere.

    TFOTF:

    Yes, we must be entering somewhere. But where is your proof that this place we are trying to enter into is heaven? You claim that Christian belief, repentance and obedience are all inevitable results of being an elect child of God. You deny works-based salvation. You agree that works are not a mechanism to get into heaven. But if you claim this strait gate is the gate to heaven, why does this verse talking striving to get into this gate? In other words, isn’t this verse saying (following your interpretation) that the striving is actually a way to get into heaven, rather than just evidence that we are children of God?
    [Luk 13:24 KJV] 24 STRIVE to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
    That sounds like works-based salvation to me. And what about this verse, which talks about laboring to enter into rest?
    [Heb 4:11 KJV] 11 Let us LABOUR therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
    Again, is this saying we have to work to get into heaven? That good works are not just evidence of salvation, but actually a mechanism to get into heaven? If not…if you agree with me that the “enter” in Hebrews 4:11 is not talking about entering into heaven, why does the “enter” in Matthew 7:13 have to refer to heaven? Is it because Matthew 7:13 talks about “life” rather than “rest”? Then I would like to discuss I Timothy 6 with you.

    I Timothy 6:12 says to “lay hold on eternal life”. At first, this sounds even more like a heaven-hell passage than Matthew 7:13-14, because it says “eternal life”, not just “life”. However, the previous verse refers to Timothy as a man of God. So Timothy is already a saved regenerated child of God. So his salvation, his eternal life in heaven, is already 100% secure, as I’m sure you will agree. So, Paul must be talking about a different experience/manifestation/outworking of eternal life than the heaven aspect of it. The other reason I don’t see how this verse fits with your view is that he says “lay hold”. Basically, grab it. While on earth, you cannot grab something that is ONLY experienced in heaven.

    Further, verse 19 again mentions the concept of laying hold on eternal life.
    6:19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. 1 Timothy
    You might look at the part that says “against the time to come” and say that proves the aspect of eternal life under consideration here is the in-heaven part. My problem with that is verse 17 and 18:
    Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
    That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
    We see a general command towards rich people here. They need to give give to the church / the poor. The purpose of these good works is so they can lay hold on eternal life, per verse 19. Therefore, if you make the eternal life here a heaven-only thing, then you are forced to accept works-based salvation, which I know you do not believe in. And, as I said before, the verbiage is “lay hold”. This is an experience that is not completely disjoint from our lives on earth. Otherwise “lay hold” does not make sense.

    Are you willing to consider the possibility that Timothy passage is not talking about how to get to heaven? If so, why not Matthew 7:13-14 as well?

    TWO (c)

    PHIL:

    That somewhere is contrasted in the verse with the other wide gate that leads to destruction. When we hear the gospel, we have a choice to either choose life, or choose eternal destruction.

    TFOTF:

    The verse just says “destruction”, not “eternal destruction”. Are you arguing that the word “destruction” proves this is a heaven-hell verse?

    I just did a word search and found several “destruction” verses which are obviously not talking about heaven and hell. I got 94 hits overall, so I’m not going to paste in all the ones that are obviously not talking about heaven and hell. I will just paste in several examples.

    [1Sa 5:9 KJV] 9 And it was [so], that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.

    [Est 9:5 KJV] 5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them.

    [Pro 10:15 KJV] 15 The rich man’s wealth [is] his strong city: the destruction of the poor [is] their poverty.

    [Pro 14:28 KJV] 28 In the multitude of people [is] the king’s honour: but in the want of people [is] the destruction of the prince.

    [1Co 5:5 KJV] 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

    Just using common English terminology, I can say that Samson suffered “destruction” as a result of his sins. The thief on the cross suffered “destruction” because of his sins. Good king Josiah suffered “destruction” because he meddled in the business of others. Did these people go to hell?

    Why does “destruction” in Matthew 7:13 have to refer to the lake of fire? Yes, you believe it refers to lake of fire. But, given all the other non-lake-of-fire usages of the word destruction that I presented, I think it’s fair for me to ask you for direct evidence for your interpretation.

    TWO (d)

    PHIL:

    I do agree with you that it is only God who can awaken our souls, but I add that this awakening enables us to believe. I add this because the Bible speaks of both God choosing us, and that our own Faith is required for salvation (Eph 2:8-9).

    TFOTF:

    I disagree: Our faith is part of the salvation package. It is not “required for salvation”. Also, it seems you are interpreting “faith” in Ephesians 2:8 to be synonymous with belief. Faith is not necessarily the same thing as belief. Faith can mean something put inside of you by God, without your permission:

    [Hebrews 11:1 KJV] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    For it to be “evidence”, it seems reasonable to say it is something that originates somewhere outside the believer. If this just means belief, then I don’t see how it could be evidence of anything. Would an attorney ever say “I believe my client is innocent and said belief is evidence that he is in fact innocent”?

    So where does faith come from?

    [Hebrews 12:2 KJV] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

    Yup…it comes from an external source. Also interesting to note that not everybody has it:

    [2 Thessalonians 3:1-2 KJV] Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

    So the reason Ephesians 2:8 mentions faith is because faith is part of the regeneration package. Faith in this context is the ability to believe. It’s a freebie, like salvation from hell. But belief is not free. Belief can be very costly indeed (but it’s worth it 🙂 )

    So I’m arguing that the “faith” in Ephesians 2:8 is like the eye. Babies do not do anything to get their eyes. The eyes just naturally develop inside the womb. There is no choice on the part of the baby. Faith is the same way in Ephesians 2:8. The context of Ephesians 2 is regeneration. It’s the vital aspect of salvation:

    [Eph 2:1-5 KJV] 1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath QUICKENED us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

    So, when Ephesians 2:8 says “saved”, it’s not talking about how our sin debt was cleared. It’s not talking about the legal aspect of salvation. It’s focusing rather on the vital aspect of salvation, namely, regeneration. When we are regenerated, God comes to dwell in us. God gives us faith. Here is another verse to back up what I am saying:
    [Jhn 3:3 KJV] 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    When you are born again, belief becomes possible. It becomes possible, because now you have faith, the capacity to believe, and you can “see the kingdom of God”.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:52 am

    THREE

    PHIL:

    1 John 4:9 – Lost the train of thought with this one. Let me know what your question is or we can drop this one.

    TFOTF:

    I was responding to this statement of yours (https://www.theformofthefourth.com/2018/03/10/are-you-dying-inside-part-2c7/#comment-37:):

    “The context in 1 John 4 clearly says that the knowledge of Christ is required. I John 4:9 says that we live through Him (Jesus) if we are saved.”

    So, my response was (and I am still interested in getting a response from you):
    [1Jo 4:9 KJV] 9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
    A fetus lives through its mother without knowing her name….or even having the ability to speak or reason. I don’t see how this verse makes your case.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:54 am

    FOUR (a)

    PHIL:

    1 John 4:15 – You can restate the verse to say, if you do not confess Jesus, then God does not abide in you. So a person has no evidence of salvation if they do not confess Jesus. For example, 1 John 2:23 says no one who denies the son has the father. Muslims explicitly deny that Jesus is God’s son. No Muslim can be saved who believes that.

    TFOTF:

    I’m sorry if I’m misinterpreting you, but your claim about restating I John 4:15 violates textbook rules of logic, common sense, and the verse itself. If what you’re actually saying is that the reason you can restate I John 4:15 like that is because of I John 2:23, then feel free to ignore FOUR (a) and skip to FOUR (b), and I apologize for misinterpreting.

