 
What if Calvin Was Wrong?

by

Billy Prewitt

Copyright 2015 by Billy and Rebekah Prewitt

All rights reserved.

Other titles by Billy and Rebekah Prewitt:

Leave & Cleave by Rebekah Prewitt

Women Pastors by Rebekah Prewitt

Evidence for Tongues: Fanning the Flames of Revival by Billy Prewitt

Help! I Am a Teacher! by Billy Prewitt

### Billy Prewitt is also the founder of:

TrinityBibleSchool.com

" _He that is first in his own cause seemeth just;_

but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him"

(Proverbs 18:17).
C o n t e n t s

Chapter 1 – Perfect Timing

Chapter 2 – Eve's Deception

Chapter 3 – The Ezekiel Principles

Chapter 4 – How Are the Mighty Fallen!

Chapter 5 – Why Fear the Parables?

Chapter 6 – Fish Bait

Chapter 7 – 10 Myths of Calvinism

Chapter 8 – Suicide Is Not the Unpardonable Sin

Chapter 9 – Salvation Killers

Chapter 10 – The Age Old Problem

Chapter 11 – Holding the Holy Spirit Hostage

Chapter 12 – Hazard Lights

Chapter 13 – When Sovereigns Collide

Conclusion

Connect With the Author

### Chapter 1

Perfect Timing

Timing is everything. Nothing could be truer as it relates to Calvin and his teaching. If Calvin had lived a century earlier, his teaching would have been swallowed up in the Catholic tradition, and he would likely be a footnote in Christian history rather than a pillar. If he had come a century later, his teaching would have faced the daunting task of shaping a movement that was already in motion. When Calvin developed his doctrine, it was the perfect time. The Western World was ready for a new theological system as it had not been since the time of Constantine. This time, however, the system was able to ride the wings of revolution that bore the historically powerful impetus of freedom from religious tyranny.

The politics of Europe in the early sixteenth century, particularly relations between the Roman Church and the German nobility, were highly unstable. The pattern of corruption in the ranks of Roman pontiffs and disputes as to the right to the office of the papacy led to gradual disintegration of the infrastructure of the church in general. Adding this to the growing distaste of subjugated monarchs and wealthy landowners, there was a growing sense that outright conflict between the church and the various sovereign states was impending. It was difficult, however, for state sovereigns to muster the force of the people. One primary reason for this was the dominant power the church claimed over the eternal state of the soul. Put simply, the common people were sincerely afraid that any effort against the Roman Church would end in damnation to Hell. Leaders may also have shared this fear. The papacy and its proponents were always ready to capitalize on this fear utilizing both the threat and the reality of excommunication as often as necessary.

Another fear that had some precedence was the fear of Rome's military power. All of Europe had seen wars and rumors of wars in which the power of the pope was forcibly maintained. National leaders could discern many of the insidious techniques of the church but were at somewhat of a loss as to how to deal with the problem. It was as if all of Europe was a tinderbox awaiting a spark. Martin Luther was the spark. When Martin Luther nailed his _Ninety-Five Theses_ to the door of the church in Whittenberg, flames leaped into the open in more than one way.

Religiously speaking, Luther's _Ninety-Five Theses_ sparked the flames of the Reformation which swept Europe by storm in a very short time. Politically, however, Luther provided an option to the nobility. They did not see a way that they could fight the Roman Church up to this point. It seemed too much like joining forces with the enemy of darkness to fight against the Church of Christ. Now that Luther, a religious man, was willing to defy Rome, all they had to do was take sides in an ongoing religious war. As a result, Luther was protected. This was something new in Europe. Many had opposed the pope, but they did not often live to tell the tale. Just read Fox's _Book of Martyrs_ , and the point is abundantly clear. This time, the pope could not simply eliminate the competition. Europeans, for the first time in over a thousand years, saw a hope of being both religiously and politically free from Rome's clutches, and they went for it.

John Calvin was only about seven years old when Luther pinned his _Ninety-Five Theses_. France, being somewhat removed from the upheaval in Germany, would have only heard of the heroic tales of a monk withstanding the pope. And yet, history discloses the evident change in the political and religious climates that took place all over Europe. Calvin would not have been able to escape the tremors of change that were all around him. It was the perfect time.

Change is an interesting thing. It inevitably produces insecurity, but the insecurity often has an element of excitement. The excitement presses the change forward, but the insecurity always reaches for something familiar to which to cleave. Most people are only willing to make a change when they can see the destination clearly. They will leave one state and move to another or even migrate to another country. In the end of the change, they will almost always look to cleave to something familiar. Rarely will people leave the known for the completely unknown. That takes a bravery that most people do not possess.

When people began to consider leaving the safety of the known Catholic Church, they needed something they could grasp. They needed something that would provide stability. Martin Luther was heroic, and many were willing to follow him out of the Catholic Church but to where? Where were their feet going to land?

Even though the Catholic Church had displayed abundant instability throughout the past several hundred years, there was a stable theological system in place. People knew how the system worked. There were no surprises. By the time Luther rebelled, the Catholics had enjoyed an established theology for about three centuries that had been formulated by Thomas Aquinas. Was the rebellion going to simply be a new-and-improved version of the old Catholic religion? Luther certainly had intentions of that very thing. He envisioned reform rather than departure, but departure was to be the day. Now that the breach had opened, there was no turning back. This made a new theological framework imperative. The people and the churches needed a system. Calvin provided that system at the perfect time, and protestant Europe grabbed hold of it with fervor.

Only thirteen years after Luther's rebellion began, Calvin, at about 21 years of age officially cut his ties with the Catholic Church. Six years later, he published _The Institutes of the Christian Religion_. While some of the ideas of the work were not entirely original, they were fresh. They were also brilliantly organized. Even more important, they were Protestant. A Protestant theology was exactly what the fledgling movement needed, and Calvin was willing to supply that need.

Published Theology

John Calvin was a classic scholar. Even though his formal training had been in law rather than theology, it seems as if he became more interested in Biblical scholarship than anything else. Like others of his day, he authored great quantities of literature. He also served as a pastor in a somewhat controversial setting, but none of these things brought him to the forefront of well-known Christian intellectuals. You will not likely find any of his books at your local bookstore, and you might even have a hard time finding a full length biography on his life at a public library. What you will find, however, are volumes upon volumes of books analyzing, emphasizing, and even criticizing his theological framework. It was this framework that has become Calvin's greatest contribution to the Christian community, yet the nagging question that forms the thesis for this book remains. What if Calvin was wrong?

The basis for Calvin's approach to theology was a complete credence to the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of the Almighty God is the absolute bedrock of Calvinistic thinking. Without this, the whole system completely falls apart. Christians of various theological persuasions share a common interest in the sovereignty of God. For Calvin, however, this was paramount. Everything rises and falls on God's sovereignty with no exceptions. Whether or not this agrees with the Bible is another matter, but for Calvin and those that followed him, it was a non-negotiable. Out of this regard for God's sovereignty, Calvin made a theology that was later developed into five seemingly simple points. The five points form the famous acrostic for Calvin's work which is most often referred to as the TULIP.

The "T" stands for total depravity. This teaching places man in a position of complete and utter moral destitution from conception. Because man is totally depraved, he is utterly destined to fulfill the lifestyle and appetites of the morally base. The totality of this depravity goes further than simply to describe man's present condition but also has strong implications on man's ability. The system of total depravity places man in a position of inability to help himself. He is utterly incapable of even looking to God for a solution. His despair is complete and, left to himself, permanent.

The "U" stands for unconditional election. At this point, God enters the scene. He looks down on the total depravity of mankind and elects some for salvation. The keyword in this point is not so much the election but the concept of unconditional. Seeing that man is totally depraved, it is incomprehensible that he could do something that would merit anything from God. It is God, therefore, that unconditionally elects. There is nothing a man can do to become elected, and no set conditions that God is looking to find.

The "L" stands for limited atonement. Once God elects, He provides atonement for only the elect through Jesus Christ. It would be completely worthless to provide atonement for those that are not elected, and God does not do worthless things. The efficiency of God's sovereignty is demonstrated in that He literally narrows the scope of the death of Christ to be only of value to those that are elected.

The "I" stands for irresistible grace. Once a totally depraved person has been elected and the limited atonement provided, then it is impossible for that person to resist the grace of God. They may be able to run for a while, but ultimately, they will come into the fold. There are no exceptions. If you have been elected, you will come into fellowship with Christ.

The "P" stands for perseverance of the saints. If a person is elected, atoned for, and the subject of grace that cannot be resisted, then it is impossible for that person to fall away. In the end, they will persevere through all trials and temptations and ultimately be ushered into the Heavenly Kingdom.

Proliferation in Europe

A perusal of Church history reveals that Calvin's system of theology entered into the mainstream of Christian thought to that point that all of Europe was affected. The casual student may not notice this as Calvin's name does not appear all that much, but when you consider the early post-Reformation church movements, Calvin's stamp is clearly seen because it became the accepted theology of both the Presbyterian and Baptist movements.