    The verse says:
    [1Jo 4:15 KJV] 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

    Let us denote Confession as condition A, and the mutual in-dwelling of God and the believer as condition B.

    In these terms, the verse says that A => B.

    You claim the verse can be restated to say that “if you do not confess Jesus, then God does not abide in you”.

    In other words, you are starting with A=>B and claiming it can be restated as A complement => B complement.

    In this, you are fundamentally mistaken.

    A valid restatement of A=>B is B complement => A complement. In plain English, we would say that if God does not dwell in you, then you have not confessed that Jesus is the Son of God. This is easy to accept.

    The valid restatement is known (just looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition) as a “transposition” in propositional logic, or more generally, as the “contrapositive”. Further, because a conditional statement is always logically equivalent to its contrapositive, your own claim can be restated like this: A=>B proves that B=>A. This is manifestly wrong.

    For example, if it’s a cat, then it’s a mammal. It does not follow that if it’s a mammal, then it’s a cat. So, I reject your argument. But it does follow that if it’s not a mammal, it’s not a cat. That is the contrapositive, and it is clearly valid.

    As a Scriptural example, I submit Luke 1:15 for your consideration. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even while in the womb. God was dwelling in him. But had John confessed? No. Babies are not capable of confessing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    I also submit the case of Cornelius…before confessing Jesus, he displayed ample evidence of God dwelling in him, given the testimony of I John 4:7. I think the Cornelius case also poses a huge challenge to your claim that “a person has no evidence of salvation if they do not confess Jesus”. But we will discuss that further in item 10 below.

    FOUR (b)

    PHIL:

    For example, 1 John 2:23 says no one who denies the son has the father. Muslims explicitly deny that Jesus is God’s son. No Muslim can be saved who believes that.

    TFOTF:

    Let’s consider some other verses from I John before I try to answer:
    [1Jo 1:8 KJV] 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
    [1Jo 2:4 KJV] 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
    [1Jo 3:6-9 KJV] 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
    [1Jo 5:18 KJV] 18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

    What is my point? That if you do not allow any gradations, any continuum when you are interpreting this letter, you are going to run right off the rails. That last verse I quoted says that people who are born of God do not sin. What?? It makes no sense if you don’t allow some nuance. You and I are both sinners, and will continue to be sinners until the day we die. So what is it saying? Go back to the first verse of chapter 2:
    [1Jo 2:1 KJV] 1 My LITTLE CHILDREN, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

    He is speaking to these people in an affectionate, fatherly tone. Which approach is easier to understand for a young child?
    “Junior, I don’t want you to do that, because it is wrong, and you will get in trouble. I know you are going to mess up occasionally, but you are still my child and I will still love you. But in order to more fully experience the blessings of being my child, and in order to more fully assume your true identity and nature as my child and a child of God, I want you not to do that.”
    OR do we say:
    “No, junior, we (or perhaps ‘Smiths’ or ‘Johnsons’, etc.) don’t do that.”
    Haven’t you heard that terminology? It does NOT mean that no Smith has ever committed whatever misdeed is under consideration. It does mean that such a misdeed is not part of the true Smith identity. It is actually very similar to these statements of Paul’s:
    [Rom 7:17, 20 KJV] 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. … 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

    I John is not a letter where every verse that sounds binary is meant in a binary sense. There is shorthand. There are binary statements which, in reality, operate on a continuum. Is John trying to confuse us? No. Trick us? No. Being careless? No. He is simply speaking in a brief, affectionate tone that a father would use with his child.

    So, back to I John 2:23. No, I disagree with your interpretation that all orthodox Muslims are going to hell. I would say, however, that their level of denial is inversely proportional to their earthly experience of the one true God. The more consistently, the more fervently they deny Jesus Christ, the less experience of the one true Jehovah God they can have. The Muslim Allah is a false god, because, according to Islam, Jesus is not God. But since the Bible says Jesus is equivalent to Jehovah God, the only way Jesus cannot be the real God is for Jehovah to not be the real God.

    I want to offer you some additional evidence that the word “have” often needs to be interpreted on a continuum, not in a binary sense.

    [Mar 11:22 KJV] And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

    Does “have” in this passage mean they need to obtain something that they previously did not possess in any way, shape or form? Problem with that interpretation is that he is talking to his disciples here. Yes, I know they were a frustrating bunch to deal with, but the fact remains that earlier in the same book of Mark we read:

    [Mar 8:29 KJV] And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

    So Peter must have had faith. Not convinced? In the next verse, Jesus explicitly states that Peter had faith (because “little faith” is NOT the same thing as no faith):

    [Mat 14:31 KJV] And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

    And here are two more references showing that Peter was not the only disciple who had at least some faith:

    [Mat 8:26 KJV] 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.
    [Mat 16:8 KJV] [Which] when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

    Now, go back to this verse:

    [Mar 11:22 KJV] And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

    Ask yourself…is there any possible alternative meaning to Jesus’s statement besides saying that the disciples had zero faith and needed to somehow acquire faith?

    The other problem with the idea that “have” in Mark 11:22 means “get something that you currently do not possess at all” is this verse:

    [Heb 12:2 KJV] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

    If Jesus is the author of their faith, how can he put it on them to implant faith in themselves, where there was none previously?

    I also want to just appeal to our common vernacular to make my case.

    “Let’s start bringing home-cooked meals to the Andersons, because Jane is about to have the baby”.

    Does this mean a baby is about to suddenly materialize? No. The baby is about to exit Jane’s womb. Jane will soon “have” the baby in a more vivid way than when she was pregnant. Do you see the continuum involved here? In our everyday speech, and in the Bible, dichotomous, binary language is used to describe things that actually operate on a continuum. I claim this is crucial to keep in mind when we are trying to understand the Bible…or almost any other book.

    Do you see why I have trouble with your interpretation of I John 2:23?

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:55 am

    FIVE

    PHIL:

    1 John 5:1 – I agree with you that it is God who chooses who is saved. However I disagree that anyone can be saved who does not believe the gospel. This verse states that those who are born of God are those who believe. My understanding of what you are saying is that there can be people God saves who do not believe as well. In Mark 16:16 Jesus says “whoever does not believe will be condemned”. See also 1 John 5:10.

    TFOTF:

    You seem to be doing something with I John 5:1 that is very similar to what you did with I John 4:15 (see FOUR (a) above). I contend that there is a fundamental error in your logic; you are making the verse say much more than what it actually says. Without rehashing it all again for I John 5:1, I’ll just wait to see what your response on I John 4:15 is.

    You reference Mark 16:16. Here is the whole verse:
    [Mar 16:16 KJV] 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    First of all, I’m curious as to why you think the verse specifies baptism. We both agree that baptism is not required for eternal salvation….so, why do you think it’s there?

    Secondly, I understand the natural assumption that “damned” in verse 16 is talking about the lake of fire, but the truth is that this word does not necessarily mean a sentence of eternal torment in the lake of fire. My proof:
    [Rom 14:23 KJV] 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

    Same English word “damned”, and same Greek word also (katakrino). So…is Paul warning these Christian brethren that they will go to hell if they eat something they feel guilty about eating? I know you believe that Christians, even real Christians, sin at least occasionally but still go to heaven. So, I would be shocked if you thought Paul was warning them they will go to hell if they do something without a clear conscience. And remember who the Roman letter is addressed to:
    [Rom 1:7-8 KJV] 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

    This is a letter to Christians. Imperfect, yes, but Christians still. In fact, that is the nature of the Christian life, isn’t it?