For example, the Calvinistic theological system did not differ greatly from that of Luther. As a result, the most relevant concerns between these two systems were related to distinguishing marks of Protestantism in opposition to Catholicism. As an example, the arguments between early post-Reformation Protestants were about things like transubstantiation (the Catholic teaching that the Communion elements actually became the body and blood of Christ).

As another example, shortly after the Reformation, there was a significant doctrinal schism that extensively divided the Protestant churches, but the issue was not related to Calvin's TULIP. It was over baptism. Was a person supposed to be baptized as an infant or as a believing adult? For those who are not aware, this is still the dividing line between Baptists and Presbyterians. To this day, Presbyterians teach infant baptism, while Baptists teach the baptism of believers.

As time progressed, there were some dissenters who dared to question Calvin's system. Two factors, however, made it difficult for these theologians to become prominent. First, they were overwhelmingly in the minority. Second, open religious conflict was not exactly welcome in a Europe that had been torn apart by religious war over and again. Even still, some were willing and able to voice their religious ideas openly. One of these was Jacobus Arminius. Having been theologically trained by men who were not sympathetic to Calvinistic teaching, Arminius developed a system, based on the Bible, that contrasted significantly with the accepted Reformed theology. His system questioned Calvin's concepts of predestination, atonement, grace, and perseverance. Like Calvin, the theology of Arminius was put into five points after his death by his followers.

While the following of Arminius was not as large as that of Calvin, there was a constituency that has continued to this day. Along the way, the teaching of Arminius produced the most influential opponent to the Calvinistic tradition that history has known to this point. This was none other than John Wesley. The influence of John Wesley, particularly on the English speaking world, is nothing less than profound. It might be bold to say so, but if it had not been for John Wesley, it is unlikely that the English speaking world would know any Christian theology apart from Calvinism. When you consider mainstream Protestant churches, (i.e. church organizations that started in Europe and migrated to America), the only prominent one that does not subscribe to Calvinism is the Methodist Church. Most of the modern church movements owe their roots to either Calvinistic mainstream churches such as Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Puritan or the non-Calvinistic Methodists from which come the holiness movement churches like the Nazarenes, Christian and Missionary Alliance, and even the Pentecostal denominations of the twentieth century. Even today's move toward non-denominational churches shows that these are usually a version of Calvinist or non-Calvinist churches. In short, this matter is unquestionably divisive.

Realizing how divisive the issues related to Calvinistic theology are, when given the opportunity to observe the arguments over history, it is interesting to observe that there has been significant variation in the topics discussed. As an example, one of the more famous ministerial arguments between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist was between two very close friends. The argument that has divided churches for almost five hundred years was not able to sever this pair. They were more akin to Jonathan and David than anything else. As has already been mentioned, John Wesley stood out among his peers as an antagonist to the Calvinistic doctrine. George Whitefield, on the other hand, was a devout Calvinist. Throughout the length of their life-long friendship, they argued the matter with one another to no avail. Reading the accounts, however, it becomes strikingly obvious to the modern observer that their argument was quite different from the prominent argument that we enjoy now. Their argument was primarily over the doctrine of election. They did not really concern themselves with the heated debate that divides modern believers. Today, the most heated debate is not election but rather perseverance.

Perseverance of the Saints

The fifth point in Calvin's TULIP is now known as the doctrine of eternal security. Simply put, the doctrine states that once a person is truly saved, it is impossible for that person to ever be lost. In his book, _Grace Unknown_ , R. C. Sproul teaches,

A simple way to remember the essence of the doctrine of perseverance is to learn this ditty: "If we have it, we never lose it. If we lose it, we never had it." This is a "cute" way of affirming that full and final apostasy is never the lot of the Christian. Another shorthand expression of this doctrine is the aphorism "Once saved, always saved."

While on the surface, this may seem simple enough, there are some intricate theological matters that this doctrine requires.

For example, how does the proponent of eternal security deal with the often observed reality of a believer that falls away from the faith and dies in a backslidden condition? This is not a hypothetical situation as we will see later in this book. Many people have started well only to end up dying in pitifully ungodly conditions. For the Calvinist that stringently adheres to the doctrine of eternal security, this presents a real quandary. There are two Calvinistic solutions to this problem that we will analyze individually.

Truly Saved

One answer to the problem of backslidden believers that is somewhat rote says, "Well, if the person fell, they must not have been truly saved to begin with." This is, of course, cyclical reasoning based on a Calvinistic mindset. The Calvinist that resorts to this answer is thinking that if true believers cannot fall, and this person fell, he must not have been a true believer. This is the automatic conclusion. The strange thing about this answer is that it is in complete disagreement with the modern Calvinistic approach to evangelism which relies on a conversion experience based on Romans 10:9-13 with an emphasis on the promise that all who call on Christ are saved.

A few years ago, I had an intriguing conversation with a Southern Baptist minister. I was doing some research in the community in which he ministered, so I called him to ask some questions. As it turned out, he was very open with me during this conversation. I still believe that we were both blessed by the brotherly fellowship that we shared that day even though we had never personally met. During our talk, he confessed to me that he was planning to resign his position at the First Baptist Church. He was ready to move on. Maybe that was the reason he was so open and ready to share. After we had talked for a while, I asked him one of the questions that I had prepared for the occasion. "What is the greatest need in the community in which you minister?"

After taking a brief moment to consider his response, he began, "This area has a lot of churchgoers, but I'm not sure how many of them are saved people. I'd say that the greatest need in this area is saved people."

This answer captured my attention. I felt very sincerely that his answer was a genuine spiritual insight into the community. This did not come from a momentary thought. It came out of a soul that longed for something that it did not see. I had no particular expectation concerning what he might say, but this was somewhat of a surprise. The simplicity and profundity of his words held me captive as he described what he meant.

In particular, he spoke of one of the members of his church that was known as a soul winner. He described how the man was more than persuasive in his evangelistic techniques. In fact, the man was quite forceful. The pastor mused, "I think some people pray to get saved just so that he will leave them alone, but this brother comes to church to report these situations as conversions anyway." The pastor's willingness to question these situations is unusual in my experience. It is far more common to hear a preacher tell the respondents of an altar call that they are saved. Some even add that they are saved forever. I even heard with my own ears a well known evangelist tell the crusade audience that if they would come, Christ would save them, and they would never be able to lose their salvation. He said this before they even prayed. It was part of the appeal.

To question someone else's conversion is not historically common in Calvinism. In fact, this was one of the matters of argument in the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the early American settlers. Naturally, I do not generally expect to hear a Calvinist openly question someone else's faith. What is particularly ironic is that when a person does fall and specifically when that person dies in that fall, the expected Calvinistic answer is, "He must not have been truly saved." Is it really reasonable, however, to judge the condition of another person's heart at some point in the past solely by their present condition? This seems even more absurd when the basic consensus is to accept the stated condition. It seems more likely that this is an attempt to force reality into the confines of Calvinism like a historical revisionist alters the facts of history to forward some agenda.

Taken to Heaven

The other common answer to the problem of backsliders that is mandated by the Calvinistic mindset is to preach the deceased into heaven. Christians are faced with this temptation at many funerals. As an example, I attended the funeral of a young man who had died as a result of his own drunk driving. His car had careened off of the road and smashed into a tree. He was not attending church, and it was later found out that he left behind a pregnant girlfriend. At the funeral, however, it was said that his favorite song was, "Blessed Assurance." Other comments were made as to his experiences in church to the point that a bystander would have thought this young man was a Christian indeed. These comments were made almost as if they had some bearing on his eternal destination.

In a situation like this, the Calvinist is faced with a problem if they are willing to be honest. If there was a statement related to a past conversion experience, they can either honestly claim that this boy was never saved regardless of a past conversion testimony, or they can adamantly declare that he was saved and went to Heaven regardless of the gross sin in his life at the time of his death. There is no other option because according to Calvinism, a truly saved person can never be lost. To preach the deceased into Heaven is more likely to be the option chosen by the modern Calvinist at a backslider's funeral, but one is left to wonder if they consider the matter in their private moments. As we will discuss in depth later on, this option has been taken to extremes in modern Calvinism. It is for this reason, that this book will be limited in its scope to dealing with eternal security.

Presenting the Ramifications

What if Calvin was wrong? What if the saints are not guaranteed perseverance? What if we are not eternally secure? Is this really a big deal, or is it mere rhetoric? Is it only an abstract argument for theologians, or is there something important in the matter that is relevant to practical Christianity? In answer to the question that frames this book, I absolutely believe that Calvin was wrong. I do not believe that we are guaranteed eternal security, and I do think this is a big deal. This is as practical as it gets, and it is as important as the eternal destiny of our souls. What if Calvin was wrong?

For a moment, let us consider the present condition of the Christian community. It is quite easy in America to find people that claim to be Christians. Just ask around. Almost everyone that does not claim another religion will associate themselves with Christ in some way, but like the Baptist minister asked, "How many of these are saved people?" I suppose only God would know the answer to that question, but let us narrow our gaze a little. How many people around us profess that they have had a conversion experience at some point in the past? Immediately, the percentage will fall drastically. To prove the point, I have made it a habit to ask people two questions. First, I ask them if they are a Christian. If they respond positively, I ask, "How do you know?" Some people don't have any idea how to answer this simple question. Others say things like "I try to be a good person." If we eliminate all of those that cannot justifiably determine that they are Christians, we now have what the Calvinists would consider the true Christian. What if this isn't true? What if the field needs to be narrowed more? Do we dare ask if the person is faithful in a life of discipleship? Do we dare investigate to see the fruits that Christ said would be present? Do we consider the fruits of unrighteousness that are so present in the lives of many church constituents?

In his book, _What in the World is Going On?_ , David Jeremiah states, "A day is coming when a billion people will suddenly vanish from the face of the earth without a trace!" What if that number is far less than a billion. To be real, I find it hard to believe that you could find a billion people who could give a convincing testimony of conversion. That is approximately 15% of the total population. You would not even find that high of a percentage in America, let alone world wide. It would be even harder to convince me that fully 15% of the world's population are truly saved people. Beyond that, even if they had some kind of experience with God in the past, you will never convince me that 15% of the world are all in right relationship with God right now. To put it simply, eternal security inflates the number of people who think they are going to go to Heaven when they die.

For the person that is saved, faithful, and lives a life of holiness, it is not a problem for them to believe that they are eternally secure. If they continue in the path that they are in currently, they will meet no surprise when they pass away, but what about the believer that is not faithful? Are they safe, or will they meet with surprise at the instant that their life ends?

About a year ago, I attended a service at a Baptist church. The pastor was absent that day, and a respected elderly minister filled the pulpit in his absence. The subject of the message was Heaven. At the end of the message, the speaker made comment on John 14, and asked a peculiar question that has bothered me ever since. He asked, "I just wonder whose mansion will be finished next?" He asked this several times with a sincerely woeful tone and then prayed before dismissing the service. What did he mean by that question? I don't know. If he was appealing to sinners, it was the most unusual appeal I have ever heard. Sinners are not afraid that they will be the next to go to Heaven. Saints should be happy to hear their number called. This is certainly not woeful.

Without making too much analysis of this peculiar plea, it seemingly falls into line with what is being preached from untold thousands of pulpits across America. Even though there are countless thousands of backslidden and unconverted souls in attendance, the message is the same. It says, "God is preparing a mansion for you. One day He will take you to Heaven to be with Him. This is guaranteed to you, and all you need to do is wait for it to happen."

The impetus for this book is the firm belief that this is false security. Is it possible that many persons in attendance that day were backslidden? Is it possible that many were not ready to meet God? If so, why would we tell them otherwise? Why would we tell people that they are on their way to Heaven in a case where there is no possible way for us to know that for sure? Why would we give them potentially false assurance? I believe very sincerely that thousands upon thousands of people have been given false assurance concerning their salvation and eternal destiny because of the doctrine of eternal security. It is with the intention of reversing such assurance that I present to you the information that is in this book. What if Calvin was wrong?
Chapter 2

Eve's Deception

Have you ever stepped on soggy carpet? Several years ago, I was walking across my carpet when my foot squished into a thoroughly soaked puddle in the middle of my hallway. After overcoming the instant feeling of despair, the search for the source began. In a few minutes, I discovered that the water was coming from the air conditioning unit in the hall closet. I had fixed a few plumbing leaks before, but I instantly knew that I was in over my "do-it-yourself" head. Unhappily, I decided to call an air conditioning repair man.

Not long into the conversation, the repair man asked, "How old is the unit?"

"I believe that it's about fourteen or fifteen years old," I responded.

With the well rehearsed words of a seasoned A/C veteran, he calmly replied, "You've done pretty well then. They normally don't last beyond fifteen years. We would be happy to come out and give you an estimate on replacing the unit."

I asked, "Is the estimate free?"

"Of course. When would you like us to come out?"

To make a long story short, we decided to replace the unit. We watched the old A/C unit leave and a new one come in making a sizable splash in our finances. Nevertheless, we had a new A/C unit and were happy that we would no longer need to worry about wet carpet, or so we thought. A few months later, however, the floor was wet again.

Have you ever felt frustration slowly melt away all your strength? It is a terrible feeling. There was no confusion, however. This time, I knew exactly what to do.

"We replaced our old A/C because the floor was wet. You put in a new unit, but the floor is wet again."

"Would you like us to send out a technician? Our service calls are $85.99 for the first hour plus parts."

It was at that moment that I had a moment of complete clarity. I asked, "What are you going to do when you get here?"

"Well, we'll vacuum out the drain line and flush it out with chemicals."

"Is that something I can do myself?" I asked.

You would think I had asked the guy for his mother's secret recipe, but he gave me some abbreviated instructions. I tried it, and it worked...for a while. A few months later, we had the same soggy carpet again.

I was aggravated with this problem for a few years before a different A/C repairman suggested that there might be an underground break in the drain line. Once a new drain line was installed, it was discovered that there had been an error in the original installation of the new A/C as well. Finally, the new expensive A/C unit ran without leaking. I was a happy man.

Then it hit me. The old unit ran and cooled fine. Maybe it did not need to be replaced at all. Had I been mislead? Regardless as to whether it was intentional or not, I had been put in a position to make a decision with faulty information. I did not have all the facts. As a result, it cost me some cash.

What if the stakes were higher? What if the eternal destiny of my soul was in the balance of the decision? It is one thing to lose a few dollars but losing your soul is entirely another matter. It is in exactly this situation that Eve found herself grappling with the master of deception. She was brought to the point of decision and put in a position to make a life altering choice based on faulty information.

Some time ago, I was studying when I ran across something quite interesting. I had known that Eve was deceived even though Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), but the exact nature of that deception never had occurred to me before. This time, however, like a lightning flash, I understood it. It is my hope to impart to you the flash of spiritual insight that I gained on that day into Eve's deception. There is no question that Eve was deceived, but what exactly was the deception? Before answering that question, we will need to briefly analyze deception itself.

The Origin and Nature of Deception

We have all been deceived at one time or another. Sometimes we learn the truth after it is too late (like my air conditioner), but have you ever wondered how many times you have been deceived without ever knowing about it? It would probably be startling to find out. It is never a good feeling to learn that you have been had.

I remember when I was in Bible college, one of my theological professors posed a true or false question that said, "The Bible contains the Word of God." I very confidently answered, "True." When I learned that the answer was "false," I was appalled. I felt both the sting of offense and the passion of injustice. Later, the professor explained that the Bible IS the Word of God. To say that it contains the Word of God is to imply that there are parts of the Bible that are NOT the Word of God. We do not need to search the Bible to find the Word of God. The whole Bible is the inspired Word of God. I never forgot this lesson.

Later in life, I learned the value of this lesson in a pronounced way. I found myself in a conversation with two Mormon elders. One of them unashamedly said, "The Bible is a good book. It has a lot of truth in it." Oh no, I'm not falling for that one. The Bible is not a good book with lots of truth. It is THE Book of Truth. It is completely true, and the only true book of its kind.

The point is quite simple and illustrative. Mormons try to get us to agree with them that the Bible is a good book. They want us to agree that the Word of God is found in it. They want us to agree that it holds a lot of truth. If we do, however, we will stand in total agreement with them and most of the other false teachers of our day. While each of these statements is almost true, they carry a hidden agenda. When that agenda is uncovered, we learn that it has seeds sown by the master deceiver himself.

Jesus clearly identified the origin of deception. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). As believers, we must always remember that we have a real enemy that is the master craftsman at deception. He never plays fair, and his goal is our complete and total destruction to the level that our very soul will be accursed.

Skilled liars do not tell blatant lies. They do what people often call "shading the truth." They will tell mostly truth carefully hiding the lie in the middle. The more skillful the liar, the more subtle the lie will be. The devil is a very skillful liar. He has had plenty of time to hone his art, and unfortunately, many undiscerning humans on whom to practice. Considering his skill, it is foolish to think that we are impervious to his schemes, yet many believers live life as if there is no danger. The Bible reveals, however, that people can be deceived by his lies. Sometimes, even notable, high quality people have found themselves to be victims. While the enemies list of insidious techniques may be quite long, we will focus our attention on one of his most effective devices.

Faulty Information

Before we consider Eve, I want to tell you how this scheme works and then present a vivid Biblical illustration. The gist is quite simple. A person is put in a position to make a decision, but some of the information needed to make a quality choice is faulty. It is then hoped that the person will make the decision anyway incorporating the faulty information without being aware of the truth. In most cases, the decision made under such circumstances is the wrong one.

To see this strategy acted out, we can look to the story of Joshua and the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:3-27). Joshua was undoubtedly a man of God. He was the leader of God's chosen people, and was far from being a backslider. In fact, other than the mistake we are about to mention, there is nothing negative laid to Joshua's charge in the Bible. It was through his leadership that the Children of Israel were able to enter into the Promised Land and miraculously dislodge the residents. Even so, he was still vulnerable to deception.