    Here’s another one:
    [Jas 5:9 KJV] 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

    Same Greek word katakrino here. And again, the audience is “brethren”. This is not a general letter to humanity. So, since you do not believe people can lose their salvation, James cannot be warning them that if they hold grudges they will go to hell. He is just warning them that they will be in trouble with God if they hold grudges. My kids will get in trouble with me if they disobey me. But that doesn’t mean I will cast them out of the house.

    So…isn’t it fair for me to ask you to prove that “damned” in Mark 16:16 is talking about the lake of fire? Again, I know that if it does mean the lake of fire, the verse is compatible with your doctrine. If it does not mean the lake of fire, it’s compatible with my doctrine. But let’s keep this principle crystal clear in our minds: The fact that a certain interpretation of a verse is compatible with your doctrine does not prove that said interpretation is correct.

    I think we could agree that the best proof texts are the ones where the only reasonable interpretation of the text is the one that is compatible with your doctrine. I claim that Mark 16:16 is not a good proof text for you. I just proved via a quick word study that there is at least one other reasonable interpretation. Namely, if you reject the gospel, you’re going to get in trouble with God. True, if you reject the gospel because you are a goat, you will go to hell. In fact, goats go to hell whether they ever hear the gospel or not. But, (and I claim this is what Mark 16:16 is focused on) if you are a stubborn sheep who rejects the gospel, God will take you out behind the woodshed and apply the rod of correction.

    Said another way: I realize that if Mark 16:16 is talking about the lake of fire, that would fit perfectly with your beliefs. But this does not prove that Mark 16:16 is talking about the lake of fire!

    One final way of saying the same thing: Mark 16:16 does not say enough to prove my soteriology OR yours. It just lets us know that if we reject the gospel, something very bad will happen to us. I will Amen that!!!!

    I’ll try to address I John 5:10 next.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 9:55 am

    SIX

    PHIL:

    1 John 5:10 – The verse says those who make God liars do not believe the testimony. V.11 explains what the testimony is, “that God gave us eternal life”. So if we do not believe God, we make him a liar, and God has not given us eternal life.

    TFOTF:

    [1Jo 5:10-11 KJV] 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

    Wait, if we are making God a liar, that means that God is saying he did something, and we are saying he didn’t do it. Our claim that he did not do it does NOT invalidate what he did. He still did the thing. It doesn’t matter how many times we deny that he did the thing.

    For example:
    [Rom 3:1-4 KJV] 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

    God’s mighty works and words are 100% valid, regardless of who believes in them. True, if we reject his words, we make him a liar. That is bad. Please explain how this then proves that we are going to hell. I don’t see it in the passage. I see you stating your conclusion (“and God has not given us eternal life”) but I don’t see where that comes from in this passage.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 10:06 am

    SEVEN (a)

    PHIL:

    1 John 5:13 – You are right that there are multiple evidences of saving faith. But we don’t get to pick one evidence. All of the statements in 1 John are from God, and they are all true, and all at the same time. A Christian is one who believes in the name of the Son of God, who practices righteousness (3:10), who confesses his sins in repentance (1:9), who has the Holy Spirit inside of him (4:13), who loves God and obeys his commandments (5:2). These are all evidences. We can’t just pick one (IE: doing good deeds), and not have the others. The reason we can’t do this is that these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.

    TFOTF:

    I object to your paraphrase of what I said. I neither said nor meant to imply that there are multiple evidences of “saving faith”. I reject the concept of “saving faith”. The term implies to me that some people have “faith” in God, but it’s not the right kind and so they go to hell. Please provide a Biblical basis for the term “saving faith”…i.e., a Biblical justification for distinguishing between saving “faith” and non-saving “faith”. Or if I’m misunderstanding the term, please clarify.

    Also, you begin your list of Scripture references with the statement “A Christian is one who…” I agree that the criteria that you proceed to list are decent criteria to use for who is a Christian and who is not. And all Christians go to heaven. What we’re arguing about, however, is whether non-Christians can go to heaven (you say no, I say yes). So, that is the standpoint from which I will examine the passages. Do they prove that only Christians go to heaven or not?

    SEVEN (b)

    PHIL:

    1 John 5:13 – You are right that there are multiple evidences of saving faith. But we don’t get to pick one evidence. All of the statements in 1 John are from God, and they are all true, and all at the same time. A Christian is one who believes in the name of the Son of God, who practices righteousness (3:10), who confesses his sins in repentance (1:9), who has the Holy Spirit inside of him (4:13), who loves God and obeys his commandments (5:2). These are all evidences. We can’t just pick one (IE: doing good deeds), and not have the others. The reason we can’t do this is that these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.

    TFOTF:

    I will address your four Scripture references one by one.

    [1Jo 3:6-10 KJV] 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

    As I’ve said before, it is readily obvious that not every statement in this letter is meant to be taken prima facie. This passage is a great example of that. The prima facie approach would tell us that, because EVERYONE sins at least occasionally,

    No one abides in God
    No one has known God
    Everybody is of the devil
    No one is born of God

    I know we would both reject ALL of the above statements. So, we should both be able to agree that although the verses are written in binary, dichotomous language, the verses must be applied on a continuum. Some may wonder, why aren’t the verses written in a more continuous, rather than discrete form? Two reasons: It’s easier to write and say things in binary form, and also, as I said before, he is using a fatherly tone. After all, the phrase “little children” occurs 9 times in this letter. Parents talk to their children in discrete form all the time. A father may explain to a young child that the soldiers marching in the parade carry guns so they can protect us from the “bad guys”. Is the father claiming that every military conflict involves a clash between an army of perfect saints and an army of 100% wicked people? No! Actual wars simply do not break down along such clear demarcations. He is simply breaking a complex issue down into a short, simple answer that a young child can understand. He is communicating an *ideal* to the child.

    Even adults talk to each other this way. For example, “Be a man”. This is not meant in a literal sense. It is not an admonition to literally acquire certain anatomical features that would then qualify someone as a man. It is not an admonition to magically adjust one’s chronological age such that one now qualifies legally as an adult male. It has to do with behavior. It refers, again, to an *ideal* of manhood.

    So, back to 1Jo 3:6-10, the passage you referenced (well you referenced verse 10 but I’m sure you won’t mind if I want to consider the three prior verses as well ). This one, as you said, is stated in the positive and the negative. However, the passage says nothing about Christian belief, Christian discipleship, Christian repentance, Christian obedience, or Christian faith. It merely discusses righteousness. So what is it actually saying, in plain English? It is saying that people who are born of God act better than people who are not born of God. And when children of God act better than people who are not born of God, this provides evidence that they are the children of God. And when people who are not born of God do sick, hateful wicked things, that provides evidence that they are not children of God. Again: no statement that people who are not disciples of Christ are not children of God (and, as a caveat, we have to remember all the Bible stories where children of God spent some time NOT acting better than people who are not children of God: David and Bathsheba, Solomon and his wives, Samson and his girlfriends, the prodigal son in a pig pen, Lot in the cave with his daughters, etc…so the I John passage should NOT be taken to mean we can always figure out everyone’s identity with perfect accuracy). Some parallel passages:
    [Jhn 5:28-29 KJV] 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
    And also Matthew 25:31ff. And also Cornelius. The point, again, is this: people who are children of God act better than people who are not. I suggest to you that you are taking this passage significantly beyond its proper bounds. The passage says nothing about Christians vs. non-Christians.

    So, I contend that you haven’t proved that only Christians go to heaven.