One day, there was a group of people that came to see Joshua. Their clothes were old, and all they had was moldy bread to eat. They told an impressive story about being from a far away place and put Joshua in the position to make a decision concerning a treaty of peace with them.

Joshua knew that he was not to make a treaty with any of the people living in the land of Canaan. He would have never considered the matter, but these people were obviously from far away. What could be the danger? So, overriding some hesitation, he went ahead and made a treaty of peace with them. Later on, he learned that they had lied. They were not from far away at all. In fact, they were nearly next-door neighbors. Unfortunately, the treaty had been made. Joshua had been placed in a position to decide with faulty information, and the Gibeonites were a problem for Israel for generations as a result. The same technique that the Gibeonites used with Joshua was the strategy of choice for the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Subtlety in the Garden

Paul teaches us that Eve was beguiled through subtlety (2 Corinthians 11:3). This, of course, agrees with the Genesis account in which the serpent is described as more subtle than any of the other animals (Genesis 3:1). I have often heard much made of the fact that the serpent was quick to bring God's Word into question. After all, his first words ring with distaste for the Divine utterance when he asked, "Yea, hath God said...?" While this may be an important point in relation to the Word of God and our understanding of Satan's tactics, it is not the major point in this narrative as Eve handled his question well. As I began to ponder the facts of this story, a question came to my mind. What was Eve deceived about?

When the serpent questioned God's Word, Eve did not falter. She was ready with a quick answer. If you analyze her answer, you will find that her answer was even more thorough than the original command. The first command was simply that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve added that they were not even to touch the tree. She understood the command very clearly.

As I continued to observe the story, I realized that there was never a point in which Eve was deceived about the command of God. She was never convinced that God had somehow changed His mind on the matter. She did not question God's intent even if the serpent may have intended her to do so. She never even wavered on that point. As I turned the matter over in my mind, I came to the conclusion that there was only one area in which she was deceived. When the serpent told her that the tree would open her eyes, he was right. He was even right, to a certain extent, when he said that they would be as gods, knowing good and evil because the Word confirms this statement when God said, "The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Genesis 3:22). What I had come to realize was that the deception was in the statement, "Ye shall not surely die." Eve was ultimately told that the punishment was not real, and she bought the lie.

The Absence of Danger

I am not a master electrician. Okay, I'm not even a beginner, but I do know how to change a light switch. Once I decided to put a new lighting fixture in our living room. I was very careful to turn the switch to the off position before I began to dig into the wires. Imagine my surprise when I placed my screwdriver into the junction box and saw fireworks. Wow! That was exciting. The shielding on the screwdriver protected me from physical harm, but what if it had been my finger? I thought I was free of danger. I thought I was safe. I had no hesitation in my actions, and it almost cost me dearly.

When the fear of danger is removed, inhibitions are naturally removed. The classic example is the blow-up bounce house that children love so much. Children can fall and jump and fall again without the fear of injury. They love it. The absence of danger is exhilarating.

This is exactly what Eve experienced. She lost her fear of danger. When the serpent told her that she would not die, she was willing to go for it. That forbidden tree had lost its sharp teeth. It could present no danger to her if the punishment was gone. She was free to do as she pleased. She had such liberty. She was able to satisfy her curiosity without cost, and that is exactly what she chose to do.

What would happen if all threat of punishment were removed from us? Believe it or not, we have a very elaborate model of just such a scenario. It's called the public school. Students, especially those that get in trouble often, know that the school has no real power to punish them. They go to an air conditioned classroom to sit with their peers each morning. If they disrupt the class, they are sent to the air conditioned principal's office to await the decision concerning which air condition room they will spend time in next. If they are really bad, they may get to go home and take a few days off. If they are so bad that the school must expel them, then they get to go to an alternative school and sit in an air conditioned classroom with other peers, and the cycle starts over. After these students become acquainted with the cycle, they will do just about anything they please. There is no stopping it because they know that nobody has the authority to put a finger on them.

The same is true for people at large. Have you ever looked at the behavior of someone and wondered how they live the way they do? We all have. We say to ourselves, "How do they continually lie and cheat their way through life?" The answer is simple. Nobody punishes them. They get away with it most of the time, so they play the odds that in the end they will gain more than they lose.

When Eve lost her fear of death, she felt free to disobey God. She felt free to make her own choice rather than follow God's clearly defined path of decision. Now that we have plainly identified the deception that entangled Eve, let us consider what it can do to us.

Paul's Fear

Paul was an almost fearless man. He faced situations that would make even the toughest men quake. He did not fear death. He did not fear man, but when it came to the churches, he did fear. He clearly spells out his fear that the people of the Corinthian church would be beguiled as Eve was (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). In the context of that passage, Paul is concerned that the people might be deceived by false teachers. Let me now present the question that this text requires. If Paul was fearful that his converts could be deceived as Eve was, what does that mean for us? Does this text imply that a believing Christian can be deceived by the enemy? Apparently, Paul thought so. He even goes so far as to accuse the Galatian believers of being bewitched (Galatians 3:1). If it is possible for a believing Christian to be beguiled as Eve was, then it becomes necessary for us to consider what Eve's deception would look like in the life of a modern believer.

What kept Eve from eating the forbidden fruit before the serpent arrived on the scene? While it may be possible to argue that Eve did not want to eat of the forbidden tree because of her love and devotion to God, that argument fails quickly. The primary reason for her hesitance was that Eve was afraid of death. When that fear was removed, she quickly transgressed any love or devotion to the Creator. Her perfect relationship with God was not a strong enough factor to inhibit her transgression once the fear of penalty was removed.

Now, let us consider the unbeliever that attends a modern evangelistic crusade. Assuming that a quality evangelist is present, he hears the message of the wrath of God, Hell, and the love of Christ. He becomes fearful of the realities of Hell. He is also motivated by the conviction of the Holy Spirit to repent and surrender his life to God, and he does so. (It would be negligent to diminish the role that the fear of Hell plays in people becoming Christians. The dramatic effects of Jonathan Edwards' sermon, _Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God_ , prove the point. The fear of Hell is a powerfully motivating force in evangelism.) Now, this man is a new believer. He starts attending church and is happy to know that he is on his way to Heaven. Then he hears a message on eternal security. He is told that once he is saved, he can never be lost. It is not possible for him to go to hell. He is assured of eternal salvation without qualification.

Can you see the parallels between this scenario and the Garden of Eden? Eve enters the story in good standing with God. Once our new convert surrenders to Christ, he also is in a right relationship with God. Eve fears to eat of the forbidden tree because of the threat of death. Our new convert is also afraid of death in terms of Hell. Then the serpent tells Eve that she will not die, and the preacher tells the new convert that he will not die either in the sense that he will not go to Hell. Will our new convert fail as Eve did? Will his love and devotion for God be enough to carry him successfully across all of life's temptations without any real fear of penalty?

The doctrine of eternal security ultimately provides the believer freedom from the fear of Hell. Once this doctrine is believed, there is no need to fear a wrathful God. There is no need to concern any longer with fears of Hell. Hell is no more real than a story book. It has no more influence in the life of an eternally secure believer than does a distant memory of past childhood fiction.

How Dangerous Does it Get?

What if Calvin was wrong about eternal security? What if the penalty of Hell still remains a reality even after conversion? It is a very dangerous thing to believe that you are safe when you really are not. To put this into perspective, imagine that you thought your gun was empty when it was in fact loaded. I once saw a man pick up a gun that was unloaded and playfully point it directly at his wife. He was the only one that thought this was a funny joke. Would he have done so if the gun was loaded? People do strange things when fear is absent. Knowledgeable gun owners have only one way to treat guns. They treat them as if they are always loaded.

Christians who do not fear Hell are in a dangerous place. They can live their lives without fear of penalty for their sins. They can claim love and devotion for God as the force behind their holiness, but will that stand the test in the time of temptation? It didn't for Eve. Others may claim the indwelling Holy Spirit or even grace as the means by which they live holy. As we will see later, however, neither of these will prevent a fall.

It is with this in mind that I remind you of the warning of Jesus: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

What Shall We Do?

Refuse to Live Safely

Eve learned the hard way. She believed the lie. She believed that the penalty had been removed. As a result, she felt safe, and she paid dearly for it. If we are going to learn from her mistake, we must learn to refuse to live safely. We must refuse to hear any teaching that says we are free from danger. Otherwise, we may learn that we have a loaded gun after the trigger has been pulled.

Just a few months ago, I was driving home when I had the thought _, I wish I could believe in eternal security. It would be nice to live with no concern about the future. I could just relax and live out my life._ Like a jolt, I jumped back into reality and repented of the thought. I don't want to live life carefree. I don't want to be relaxed. If I do relax, I may wind up relaxing my way into compromise and backsliding. I don't want that to happen to me. I would rather go through whatever turmoil I must here on this earth and be right with God when I die or when He returns than relax and be unprepared. I cannot bear the thought of it. I guard against it and even pray that God will help me to always be vigilant. Relaxing in my faith is not an option (Philippians 3:13-14).

Remember the Penalty

Recently, I had a conversation with a young man that was wavering concerning a full commitment to Christ. Even though he brought up the subject, I noticed that he attempted to divert the conversation several times. I finally said, "There must be something in your life that you are not willing to give up. You have tried several times during this conversation to avoid dealing with this issue."

He looked at me soberly and said, "You're right. It's just hard. It's hard to give certain things up."

I met his gaze and said candidly, "Is it worth losing your soul over?"

His expression changed as he said, "No."

The point is that we need to remember that our very souls are on the line. The penalty for error is extreme. Most people do not like to talk about Hell. In fact, it is unlikely that anyone does. It makes us uncomfortable to think of burning forever and ever without any hope, but how naive it is to stick our head in the sand like an ostrich. We must take time to remember the penalty. John Wesley once said,

And let it not be thought, that the considerations of these terrible truths is proper only for enormous sinners. How is this supposition consistent with what our Lord speaks to those who were then, doubtless, the holiest men upon earth? When innumerable multitudes were gathered together, he said to his disciples, [the apostles,] "First of all, I say unto you, my friends, fear not them that can kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I say unto you, Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him!" Luke 12:1–5. Yea, fear him under this very notion, of having power to cast into hell: that is, in effect, fear, lest he should cast you into the place of torment. And this very fear, even in the children of God, is one excellent means of preserving them from it.

Remind Others

Almost every day, I drive past a church sign that says, "Jesus loves you," and last night I listened to a song that said, "I want all the world to know that you [God] love them." In recent years, the Church has gone completely wild over messages of grace and the love of God. While no thinking Christian would abdicate the role of these messages in the life of the believer, these messages alone are not the full Gospel. When Jesus gave the Great Commission in the book of Mark, He carefully spelled out the content of that Gospel. He said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15-16, cf. John 3:18 and Romans 11:22). We don't like to think of being "damned." Neither do other people, and yet that is part of the very heartbeat of the Gospel message. Unbelievers are going to be "damned." If you want to prevent this from happening to the people you care about or even those you don't care about, you will learn to talk about Hell. Find a way to bring it up.

My wife and I were ministering in the streets one hot, Florida, August evening. One woman was listening as I began to speak about Hell. She responded, "I believe that we are living in Hell right now!"

Sometimes in witnessing situations it is easy to fumble for words, but this time, to God be the glory, I knew exactly what to say. As the sweat was beading on my forehead, I began, "It is awfully hot out here, but can you imagine it being hotter?" I knew I had her attention. She had made a ploy for sympathy, but Hell has none. I continued, "Just imagine if I took battery acid and poured it on your face. Would you feel even more miserable than you do now?" She did not answer. Deep down, she knew that Hell would be worse than a hot August day in Florida.

People who believe in eternal security are willing to preach of Hell to the unbelievers, but what about preaching Hell to believers? Is there a place for this in the ministry to the saints? Absolutely! In agreement with John Wesley, I believe it is of tremendous value to remind the saints of the place of torment. Jesus apparently believed so also. He spoke to his disciples of the torments of Hell giving many warnings. In fact, one of the most abhorrent descriptions of Hell in the New Testament is found in a speech that Mark indicates was given to the disciples (Mark 9:38-48, cf. Matthew 10:28). We need to be willing to remind saint and sinner alike that Hell is real.

Living life without fear of eternal punishment is dangerous. The strategy that the serpent used on Eve was used on others. Just ask Joshua how tricky a little faulty information can be. Are you willing to live your life with your head in the clouds? Are you willing to ignore the reality of eternal judgment that awaits millions of people? Your enemy is a skilled liar. He would like you to believe that God is too good to send you to Hell. He would like you to believe that you are safe and secure. He would like you to completely forget that Hell exists. He would like you to fall into Eve's deception.

### Chapter 3

The Ezekiel Principles

Romans 1:20 teaches us that we can learn the invisible things of God through observing the visible creation. Since this is so, we would do well to observe our natural world more than we do. God has carefully designed the things that we can see to assist the purpose of divine revelation. This is not to say that we will look for God in the stars, but if we look at the stars, we may learn something about the One who made them. For a moment, I would like you to step back and observe a few simple phenomena that will aid in bringing out the content of this chapter.

When I was about nine, I came into possession of a bow. It was the old fashioned kind that had to be strung. It wasn't very powerful, but it served its purpose. Now that I had a bow, I needed arrows. It didn't take me very long to realize that I had no skill in making arrows from tree limbs, so I determined that I would peruse the sporting goods section at the local department store the first chance I got. Soon, I was armed and loaded...and dangerous. Fortunately, I never had a major accident, but I did have a scare that is relevant to our discussion. One day, I decided to shoot one of my arrows straight up in the air. Wow! That arrow just seemed to keep climbing higher and higher. When it reached the crest of its flight it reversed direction. It was at that moment that it dawned on me. _It's coming down!_ Do you know how hard it is to watch a rapidly descending arrow and relocate to a safe location at the same time? When you look down to see what you are walking on, you lose sight of the arrow. When you look up, you can't see obstacles in the path. My heart raced as panic set in. After a moment, the arrow made a gentle zipping noise as it landed in the grass about 15 feet away. What a relief! Note to self: don't shoot straight up again.

On that memorable day, I learned the same lesson that Sir Isaac Newton learned when he sat under the apple tree. Things fall. Sometimes you may be in danger of being hit on the head by an apple. Other times, you may be in danger of being gored by a rapidly descending arrow. Either way it still works. Gravity makes things fall.

Some things never change. When we observe something that does not change, we often call it a law or principle. For example, Sir Isaac Newton observed the principles that govern the physical world and developed what we often call the laws of physics. These principles do not change. Gravity works the same today as it did a thousand years ago. The same is true for other physical principles such as the first law of thermodynamics called entropy. Entropy states that everything in the universe tends to disorder. Refuse to clean your house for a few weeks and you will discover the truth behind the principle of entropy.

When we realize that the natural world reveals the spiritual (Romans 1:20), it becomes apparent that spiritual principles do not change. Before we launch into the principles that define this chapter, it will be necessary for us to establish a precedence concerning this statement.

Spiritual Principles Do Not Change

We have already concluded that the natural world is controlled by principles that do not change. If this is so in the spiritual world, then we should be able to find examples to prove the point just as we can in physics. The following examples should help us understand the tenets of principles in spiritual matters.

The first principle we will observe is that God does not like violence. From the beginning of the Bible, we see the violence that flared up in Cain. God foresaw it and warned Cain, but Cain did not listen. Hatred took root, and Abel was murdered. God's judgment on Cain was swift. He did not wait till Cain died. God's action established a clear understanding in mankind for all of time. God does not like violence. To make the point even more obvious, when God pronounced His judgment against the people in the days of Noah, violence was one of the major indictments. As God revealed the law to Moses, there were numerous statements concerning God's distaste toward violence. The penalty for such was an eye for an eye. Violence is listed in Proverbs 6:17 as one of the seven abominations. Even in the New Testament, God had no tolerance for violence (Romans 3:15). John sums up the principle for us: "He that loveth not his brother abideth in death" (1 John 3:14).

The second principle that I would like to point out is related to blood sacrifice. If we observe the concept of sacrifice, we will see that the first time man approached God after the fall, it was through sacrifice. Both Cain and Abel came to God with the sacrifice of their choosing. Abel's was accepted. Later, we learn the principle behind the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice. "And without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22). So, through Abel, we see this principle at work. As we progress through Genesis, we see the principle of blood sacrifice highlighted in the lives of the men of God such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When Moses received the Law, the principle did not change. The whole system of Levitical priesthood required blood sacrifice. When Jesus came to earth, He established a new covenant, but He did not change the principle. Instead, He demonstrated the principle by boldly becoming a blood sacrifice that we may approach God through Him.

Through these two examples we have established the basic point that the principles do not change. This is an important point that is often missed in the debate over dispensations. We know that there are dispensations because the Bible mentions the word. We also know that there is an old covenant and a new one. We must be careful to remember, however, that the principles of God are not isolated to a particular covenant. Like the natural laws of the universe, God's spiritual laws do not change.

In this chapter, we are going to analyze two principles that are demonstrated throughout the Bible; however, Ezekiel, more than any other book in the Bible, clearly and succinctly enunciates them. Like the principles we have briefly mentioned above, these principles are not exclusive to one covenant. They are transcendent. They are not limited to a dispensation, but are rather universal principles that reveal the operation of God.

What is interesting to our current topic is that Calvinistic theology requires that one of the Ezekiel principles change. In one way or another, a Calvinist must negate the second of these two principles while adamantly upholding the first. Put simply, Calvinists and Ezekiel are not in agreement. Can Calvinists change a principle on the basis of dispensation? If they attempt to do so, what is the end result? What if Calvin was wrong?

The Principle of the Wicked Man

The first of the Ezekiel principles is insightful into the very nature of God. It is also profoundly simple. Even more, it is the very heartbeat of the Christian message. The message of this principle is ascribed by Christians of every denomination even today. For once, we all agree. This principle is timeless. The first principle is found in Ezekiel 18:21-23 (see also Ezekiel 33:11, 19).