    SEVEN (c)

    PHIL:
    A Christian is one who…confesses his sins in repentance (1:9)

    TFOTF:

    This is the passage:
    [1Jo 1:8-10 KJV] 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

    First, I think you are conflating the admission of wrongdoing with being a disciple of Christ. Those are two different things. Namely, I’ve never heard anyone say that they have never done anything wrong. Atheists have flawed foundations for morality, it is true. But you can generally count on them to admit that they have not perfectly lived up to their own system of morality. And if you explained the Biblical definition of sin, and asked them if they had ever sinned given that definition, many of them would probably admit that they had sinned. So, my point is, it may be true that someone who seriously claims that he has never done anything morally wrong is an unregenerate goat on his way to hell. But that’s not really what we’re debating…you are making the much broader claim that only Christians go to heaven. In other words, do you admit that there is a middle-ground between denying absolutely all wrongdoing and confessing one’s sins to Jesus Christ the Lord?

    I think you are mistakenly interpreting verse 9 to refer to a discrete moment when a Christian becomes eternally justified by believing the gospel and confessing his sins. I don’t think such an event ever occurs in the life of a Christian. Maybe we need to debate Romans 3 and 4, but for now, let me approach it this way. Here are some passages to prove that God’s forgiveness occurs in both eternal AND temporal contexts.

    Eternal (I’m sure we will agree on this one):
    [Eph 1:7 KJV] 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

    Temporal (hopefully agree 🙂 ):
    [Mar 11:22-26 KJV] 22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. 23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. 24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]. 25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

    I claim this is temporal because he is clearly giving general guidelines for how to pray. He is not talking about how to pray the “sinner’s prayer” and be saved. Verses 24 and 25 are (to me) very obviously referring to daily prayer habits that we need to adopt. Therefore, the forgiveness of God towards the sinner, mentioned in the same verse 25, as well as verse 26, is NOT talking about the eternal, legal forgiveness of the sins of all the elect family of God. Also we should keep in mind that the most likely audience here is his disciples. He is talking to them about *discipleship*, not how to be saved from hell.

    And consider this passage about God’s temporal forgiveness of our sins:
    [Luk 11:1-4 KJV] 1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. 2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

    He is teaching them about *daily* prayer, clearly (see “daily bread”). And part of this daily prayer includes a request to God for forgiveness of sins. This is not teaching that every day we should beg God to not throw us into hell! It’s teaching about a temporal forgiveness. The forgiveness that a son asks of his father. It is important for the *quality* of the relationship…but is certainly not something that initiates the relationship.

    My point is, it’s very fair for me to ask you to provide evidence that the confession in I John 1:9 is talking about a one-time Christian confession that an elect child of God has to do to become regenerated, or a one-time confession that an elect child of God does simultaneously with or right after regeneration. I don’t think it’s either one. I think it’s talking about God’s forgiveness of our sins in the temporal context. How can you prove that I John 1:9 is not talking about what I say it’s talking about? How do you prove it is talking about what you say it’s talking about?

    If you still disagree with me about this passage, and you consider Romans 3 or 4 to be a good justification for interpreting I John 1 in the way that you do, then we need to debate Romans 3 and 4….not I John 1. I John 1, I claim, is not a suitable proof text for your beliefs. Yes, I will be honest….I don’t think there is any suitable proof text for your beliefs, which is why I reject the doctrine you have advocated. But I have tried to show, based on specific Scriptures, why I don’t think I John 1:9 works as a proof text for you.

    One other way of saying it: I John 1:9 says that it is a very important thing for us to regularly confess our sins to God and receive temporal forgiveness from our sins. This is an essential activity for disciples of Christ. But, because it is not a way to receive *eternal* forgiveness of sins, only temporal forgiveness, it is *not* a requirement for getting into heaven. It is not something that everyone who is going to heaven will necessarily do. To the extent that people on earth refuse to do it, they will miss out on God’s temporal forgiveness….but this does not mean they will miss out on God’s *eternal* forgiveness. This is what it feels like when a child of God refuses to confess to God:
    [Psa 32:3-4 KJV] 3 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. 4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.
    This is a heaven-bound *child of God* refusing to confess…after all, Romans 3 teaches us that a hell-bound sinner could not care less about un-confessed sin!!

    So, I contend that you haven’t proved that only Christians go to heaven.

    SEVEN (d)

    PHIL:

    A Christian is one who…has the Holy Spirit inside of him (4:13)…These are all evidences. We can’t just pick one (IE: doing good deeds), and not have the others. The reason we can’t do this is that these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.

    TFOTF:

    This is the response I gave when you mentioned this verse in the comments on an earlier post:
    “[1Jo 4:13 KJV] 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
    Yes, that is how WE (Christians) can know we are dwelling in God. Because he hath given us of his Spirit. This does not mean that everyone he has given his spirit to can know for sure that he is dwelling in God. This is because not everyone God has given his spirit to has heard the gospel.”

    Now I will expand on this.

    First, I’m not sure you responded specifically to my comment above. If not, please let me know what you think.

    Second, I’m going to ask you to back up your claim that “these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.
    ” You quoted I John 4:13, so that is the positive. Which verse is the negative?

    Third, you are claiming that a Christian is one who has the Holy Spirit inside of him. I agree. That’s true. But I think where you are really going with this is “only Christians have the Holy Spirit, so only Christians go to heaven.” One reason I don’t believe that is:
    [Luk 1:15 KJV] 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

    Baby John was not a “Christian”. But he had the Holy Spirit inside of him. So that’s why I disagree with your idea that only Christians have the Holy Spirit. Later on, you seem to express resistance to a discussion along these lines. I beg you to reconsider. This is inspired Scripture and it can help us interpret the more theoretical verses.

    So, I contend that you haven’t proved that only Christians go to heaven.

    SEVEN (e)

    PHIL:

    A Christian is one who…loves God and obeys his commandments (5:2). These are all evidences. We can’t just pick one (IE: doing good deeds), and not have the others. The reason we can’t do this is that these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.

    TFOTF:

    I’m going to ask you to back up your claim that “these things are stated in the positive and the negative in the book.”
    You quoted I John 5:2, so that is the positive. Which verse is the negative?

    I contend that you haven’t proved that only Christians go to heaven.

    • 

      Reply ↓

      Phil September 8, 2018 at 12:37 am

      TFOTF: “That’s just your interpretation. This passage neither proves my ideas nor yours.”

      PHIL: I see this statement or variation thereof often in your responses. It seems that because we are using different hermeneutics to interpret the Bible we will be unable to come to agreement on most of these passages.

      TFOTF: “all Christians go to heaven. What we’re arguing about, however, is whether non-Christians can go to heaven (you say no, I say yes)” “I contend that you haven’t proved that only Christians go to heaven” ” I claim that people get born again all the time all over the world, completely by the work of the Holy Spirit, completely on God’s timetable, without any gospel means.”

      PHIL: I think you have proved my overall point with these statements. You are arguing on your blog for what I would say is another religion, not Christianity. The fundamental definition of Christianity, is that only Christians are Christians, and only Christians can go to Heaven. It seems to me that you are using the Bible to espouse a different religion – as you are saying that God accepts into Heaven those who are not Christians. Christian means “little Christ”, or a follower of Christ. If you are not a follower of Christ and do not worship Jesus as God, then you are not a Christian. If you are not a Christian, then you are in a different religion.

      Thank you for all of your other responses. I appreciate the discussion! If you are interested in continuing to discuss, I’d appreciate just one question at a time (for my sanity’s sake and the ability to respond in a timely manner). 🙂 Otherwise, I’m happy that this is a good stopping point, as I believe we have a good grasp on each other’s positions.