21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

In this text, God has unmistakably established that when a wicked man repents and turns from his sin, he is accepted. Briefly, it will be necessary for us to examine two relevant questions that are raised by this pronouncement. Was this new in Ezekiel's day, or was there already precedence for this principle? Did this principle change in any way after the death and resurrection of Christ?

Was There a Precedence?

Looking backward from Ezekiel's day, there could be many Biblical illustrations given to establish precedence for this principle, but in the interest of brevity, I will limit our analysis to three.

If you have ever studied the book of Judges, you likely found what is often called the cycle of the Judges. As each new scene of the book is disclosed, there is a consistent pattern that repeats. Each narrative of the cycle starts with the people falling into apostasy. Next, the Lord sends an oppressor. Then, the people call on the Lord, and He sends a deliverer (see Judges 3:7-11 as an example of the cycle). Over and over again we see the pattern repeated. Through this, we see the principle established in the narrative text. When the people turned from their sin and called on God, He responded willingly. He accepted their cry and sent deliverance.

We could also look to the occasion of Solomon's dedication of the temple. When he did so, he prayed his famous prayer, and God visited him in a dream. It was in this dream that the Lord made the well known statement, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14). Here we see, in a didactic passage, the principle that those who turn from evil are accepted by God. Again, precedence for Ezekiel is established.

If we look for a personal example of this principle, the most dramatic illustration comes in the life of King Manasseh. Manasseh was the son of the righteous king, Hezekiah. He was raised in his early years in an environment of religious renewal under his father's reign, but somehow, he went in the opposite direction. This man was so bad that the writer of 2 Kings records the words of unnamed prophets that unfavorably compared Manasseh to the Amorites that were driven out of the land by Israel (2 Kings 21:10-11). He sacrificed his own children to false gods. He murdered innocent people to the point that his bloodshed "filled Jerusalem from one end to the other" (2 Kings 21:16). While it is not directly recorded in the Bible, tradition holds that he was responsible for killing Isaiah the prophet by sawing him asunder (Hebrews 11:37). It was also apparently during his reign that the book of the Law was lost from the temple (2 Chronicles 34:14). Toward the end of Manasseh's life, God sent the Assyrians who took him as a captive to Babylon:

And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto him: and he was intreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD he was God (2 Chronicles 33:12-13).

On a personal level, the story of Manasseh establishes precedence for the first Ezekiel principle.

As a side note, the story of Manasseh gives hope to every child of God that has a loved one that is fully entrenched in wickedness. They may be involved in wickedness that we would blush to even name, but they are not beyond the redemptive hand of our God. If God can hear the cry of this wicked man and allow him to turn to righteousness, then there is hope for your loved one as well.

As we can see from the examples, there is most definitely precedence for the principle of Ezekiel that says a wicked man can turn from his wickedness and be received by God. As we move into our next question we will advance from the time of Ezekiel into the dispensation of grace.

Was There a Change?

There is no question that things changed when Jesus died and raised to life on the third day. Much of the New Testament is spent trying to convince people that things had changed. For our purposes, we need to investigate whether or not there was a change in the substance of the principle found in Ezekiel 18:21-23 which states that a wicked man can turn to righteousness and be accepted. If you are a believer, you should be ready to shout out reference after reference in the New Testament that will confirm the Ezekiel principle. I will share a few of my favorites.

On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter was faced with the marvelous and potentially intimidating task of explaining to thousands of onlookers what was going on. His explanation of the events was brief but expedient, and his appeal was consistent with the appeal of his predecessors. John the Baptist had preached repentance. Jesus had preached repentance. Now, it was Peter's turn. He said, "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" (Acts 2:38). There may have been some changes to the method and mode of coming to God, but the principle was completely unaltered. These people were given the opportunity to do what Ezekiel prophesied.

John makes this message as plain as possible by stating, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). This principle found in Ezekiel is for today. It is in complete conformity with New Testament doctrine and thus transcends dispensations. For all of time, if a person repents and comes to God, he is received.

David said virtually the same thing as Ezekiel in his famous Psalm of repentance. He states, "A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Psalm 51:17). The same is true of a modern man. Fanny Crosby, the great hymn writer, eloquently portrays the essence of this wonderful truth in her hymn, _To God be the Glory_. Take comfort as you read the second stanza:

O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood!

To ev'ry believer the promise of God;

The vilest offender who truly believes,

That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.

There has never been a person who attempted to approach God in truth and genuine contrition that was turned away. What is amazing about this awesome God of ours is that His grace to forgive is so simplistic. This is an independent principle of the operation of God. In other words, it is not subject to a particular covenant. It is part of the nature of God Himself. This principle is active throughout the Scriptures. It is seen as early as Genesis and continues through the end of the New Testament. God has always been willing to forgive and pardon repentant sinners. His very nature requires this principle. Even in the magnificent theophany of Mt. Sinai, God describes himself as forgiving (Exodus 34:7). God was perfectly willing to completely forget the sins of the past even before the new covenant was established. The principle has not changed. The reason for this is that God does not change. "For I am the LORD, I change not" (Malachi 3:6). "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

The Principle of the Righteous Man

The second of the Ezekiel principles is far more controversial, yet it finds its basis in the very nature of God just as does the first one. Calvinistic theology, however, _requires_ the outright denial of this principle. Calvinists must either ascribe this principle to the dispensation of Law thus proclaiming it invalid in the present dispensation of grace or disavow it in some other way. Otherwise, it completely nullifies their argument that a saved person will always stay saved. Eternal security rises or falls on the present validity of this second Ezekiel principle. What if Calvin was wrong?

The second principle is found in Ezekiel 18:24 (see also Ezekiel 3:20, 33:12-13, 18, Psalm 125:5, and Isaiah 1:28).

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

The Nature of God

The reality of this principle is initially seen in the Garden of Eden. Two morally righteous people turned from their righteousness to disobey the voice of God, and God cast them out. Why? The nature of God requires it. Look again at Exodus 34:7. After a list of qualities that are advantageous to us, God reveals that He "will by no means clear the guilty."

At first glance, it seems that Exodus 34:7 has a significant contradiction within the text. It says that God is forgiving of sin, but will not clear the guilty. How can this be reconciled? Both of these qualities are part of the very nature of God. Each has its place, and both are conditional upon the state of the man or woman in question.

The most poignant narrative that reveals the condition upon which this polarized response rests is the dialogue between two thieves. As the thieves hung, one on either side of Christ, one turned to Christ for mercy. The other refused. For all of eternity, one will rejoice in his decision while the other will cry the desperate cries of the lost. God's nature is seen. The penitent thief received the mercy that God's nature required. When he breathed his last breath, he was not guilty as his sin had been removed. The other thief died guilty of his sin. He will by no means be cleared. The condition upon which this response rests is the heart that turns to God as is noted in Ezekiel 18:21-23.

If a Calvinist asserts that the second principle from Ezekiel has changed, then the very nature of God that upholds the principle must have changed as well. Of course, Calvinists would not be willing to argue that God has changed. Otherwise, there becomes a disparity between the presentation of God in the Old Testament and Christ in the New Testament. In essence, however, to argue that the second principle of Ezekiel has changed is to argue that God has changed. If a principle based on God's self-revelation changes, then the self-disclosure must also change. This is very shaky theological ground. It may be for this reason that many Calvinists choose to negate the principle by negating the possibility of the scenario instead.

Impossible to Fall

Calvinists adamantly insist that it is impossible for a true believer to fall away under any circumstances. This is exactly what Calvin argued. Calvin, himself, asks, "But here a question arises, Can a truly just person deflect from the right way? for he who is begotten of God is so free from the tyranny of sin that he devotes himself wholly to righteousness: and then if any do turn aside, they prove that they were always strangers to God" (Calvin's Commentary on Ezekiel 18:24). I am not talking about falling into sin temporarily. Calvinists acknowledge temporary falls. I am talking about a total departure from the faith. In essence, the Ezekiel principle of a righteous man falling away is not so much negated through Calvinism but rather pronounced hypothetical. This is the method that many Calvinists use to handle the problem that their theology faces when it conflicts with Scripture. If a person could fall away then the principle would apply; however, in Calvinism it is not possible for anyone to ultimately fall. What if Calvin was wrong about this? What if it is possible for a truly righteous man to fall away from the faith? What if it is possible for a truly saved person to turn away from God?

In order to believe this particular doctrine of the Calvinistic tradition, it is absolutely imperative to refuse to examine reality. Just last week, I was speaking to a man who, by his own confession, thoroughly believes in eternal security. He told me that he had a brother that had wandered out of the way. Upon hearing that, I asked him, "Was your brother ever saved?"

"Oh, yes," came the quick response.

How many times have we seen this story repeated? How many names and faced could be put in this well rutted path? Reality requires us to recognize the existence of people who fall. People do fall. It happens all the time. Refusing to recognize this fact is not the answer to Ezekiel's principle at all. Refusing to admit that people fall is nothing more than refusing to admit that a cancer patient has cancer. It doesn't change the fact.