      -Phil

      • 

        Reply ↓

        TFOTF September 11, 2018 at 5:07 am

        Phil!

        Thank you so much for your response.

        This is my favorite subject…I will continue to talk to you about it as long as you let me 🙂

        TFOTF: “That’s just your interpretation. This passage neither proves my ideas nor yours.”

        PHIL: I see this statement or variation thereof often in your responses. It seems that because we are using different hermeneutics to interpret the Bible we will be unable to come to agreement on most of these passages.

        TFOTF: OK let me briefly respond to that. It’s true I said that multiple times. But let me post a bit longer of a quote from my previous statements, for the record. I will put asterisks around a part that is very important, that you left out:

        “This verse neither proves my ideas nor yours. ***Please note, I am not saying that you cannot prove anything from Scripture. I am merely contending that this passage does not prove what you think it does.***”

        And anyone can read my other comments and blog posts to see that I often DO cite Scriptures in the affirmative. I often DO use Scripture to prove things. For example, how many times have I used John 3:8 on this blog as a way to prove my beliefs? Many times. Look for yourself.

        Please don’t (explicitly or implicitly) lump me in with the “The Bible is a tangled mess of contradictions” crowd! It seems you should be able to tell that I am not part of that crowd, given how many times I HAVE tried to prove things on this blog from Scripture.

        OK, you asked for one question at a time. Here’s my one question:
        Why does Acts 2:38 mention baptism?
        [Act 2:38 KJV] 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
        You brought this up months ago in an attempt to prove to me that explicit Christian repentance is required in order to go to heaven. Now, you and I agree baptism is not required in order to go to heaven. But why is it mentioned in this verse then? What is his point? It can’t be a filler word. It’s there for a reason. And it seems to be placed in the exact same grammatical and teleological context as the repentance.

        God bless you, and I hope you are doing well!

        TFOTF

        • 

          Phil November 22, 2018 at 10:36 pm

          TFOTF: Why does Acts 2:38 mention baptism?

          Phil: You could state this verse as: Receive the forgiveness of your sins by repenting and by believing in the name of Jesus Christ, which is signified through your baptism. Baptism, while not required for salvation, is still a command from Jesus to us. This is very similar to the command to remember Christ’s death by taking communion. Baptism is a public pronouncement and symbol of our faith in Christ. If you are not baptized, you are not following Jesus’ command. The symbolism is important here too, by being fully immersed in water, we show that we identify with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (coming up out of the water). Someone who does not know of Jesus cannot understand the symbolism of baptism.

          If it is my turn for a question, I’d like to hear your reply to why what you are discussing on this blog is not a religion different than Christianity? (From my last post) “The fundamental definition of Christianity, is that only Christians are Christians, and only Christians can go to Heaven. It seems to me that you are using the Bible to espouse a different religion – as you are saying that God accepts into Heaven those who are not Christians. “

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 10:08 am

    EIGHT (a)

    PHIL:

    John 12:42 – The rulers and Pharisees did not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Even the demons can believe that Jesus is the Christ without giving their lives over to him. Many were not saved. However some did come to faith later, like Nicodemus. The testimony of verse 43 is that these folks loved man more than God.

    TFOTF:

    [Jhn 12:42-43 KJV] 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [him], lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

    OK but John 3:16 says:
    [Jhn 3:16 KJV] 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    So I have found this group of people who believed on Jesus and you are saying many of them went to hell. How does that not contradict John 3:16? The verse says WHOSOEVER.

    And how are you not contradicting all these verses?

    [Jhn 11:25 KJV] 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

    [1Jo 5:1 KJV] 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
    [Act 10:43 KJV] 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

    [1Pe 2:6 KJV] 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

    I’m trying to get a handle on your beliefs here. You claim that all of God’s elect (except those who die in infancy and the mentally handicapped) will hear the gospel, believe, repent, and live a life of obedience. You claim this is all absolutely predestinated. You interpret this verse…
    [Rom 10:9 KJV] 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    …to mean, as stated previously, that one of the things elect people are predestined to do is confess with their mouths the Lord Jesus. I maintain that you are not advocating a consistent doctrine. John 3:16 says “whosoever”. It would match your beliefs so much better if it said “one of the things elect people are predestinated to do is believe.” Instead, it says “whosoever”. Why would it use that terminology if it means what you think it means?

    EIGHT (b)

    PHIL:

    John 12:42 – The rulers and Pharisees did not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Even the demons can believe that Jesus is the Christ without giving their lives over to him. Many were not saved. However some did come to faith later, like Nicodemus. The testimony of verse 43 is that these folks loved man more than God.

    TFOTF:

    To your point about demons believing:
    [Jas 2:19 KJV] 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    John 3:16 starts out with “For God so loved the world…”. The context of “whosoever” is clear….it is talking about human beings, not demons! It is talking about the “world”. The world of humanity. Another problem with your argument is that there is not one verse of Scripture to support the idea that God loves any devils. But there are tons of Scriptures that talk about God’s love for his people.

    As far as my actual opinion of James 2:19, I believe it is saying that, in a sense, believing in Jesus is a pretty low bar, because even the devils do that. We should spend less time boasting about how much we believe and more time living out our beliefs. I submit that I Peter 2:7ff is a parallel passage. It talks about belief, and then it offers numerous admonitions for righteous living…especially see verses 12 and 15. It is discussing the importance of the courtroom of public opinion. However, I contend that neither the James 2 passage nor the I Peter 2 passage is saying that belief in the Christian gospel is a guaranteed outworking of being an elect child of God.

    EIGHT (c)

    PHIL:

    John 12:42 – The rulers and Pharisees did not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Even the demons can believe that Jesus is the Christ without giving their lives over to him. Many were not saved. However some did come to faith later, like Nicodemus. The testimony of verse 43 is that these folks loved man more than God.

    TFOTF:

    Back to Romans 10. You’re saying that “saved” in Romans 10 is talking about salvation from the lake of fire. What makes you think it’s talking about that kind of salvation? Anyway, because you think it’s talking about lake-of-fire salvation, you claim that all the elect (except those who die in infancy and the mentally handicapped) will take this step of confession of sins to Jesus Christ. Following the same logic, I can look at this verse…
    [1Ti 2:15 KJV] 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
    …and claim that childless women go to hell. Now, I know we don’t believe that. But why not? Am I not using the same logic that you are? You’re looking at the word “saved” and claiming that it’s talking about lake-of-fire salvation, even though there is nothing in Romans 10 about everlasting destruction, or a lake of fire, or everlasting punishment. I Timothy 2:15 does not say what the woman is being saved from. So why can’t I assume it’s the lake of fire?

    You said “We must evaluate the Bible as a whole”. I agree. Does that mean I should interpret every verse that talks about salvation as an absolutely guaranteed result of being part of God’s elect family?

    What does “saved” mean here?
    [Mat 10:22 KJV] 22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
    So everyone who does not endure all the way to the end is not part of the elect?

    I mentioned this earlier, but it also fits in the context here. Doesn’t this verse indicate that baptism is another action that every single elect child of God will take?
    [Mar 16:16 KJV] 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    Now, you will rightly point out Scriptural examples to refute what I just said. For example, the thief on the cross was never baptized. You may point out Paul’s high praise of singlehood in Corinthians to prove that childless women can be saved. You can then argue that baptism and childbearing are not guaranteed things that will happen in the life of every elect child of God. Amen.