Even more than an affront to reality, this teaching is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible. Does the Bible really teach that a believer cannot fall away from the faith? Is it utterly impossible for a saint to go the other way? Most of the writers of the New Testament thought that it could happen. Even Paul was aware of this when he said, "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (1 Corinthians 9:27).

We will deal with the reality of falling away in later chapters, but here I want to bring out the ramifications to our proposal concerning Calvin's correctness. What if the second Ezekiel principle stands in spite of Calvin's teaching? How does that change things?

The principle begins by asking a rhetorical question. Before we get to the question, I want us to look at the circumstances of the first sentence. Ezekiel 18:24 starts off by saying, "But when..." This verse is not hypothetical. It does not say, "But if..." There is a deliberate statement in the fact. There will be times when righteous people fall away from the faith. It isn't a matter of "if" but "when." The turning away that is described has two basic concepts. The first is a turn away from righteousness. The second is committing of iniquity. Whether these work together or independently might be a matter for further discussion, but in essence, a turn from righteousness would in and of itself be iniquity. When this turning away happens, the question is then asked: "Shall he live?" We are not left to guess the answer. It is provided for us. He will not live. He will die in his sin.

In the answer to the rhetorical question lies the heartbeat of what I would like for you to see. "All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned." In the context, the setting is death. This man will die in his sin. Upon his death, his righteousness will not be mentioned. May I ask, where? Where is it that his righteousness will not be mentioned? Are we talking about his funeral or his eternal judgment? Some Calvinists insist that this entire passage is talking about temporal rather than eternal judgment. Some do not even back up this claim with any explanation. Apparently, we are just supposed to take their word for it. What if they are wrong? How do they come to this conclusion, and why do some state it so vehemently? In truth, they must come to this conclusion. There is no other choice. Their doctrine requires it. They must make their statement in imperative terms because the validity of their entire argument rests upon it.

If, as some Calvinists insist, this is temporal judgment, then the prophecy is clearly not true at all. Many reprobate people live to old ages. Solomon and Saul both serve as examples. This is not talking about people who are executed by God or by punishments of law. Capital punishment is not the issue in this passage. It simply cannot be.

If we choose to make this a matter of temporal expressions at a funeral, then the statement concerning remembrance would again be false. Find the worst person that ever walked the face of the earth, and somebody will remember some virtuous moment at his funeral. Somebody will say something that he did that was good. It cannot be that Ezekiel is referring to the earth side of death. This must be the postmortem judgment. Besides, if you look at the context of both principles (Ezekiel 18:21-24) you will find that one man lives and the other dies. If we are referring to natural death, then they would both die (Hebrews 9:27). So, this must be a reference to eternal judgment rather than physical death.

Other Calvinists insist that the righteous man in question in Ezekiel 18:24 could not have been truly righteous from the beginning or else he would not have fallen away. This was Calvin's original argument. He states, "In what sense, then, does Ezekiel mean that the just fall away? That question is easily answered" (Commentary on Ezekiel 18:24). In reality, Calvin takes great pains and lengthy discourse to come up with that easy answer. In summary, he contends that the man in Ezekiel 18:24 had a false righteousness: "Many hypocrites make use of the name of God, and openly boast themselves pre-eminent in the Church, but inwardly they are wolves. . . If such fall away, they cannot boast of their former righteousness before God, since its remembrance will be blotted out" (Commentary on Ezekiel 18:24). There is no indication of this implication in the text. This is an example of deliberately inserting an assumption into the text in order to hold a particular view. The Bible calls the man righteous. Who are we to say that he really was not? Is this really good exegesis based on a belief in Biblical inspiration?

The most interesting thing that I have found in Calvinistic literature on Ezekiel 18 is not the insistence on temporal judgment or even that the righteous man was not truly righteous. In my study, I found that some Calvinists fail to make any comment at all on the verse as if it is not there. _Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee_ actually leaves out Ezekiel 18:24-29 entirely. The whole rest of the Biblical text is printed in the commentary with the exception of these verses. What does this silence mean?

When we consider Ezekiel 18:24 in the context of eternal judgment, the ramifications of the second Ezekiel principle are staggering. "All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned." If Calvin was wrong, then there will be people who stand before God on the day of judgment with no mention of any righteousness to their credit. They may have served God faithfully for part of their lives before they fell away, but in the end they died in sin. They will be judged based on the condition of their lives at their death.

I once knew a man that was quite vile in his speech and manners. He also had some well established sinful habits that were no secret. He did not attend church, and to my knowledge, he had no connection to one. One day, a Christian attempted to talk to him about salvation. He responded, "I settled that matter with God a long time ago." The discussion was over. The door was closed. Where will this man go when he dies? Will he be ushered to heaven as most modern Calvinists teach, or will he face God with no mention of any righteousness and be consigned to eternity in Hell as Ezekiel teaches? What if Calvin was wrong?

If the second Ezekiel principle holds true today, as I believe it does, then there is significant reason for us to guard against turning away from the faith. If it has happened to others, we would be naïve to assume it could not happen to us. How much would it change our lives if we live with the thought that our eternal home will be decided by our present rather than our past? I recently asked a Christian how he knew he was eternally secure. He gave a quick answer, "I was there when it happened." Maybe he was. You were probably there when "it" happened in your life, but are you there now? If the second Ezekiel principle is still in effect, then we will not so much be judged by our past as our present. A decision to follow Christ in the past does not overcome a present life of sin. It never has, and it never will. If you die in your sin, God will by no means clear the guilty.
Chapter 4

How Are the Mighty Fallen!

I could see the anger in his dark face. His muscles grew tense as he spoke with a barely controlled vehemence. "That's false teaching, Mr. Prewitt," he said. "They're false teachers! I don't like when people say the wrong things like that!" As he said these words, the force of his passion hung in the air. His countenance was nothing less than intimidating.

I had known this young man for some time, and he had impressed me. He was always courteous and well mannered, but this was not what had impressed me. Other young men are polite and well mannered. What impressed me about this guy was his fearless testimony.

He was one of my students. After I had observed him for quite a while, I asked him to tell me his story. As he began to speak, there was an uncomfortable seriousness that transformed his face. He was no longer proud of the ways that he had lived, and it showed. Other people boast of their past wickedness, but this young man spoke as if he was ashamed. He told me that he had gotten involved in a gang and had eventually become a leader. As a result, he had become involved in drugs and partying. After a few minutes of dialogue, I asked him, what happened?

At this point, his demeanor changed as he began to tell me of his conversion. He related that he had given his life to Christ, and that since that time, he had forsaken the gang. I confirmed his story with others. In the end, I was convinced that he was legitimate. I believed his story even before I saw it demonstrated before my eyes.

One day, he approached me about addressing the class. The members of the class were gang members, drug dealers, thieves, and what the Bible would call "lewd fellows of the baser sort." This was not a religious gathering, and yet, he wanted to speak to them. I told him to go for it.

I watched as he motioned with his hand to get their attention. He said, "Y'all fellows tighten down," which roughly translates to a request for silence. Attesting his former influence in the gang, the others became quiet. With this group, unified silence was impressive. Once they were silent, he said, "I want to talk to you boys today to tell you what God has done in my life..." You could have heard a pin drop. The atmosphere was intense. He went on to explain how he had gotten saved. He said, "I love each and every one of you, and I know that God can do for you what he has done for me. All you have to do is give your life to Him." He paused for a brief moment and then continued, "Today, I want to sing a song that I wrote. I hope you will all hear and turn your lives to God."

For the next several minutes, he sang a song about how much he loved the Lord and was thankful for the changes that had come to his life. The class sat motionless the whole time. I could hardly breathe as I doubted whether I had the nerve to be so bold. When his song was over, the group went back to normal operation, but I was significantly moved. When this young man told me that he felt a calling into ministry, I believed him.

After a while, however, I noticed that the bright smile he usually wore was beginning to fade. I attempted to talk to him about it, but he was evasive. I knew something was wrong, but I could not get him to say a word about it. Then one day I ran into a common acquaintance that informed me that he had turned away from Christ and reverted back to the gang. I was shocked. How could this happen? How could such an impressive young man make such a dramatic shift in the wrong direction? I set it in my mind to ask him about it the next time I saw him. The time came soon. I asked him point blank, "I heard that you have turned away from the Lord to go back to the gang. Is this true?" I was expecting excuses or at least some type of story. Instead, he looked me straight in the eye and nodded affirmatively. Wow! I am still shocked by this dramatic turn of events.

The reason that I have shared this devastatingly terrible story is because people do turn away from God. It is not a hypothetical situation. It is a painful reality that is clearly and repeatedly supported in the New Testament. As has already been briefly discussed, this reality presents a problem to the Calvinist that believes in eternal security. Based on their system of beliefs, a Calvinist must either explain away the conversion of the person or bless them into heaven upon death. What if Calvin was wrong? In an effort to answer this question we will establish a Biblical basis for our assertions and then explore some real life examples that may prove enlightening.