    But when I mention the infant John the Baptist having the Holy Ghost in him, and babies (children of Rahel) who went to heaven, and then I try to use those verses to help us interpret the more theoretical verses, you call that a tangent. I don’t see the consistency in your position. I don’t think you are being consistent. Can narrative/discipleship Scriptures help us understand the theoretical Scriptures, or not?

    EIGHT (d)

    PHIL:

    John 12:42 – The rulers and Pharisees did not confess Jesus as Lord and Savior. Even the demons can believe that Jesus is the Christ without giving their lives over to him. Many were not saved. However some did come to faith later, like Nicodemus. The testimony of verse 43 is that these folks loved man more than God.

    TFOTF:

    Also, what do you mean when you say that Nicodemus “did come to faith later”? Based on prior discussions, I infer that you think Nicodemus was not born again when he came to talk to Jesus at night. So you are saying that when he came to Jesus he was essentially no different from the Pharisees that tried to stone Jesus in John 10:31? I cannot accept that there is no fundamental difference between
    [Jhn 3:2 KJV] 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
    And
    [Jhn 10:31 KJV] 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

    This also makes no sense to me from a theoretical standpoint. Consider again the description of the default state of ALL of humanity in Romans 3:
    [Rom 3:10-18 KJV] 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: 14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

    You are telling me that Nicodemus in John 3 fits the description above? I don’t see the resemblance at all. Do you?

    And let’s remember that Jesus never told Nicodemus that Nicodemus specifically needed to become born again. Jesus said
    [Jhn 3:7 KJV] 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
    “Ye” is plural. It refers to the Pharisees as a group. Jesus’s point is that Nicodemus needs to *own* who he is. Namely, Nicodemus needs to stop sneaking around at night and he needs to stand up and say “I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior”. Jesus is telling Nicodemus to stop beating around the bush and identifying himself with the Pharisees as in John 3:2. He needs to recognize that he is born again and is able to see things that the other Pharisees cannot, because they are not born again. Jesus is intentionally begging the question here. Nicodemus needs to ask himself: “Who am I?”

    By sneaking around at night and refusing to confess Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, Nicodemus was showing fear. Fear of the Jews, fear of being thrown out of the synagogue, etc. He was placing a higher priority on social acceptance than on God. He was loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. But he does not, not even close, fit the description of the natural man that I pasted in from Romans 3. This man was a born again, struggling child of God when he came to see Jesus by night. He was conflicted. So I reject your idea that he (and the other chief rulers in John 12:42) was not born again, that he was in his natural depraved state that night.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 10:09 am

    NINE

    PHIL:

    Rev 5:9 – This verse is stating that by the time the Seals are opened, there will be those in Heaven from every tribe, tongue, and nation. I think we agree on the interpretation here.
    Rev 15:2 – Yes, there are many millions, perhaps billions that will be eventually saved.
    2 Peter 2:7-8 – I agree Lot went to Heaven.
    In Luke 13:23, the disciples explicitly ask Jesus “will those who are saved be few?” Jesus’ answer is that the door is narrow again! He doesn’t tell us how many will be saved, only that the way is narrow. We are called however in the great commission to preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19). So I believe that Jesus will not return until the gospel has been heard in all nations, tribes, and tongues (based on Rev 5:9).

    TFOTF:

    I wish we agreed, but I don’t think we do.
    [Rev 5:9 KJV] 9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
    [Rev 7:9 KJV] 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

    You claim that that all kindreds/peoples/etc. existing at the time the seals are opened are represented in heaven. Why? Why not all kindreds/peoples/etc. across all time periods? It’s because you think all unevangelized people groups go to hell, isn’t it? That’s why you add that qualifier. By contrast, I don’t need any qualifier. I claim my beliefs fit this passage much more comfortably than yours do.

    Also, doesn’t seem like you answered my question….why are God’s people on the sea and the damned in a lake? Doesn’t that suggest that the former outnumber the latter?

    As far as Luke 13:23, and your claim that “few” refers to heaven, I refer back to the discussion about “striving” in TWO (b).

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 10:09 am

    TEN

    PHIL:

    TEN: Cornelius in Acts 10 – We do know that people went to Heaven prior to Jesus’ death on the cross. We also know (from Hebrews 10:12) that it was Jesus’ blood on the cross that paid the penalty for their sins. Cornelius was a good Jew. Acts 10:2 said he was devout. It was obvious that God wanted to save Cornelius, in that he miraculously sent Peter to give him the gospel. In 10:43 Peter references belief, explaining Peter’s view of salvation. Acts 11:14 further explains, Cornelius was told in his vision, that Peter would declare a message to him by which he WOULD be saved (future tense). So he was not a depraved sinner prior to this, he was under the definition of a devout Jew prior.

    TFOTF:

    How can you say he was a good Jew if he worshipped Peter?

    Also, you are not claiming he was ethnically Jewish, right? You are saying he was a proselyte?

    OK, so, before Peter showed up, Cornelius was not saved, but he was not depraved. Was he regenerated before Peter showed up? If you agree he was regenerated, and his sin was already paid for by Jesus’s blood on the cross, what does “saved” mean in Acts 11:14? If you do not think he was regenerated, then I will ask you to reconcile his obviously godly lifestyle with the Romans 3 description of all of humanity (Jew and Gentile) in its natural state:
    [Rom 3:9-18 KJV] 9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: 14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

    The last verse says they do not fear God. But Acts 10:2 says Cornelius feared God. How did he transition from the state of depravity in Romans 3 to the state of fearing God in Acts 10:2 if not via regeneration?

    You say he was not depraved, even before Peter showed up. This passage suggests regeneration as an excellent explanation for why he was not depraved:
    [Tit 3:3-5 KJV] 3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, [and] hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of REGENERATION, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

    But if you agree he was regenerated before Peter came, I ask again: what does “saved” mean in Acts 11:14?

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 10:10 am

    ELEVEN (a)

    PHIL:

    The reason I state that knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation, is that this is referenced all over the New Testament. Acts 4:12 – “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” In Acts 28:19, Jesus commands us to make disciples in the NAME of the father, son, and Holy Spirit. In Romans 10:14-17, we are told that we must call on HIM, believe in HIM, and that faith comes through the word of CHRIST. John 3:18 says “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the only Son of God”.

    TFOTF:

    Christianity with is the only religion that is True with a capital T.

    All other religions (including any form of Judaism that denies that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, the 2nd person of the Trinity) have at best a part of the truth, and then error is mixed in.

    So, there is only one way to be saved from this untoward generation (Acts 2:40), and that is Christianity.

    See, I’m not interpreting the salvation in Acts 4:12 as lake-of-fire salvation. You obviously are, and that is an essential part of your argument. So, I ask you to prove that it’s talking about lake-of-fire salvation. Peter does not specify what we are being saved from, so I woudn’t use this text as a proof text even for my own ideas about salvation. You are assuming without proof that it is lake-of-fire salvation. I have already mentioned above the I Timothy verse about being saved in childbearing. So we have proof that “saved” does not always refer to the lake of fire. By the way, I even looked up the Greek and it is the same Greek word for “saved” in all three places (I Timothy 2:15, Acts 2:40, and Acts 4:12).

    So I contend you haven’t proved that “knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation”, where “knowledge” refers to explicit, conscious knowledge (if you meant “knowledge” in the way that a baby knows his mother’s voice, I would agree that all who are saved eternally will obtain this knowledge at some point in their lives via regeneration…but I know you don’t mean that….so I disagree with you).

    ELEVEN (b)

    PHIL:

    In Acts 28:19, Jesus commands us to make disciples in the NAME of the father, son, and Holy Spirit.

    TFOTF:

    Matthew 28:19 (you said Acts but you meant Matthew):
    [Mat 28:19 KJV] 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    This verse says nothing about the mechanics of eternal, lake-of-fire salvation. That’s just your interpretation. This verse neither proves my ideas nor yours. Please note, I am not saying that you cannot prove anything from Scripture. I am merely contending that this passage does not prove what you think it does. All it proves is that our job as Christians is to teach and baptize all nations in the name of the Trinity.

    So I contend you haven’t proved that “knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation”, where “knowledge” refers to explicit, conscious knowledge.

    ELEVEN (c)

    PHIL:

    In Romans 10:14-17, we are told that we must call on HIM, believe in HIM, and that faith comes through the word of CHRIST.

    TFOTF:

    [Rom 10:14-17 KJV] 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    This passage says nothing about the mechanics of eternal, lake-of-fire salvation. Nothing about everlasting destruction or punishment. That’s just your interpretation. This passage neither proves my ideas nor yours. Please note, I am not saying that you cannot prove anything from Scripture. I am merely contending that this passage does not prove what you think it does. My takeaways from the passage are:
    1. Christian discipleship is impossible without Christian preachers traveling around and spreading Christianity
    2. Even with those preachers traveling around, many people will be too stubborn/covetous/fearful/etc. to obey the gospel.

    As far as faith coming “through the word of Christ”: I guess you think this is the same type of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11:1. Furthermore, you believe that hearing the gospel in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit causes an elect child of God to gain the ability (faith) to perceive spiritual truths, where no such ability existed before. On the contrary, I think it is the type of faith mentioned in Mark 11:22:
    [Mar 11:22 KJV] 22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
    I discussed this more in FOUR (b) so I won’t elaborate again. I will just say that he is using shorthand here….he is saying “faith” but actually is referring to the exercise of faith. And the exercise of faith certainly does work in conjunction with gospel preaching. As far as the faith mentioned in Ephesians 2:8 and Hebrews 11:1, I claim that is given directly by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, without any gospel means. If you disagree, please tell me why.

    So I contend you haven’t proved that “knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation”, where “knowledge” refers to explicit, conscious knowledge.

    Actually, I think Isaiah 52, which is quoted in Romans 10:15, conforms a lot better to my ideas than yours.
    [Isa 52:6-7 KJV] 6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore [they shall know] in that day that I [am] he that doth speak: behold, [it is] I. 7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

    Look…”Thy God reigneth”! It’s good news! It’s beautiful!!! The gospel is good news for the people of God. Not everyone is a child of God….but children of God are everywhere. The message is not: “All of you are depraved and going to hell, except for a few of you who are depraved haters of God right now but will at some point believe the gospel and be regenerated, and then persevere until the end despite occasional stumbling.” Isaiah tells us what the message is. It’s good news for God’s children. It’s a message to Zion. It’s a love letter. It’s a mesage of peace, and by the way, it is not an offer of peace…it is publishing peace, which means there is a peace that has already been achieved. It’s exciting. It’s the way that God’s people know his name. It’s cause for rejoicing for the sinsick sinner.

    I want to hear that my God reigns. I want to hear that he is on his throne. I want to hear that he is going to put down all his enemies some day. I want to hear that all the harsh, bitter accusations lodged against my God cannot so much as put one smudge on his gleaming white throne. I want to hear that morality is not just a Darwinian survival mechanism. I want to hear that there is a better life to come. I want to hear that God loves me and has legally, permanently, finally, irrevocably forgiven my sins, and I can have a subjective experience of it on earth if I am willing to believe. I want to hear that if I repent, and be baptized, and turn from my sins I can be saved from a hell on earth. Hallelujah!

    ELEVEN (d)

    PHIL:

    John 3:18 says “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the NAME of the only Son of God”.

    TFOTF:

    [Jhn 3:18-21 KJV] 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    You imply that the “condemnation” is everlasting destruction, everlasting punishment, and the lake of fire….even though the passage says nothing about these concepts. In fact, the passage defines what the condemnation is in verse 19: One reason people resist the gospel is because they have sin in their life that they do not want to give up. “Their deeds were evil”. Isn’t this is a very obvious concept? We all want happiness without accountability. Some of us want it so bad that we openly refuse to believe in Jesus Christ. Christians also have sin in their lives…but by naming Jesus Christ as their Lord, they relinquish a worldview (atheism/agnosticism/deism) that offers ultimate moral autonomy. As a Biblical example, consider the Rich Young Ruler. He started out calling Jesus master, but at the end of the encounter, he walks away refusing to treat Jesus as master. He did not become a Christian, at least not that day. Why? Because of his covetousness. So he stood condemned as in John 3:18. But he did not go to hell, because Jesus loved him:
    [Mar 10:21 KJV] 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

    So, I contend that you haven’t proved that belief in Christ Jesus as Lord while here on earth is necessary for salvation from the lake of fire.

    You believe that all orthodox Muslims go to hell unless they convert to Christianity. I contend you are out of line, given this passage:
    [Jhn 12:47-48 KJV] 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I JUDGE HIM NOT: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

    As I said last time, you are conflating Christ with the knowledge of Christ. I’m claiming that head knowledge of Christ is not necessary for salvation, and you claim I am obviating Christ himself. No, because Christ is not the same as the head knowledge of Christ.

  • 

    Reply ↓

    TFOTF July 11, 2018 at 10:11 am

    TWELVE (a)

    PHIL:

    I would rather not get caught up in the tangential argument that babies or mentally handicapped folk can be saved. You and I agree on this, however it is not explicitly stated in scripture. So this is a conviction of mine, and I agree with the scripture that seems to imply they are saved, but would not fight a battle over this conviction.
    John 3:8 – This verse is saying that the Holy Spirit is not controlled by humans, God chooses who is to be saved. It does not however contradict other scriptures like John 3:18 that we must believe in Christ.

    TFOTF:

    We are not arguing about whether babies go to heaven or not. I am not starting a battle over your conviction. I am asking you to be consistent in your interpretation of Scripture. You claim it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Well, the word “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture either…but we both strongly believe in it. We can put two and two together.

    [2Sa 12:23 KJV] 23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

    Are you really leaving open the possibility that David, the inspired writer of the Psalms and a man after God’s own heart, was taking comfort in the fact that his son was going to burn in hell? Or does it not make much more sense to conclude that David was given a revelation that he was going to be reunited with his son in glory?

    Instead of calling this a tangent, please confront head-on the conclusions I am drawing about God’s plan of salvation based on theoretical passages AND the baby passages.

    By the way I wrote a whole blog post about this here: (https://www.theformofthefourth.com/2018/04/08/are-you-dying-inside-part-2d1a/

    Anyway, I claim this one is even stronger than the David one:

    In an attempt to kill baby Jesus, king Herod killed a large number of children two years old and younger. This is recorded in Matthew 2:16, but Jeremiah also prophesies about this event:
    [Jer 31:15-17 KJV] 15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, [and] bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they [were] not. 16 Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. 17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

    He doesn’t say “heaven” explicitly, just as I John 5:7 doesn’t say “Trinity” explicitly. But since this Jeremiah passage has to be talking about heaven or hell, I think heaven is the clear choice. Otherwise, this would not be a very comforting message for poor Rahel. So, here we have children under two years of age going to heaven. The only other option is that the message of comfort for Rahel is: “Don’t worry, they will be resurrected one day and cast into a burning lake of fire for all eternity.”
    By saying “it is not explicitly stated in Scripture”, you are leaving open the possibility that her children went to hell. You really want to leave that possibility open, despite the clear message of comfort given in the passage? It’s not just emotionally shocking for you to leave that open; it’s (much more importantly) at loggerheads with the passage.
    You claim that people are depraved unless and until they hear and believe the gospel. This directly contradicts:
    [Luk 1:15, 41-44 KJV] 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. … 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
    I claim that this passage runs directly counter to your insistence that regeneration and conscious belief in the gospel are coincident or very nearly coincident events. John clearly was regenerated already here…but he did not possess a conscious belief in the gospel. And since this passage makes a clear separation between regeneration and conversion, I argue it’s very very easy to see how babies could go to heaven.

    OK, one more along the lines of the previous one.

    [Psa 22:9-10 KJV] 9 But thou [art] he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope [when I was] upon my mother’s breasts. 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother’s belly.

    Interesting how he doesn’t just say God was taking care of him when he was young. No, he goes beyond that, saying that God actually imparted hope into David’s infant heart. He says you are MY God from my mother’s belly. Is that the description of someone who is totally depraved and going to hell? I hope we can agree David was already regenerated as a suckling.
    If David can be regenerated as a suckling, why not other sucklings who never make it past suckling stage?
    You’re really going to dismiss the argument I am making as a tangent? I just presented four passages to make my point. Please, kindly reconsider.

    How do your beliefs about salvation incorporate infant salvation in a systematic, non-ad-hoc way? I have given my answer numerous times:
    [Jhn 3:8 KJV] 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.

    All of God’s children, babies and big people alike, are born again directly through the work of the Holy Spirit, on God’s timetable, without any gospel means.

    TWELVE (b)

    PHIL:

    John 3:8 – This verse is saying that the Holy Spirit is not controlled by humans, God chooses who is to be saved. It does not however contradict other scriptures like John 3:18 that we must believe in Christ.

    TFOTF:

    Per your beliefs, there is a LARGE extent to which you can tell “whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.” Your church sends missionaries to some location, they preach, and then some of the people there believe the gospel and get born again. Then the missionaries go somewhere else and do the same thing. And any place with no preaching or Bibles is a place where everybody goes to hell. I would say you have a pretty good handle on “whence it cometh, and whither it goeth”. You are paring the verse down to simply say that God is sovereign in election. I agree with that, but the verse goes further than that.

    In contrast to your interpretation, I claim that people get born again all the time all over the world, completely by the work of the Holy Spirit, completely on God’s timetable, without any gospel means.

    Which paradigm fits the wind metaphor better? Yours or mine?

    And which John 3:8 interpretation fits with infant salvation better? Yours or mine?

    I already discussed John 3:18 in ELEVEN (d).

    God bless you. Thank you for all of your efforts in this discussion. I look forward to hearing from you again.

• 

  Reply ↓

  TFOTF December 1, 2018 at 8:42 am

  [Phil, I copied your comment into a top layer comment so it’s not buried under so many layers.]

  Phil:
  November 22, 2018 at 10:36 pm
  TFOTF: Why does Acts 2:38 mention baptism?

  Phil: You could state this verse as: Receive the forgiveness of your sins by repenting and by believing in the name of Jesus Christ, which is signified through your baptism. Baptism, while not required for salvation, is still a command from Jesus to us. This is very similar to the command to remember Christ’s death by taking communion. Baptism is a public pronouncement and symbol of our faith in Christ. If you are not baptized, you are not following Jesus’ command. The symbolism is important here too, by being fully immersed in water, we show that we identify with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (coming up out of the water). Someone who does not know of Jesus cannot understand the symbolism of baptism.

  If it is my turn for a question, I’d like to hear your reply to why what you are discussing on this blog is not a religion different than Christianity? (From my last post) “The fundamental definition of Christianity, is that only Christians are Christians, and only Christians can go to Heaven. It seems to me that you are using the Bible to espouse a different religion – as you are saying that God accepts into Heaven those who are not Christians. “

  Start TFOTF 12/1/18 response:
  Dear Phil,

  Great to hear from you! Thanks for your reply.

  [Act 2:38 KJV] 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

  So you think that the “remission of sins” in this context basically means getting saved from hell. Why can’t it refer to something like this instead?

  [1Jo 1:9 KJV] 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

  In other words, why can’t it refer to a temporal experience of forgiveness? After all, I John 1:9 is clearly not talking about how to get saved…he says “we”. For more information on the “we”, consider this verse:
  [1Jo 5:19 KJV] 19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
  OK, so when he says “we”, he is not talking about hellbound sinners. He’s talking about people who are already children of God. So when he says God will “forgive us” in 1:9, he’s not talking about how to get to heaven.

  He’s clearly talking about a day to day forgiveness. Why can’t Acts 2:38 refer to the same thing, but to a greater degree because it is the initial experience of forgiveness when you become a Christian? Note, the Greek word underlying “forgive” in I John 1:9 is closely related to the Greek word underlying “remission” in Acts 2:38.
  If you go with my interpretation, Acts 2:38 becomes more clear. You can treat baptism and repentance as having the same purpose in Acts 2:38, which is nice because the structure of the verse treats them as the same, teleologically and gramatically.

  As far as your other question, about why the religion discussed on this blog is Christian. Well, remember, the exact point where you disagree with me is the same point where I disagree with you. It’s almost like you are assuming facts of the case. That makes it a lot easier to argue your case. Also, to say “only Christians are Christians” is, prima facie, a truism. Please define more clearly what you mean by that.

  But, most importantly, you did not provide any Bible verse to back up your claims. That is why I did not respond until now.

  Meanwhile, here is a nice little summary of Christianity, which I wholeheartedly agree with and have affirmed on my blog already:

  [1Co 15:3-4 KJV] 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

  It’s not comprehensive, of course, but anyway, I totally believe and agree with this verse, and would challenge you to show me anything I’ve said on my blog which contradicts this passage.

  God bless you and yours!

  TFOTF

  • 

    Reply ↓

    Phil April 24, 2019 at 12:02 am

    To be a Christian you must believe the gospel as stated by the Bible. Romans 10:9 says, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    Because you believe that belief is not necessary, and confession of Christ as your Lord is not necessary, this is why I think you do not understand the gospel. I have come to the conclusion that you are propagating a false gospel (that those that have never heard of Christ can be saved), and I no longer think you are saved. I am happy to discuss the gospel with you any time. I am praying for you.

    James 3:1 says, “Not many of you should become teachers my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” I would urge you to pause your blogging activities, rather than incur judgement.

    -Phil

    • 

      Reply ↓

      TFOTF April 27, 2019 at 7:18 am

      Dear Phil,

      Thanks for responding, and thanks for praying for me.

      You don’t think I’m saved. I’ve never been told that before, but thanks for your candor.

      You sent me an article last year about inclusivism and exclusivism.
      https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-happens-to-those-who-never-hear-gospel/

      Here is footnote one from the article:
      1 It’s worth distinguishing between more explicit inclusivists (who insist God will save some who’ve never heard) and more agnostic types (who claim they don’t know for sure). Even Herman Bavinck is not dogmatic in his exclusivism in light of God’s unilateral sovereignty.

      Do you believe that the “explicit inclusivists”, the “more agnostic types”, and Herman Bavinck are all unsaved?

      God bless,

      TFOTF

      P.S. : Per your earlier request, I limited myself to one question 🙂

• 

  Reply ↓

  gary danforth March 20, 2019 at 4:45 pm

  Amen brother