The Parable of the Sower

It is a common understanding among Biblical interpreters that parables should not be used for doctrine. I will deal with this matter extensively in the chapter called, "Why Fear the Parables?" For now, I will only state that I unashamedly extract Biblical doctrine from the parables of Jesus as I see no viable reason to refuse to do so. In addition, the parables are in complete agreement with all of the doctrines presented in the so called didactic passages that most interpreters prefer (oddly enough they often cry for a narrative example when confronted with a didactic passage that conflicts their teaching). With that said, I want to briefly analyze the Parable of the Sower.

When I teach this parable, I often introduce it as the saddest parable in the Bible. This may sound like a strange introduction considering the abundance that is mentioned at the end, but for a pastor who has suffered the frustration of the first three pictures presented in the parable, it is no laughing matter.

The parable and its interpretation is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (cf. Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23, Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, Luke 8:5-8, 11-15). This alone is indicative of its significance, but the inclusion of an interpretation elevates the importance of this parable considerably. Many of the parables leave us to figure out their meaning, but this one is unmistakably spelled out by the Lord. Another important feature of this parable that is noted only in Matthew is the peculiar phrase, "word of the kingdom." Later on, we will discuss the ramifications of strict dispensationalism, but here it will be important to note that this teaching is intended for the kingdom that Jesus had come to establish. In other words, this teaching cannot be assigned to the old covenant. It has definite implications in the so called Age of Grace.

The first of the four types of soil is the way side. These seeds never even germinate as they are eaten by birds. Jesus directly attributes this to Satanic activity (Mark 4:15). Matthew includes an interesting note in relation to this type of person. He records that they did not understand the word which was sown. It is very important to notice that this is the only soil in which the seeds are removed or destroyed before they germinate. There is no beginning whatsoever for the seeds that fall in the way side.

To make an interpretive illustration of the way side soil, we can easily imagine a person receiving the Gospel in a way that does not produce understanding. This is like an unsaved person who receives a Gospel tract. They read a small piece of the tract but before they have a chance to process the information, they spill coffee on themselves and forget the matter entirely. Any number of scenarios could come into play to illustrate the point, but it is evident in the Matthew text that these individuals do not understand. While they are without understanding, the devil dives in to interfere and the seed is effectively removed even from their hearts (Luke 8:13).

The next three types of soil share a common characteristic that is absolutely critical to understanding the parable. In all three remaining soils, the seeds germinate. In other words, all of these individuals respond to the Gospel. There is no mention of misunderstanding in any of these soil types. Even though Matthew points out that those that are good soil do understand, it would be forcing the issue to try to argue that the stony soil or the thorns were people without understanding as the text does not say so. Contrary to this notion, Luke actually uses the word "believe" in relation to those on the rock. This is not a lightly used word in the New Testament. Before we investigate further, we will need to get a picture of what this looks like in our modern church.

If we were to consider the four soils in relation to a modern church service, we would need to start by making a clear presentation of the Gospel. At the end of the presentation, an invitation would be given for response. The people that are like the way side would not respond. They don't understand what is happening. Maybe there is a problem in the nursery that requires their immediate attention. The people that are like the stony soil, thorns and good soil, however, are all eager to respond to the appeal. They get up out of their seats and make their way to the front to pray. They are each given a commitment card to sign and are numbered with the new converts of the meeting. There is no escaping the fact that all three groups would look identical at the end of the service. The Gospel has been sown and received. The only way to change the picture would be to distort the parable in some way. Now that we have the picture, let's consider the stony soil.

In the parable, some seeds are sown on a rock (Luke 8:6). The Gospel writers use various descriptive phrases to express the facts. The seeds begin to grow, but simply do not make it. The sun scorches them. They have no root or depth. In any case, what had begun is extinguished. The parable's depiction of stony soil is the most relevant to our topic concerning the doctrine of eternal security and as such will occupy our content here. There is no escaping the fact that the parable and the doctrine of eternal security collide on this rock. When looking at the interpretation of the parable in Luke, there is an intriguing statement that must be reckoned.

Luke 8:13 states, "They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, _which for a while believe_ , and in time of temptation fall away" (emphasis added). What does it mean for a person to believe for a while? It cannot be argued that these people reject the Gospel because the text unambiguously states that they "receive the word with joy." If they "receive" and "believe" then how is it possible for them to "fall away" if the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security stands? Yet, in this parable, they do fall away. How do Calvinists escape this conundrum?

There are two stances that I am aware of that many Calvinists use to sweep away this problem as if it does not exist. We will deal with both of these methods later, but here it is at least pertinent to make mention of them. First, they often refuse to take doctrine from parables. This effectively eliminates a parable from the list of plausible arguments to their teaching. This is not good, but it is a repeated and even accepted path among Calvinistic scholarship. The other is to deny the validity of this parable (at least this portion) on the basis of dispensational grace. In other words, the dispensation of grace had not begun so the implications of the parables of Christ are under the Law. After listening to a Baptist minister say this, I told him, "I'm not sure I am willing to throw the teachings of Jesus out the window." What could he say? He knew better than that.

To conclude the discussion on this parable, we must honestly admit that the parable requires that it be possible for a person to receive the word of God, believe for a while, and then fall away. To deny these facts is to deny the parable outright. The painful reality of this parable hits home when statistics confirm the harsh reality of the parable of the sower. Churches face the revolving door not just because people leave to go to another congregation but because they simply leave to go nowhere. Many of those that leave are professing believers. They just stop coming.

The Legacy of Saul

Saul, king of Israel, is one of the saddest characters in all of the Scriptures. The heights and depths of his life provide a quickly descending roller coaster ride of spirituality. It is interesting to note that his story is an accurate reflection of the stony soil in the parable of the sower. Just as the seeds sown on stony ground that sprang up quickly but eventually withered away, Saul started off well but did not last. In fact, his entire life parallels the parable. To illustrate the point of the parable in Biblical narrative we will need to conduct a brief survey of Saul's life.

In the Biblical record, Saul first emerged as a chaser of donkeys. His father had lost some donkeys and Saul was sent to look for them. In the process of time, he encountered Samuel the prophet. Samuel had been told by God that Saul was coming, so when Saul arrived, Samuel knew exactly what to do. Several events occurred in rapid succession on that occasion. Two of those are very important to the parallel between Saul and the parable of the sower. First, Saul was anointed to be king of Israel. Samuel did not choose Saul. God chose him. Samuel only anointed him to be king. On the surface, this may seem like an insignificant detail, but it is critical as it relates to Calvinistic doctrine. Ultimately, Calvinism in its strictest five point form believes in unconditional election. In this case, there can be no denying that Saul was elected by God. While many modern Calvinists may not be dogmatic about unconditional election, the fact that Saul was absolutely elected circumvents the argument that there was somehow something wrong in Saul's initiation (i.e. he never was saved to begin with).

The second notable detail in the story is more than just an interesting footnote of history. After anointing Saul, Samuel goes on to outline what will happen throughout the rest of that day. After some astonishingly detailed prophetic statements, Saul is told, "And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man" (1 Samuel 10:6). Later that same day, Saul was counted with the prophets just as Samuel had said. Also, the Biblical record states, "God gave him another heart" (1 Samuel 10:9). When all of these details are put together, this is about as close as you can get to an Old Testament version of conversion. If a Calvinist desires to eliminate the story of Saul's conversion from the argument related to eternal security, he cannot do so on the basis of election or faulty conversion. He must argue from the perspective of dispensation which would argue that Saul's conversion was not the same as a Christian salvation experience, but this argument does not explain the Ezekiel Principles as we have already discussed (we will deal with more problems in a strict dispensational view later).

Once Saul became a changed man, he began to do exploits. He was a mighty warrior and a charismatic leader in the fullest sense of the word. The source of his renown is no secret as the Bible records, "And the Spirit of God came upon Saul." This was the familiar expression used of several of the Judges before Saul's time. Through the power of the Spirit, Saul gathered the people, defeated the Ammonites, and took a garrison of the Philistines. Then Saul was tested.

When we compare Saul's beginning to the parable of the sower, it is readily obvious that he started well. His heart was changed, and he was moved upon by the Spirit. In addition, we see tremendous positive works demonstrated in his life. The same is true for those in the parable that are compared to stony soil. They receive the word with joy and gladness. For a time, they flourish just as Saul did. Then the time of testing comes. Those compared to stony soil are said to come into temptation, tribulation, affliction, or persecution. This is exactly what Saul experienced.

Immediately after defeating the Philistine garrison, Saul waited with the people for seven days as Samuel had directed. The people were excited over their victory, but they were also afraid. The Philistines were a fierce enemy, and there was no kindness between the two nations. When the seventh day arrived the people began to scatter. Saul began to fear also when he saw them leaving. In that moment of difficulty, Saul made the first of a list of regrettable decisions. He decided to offer the sacrifice himself. He caved to the pressure. He valued the allegiance of the people more than obedience to God. Significantly, if you look at the story in 1 Samuel 13, Samuel rebukes Saul and leaves. Saul did not repent. From this moment on, Saul's life became a downward spiral. By the end of Saul's life, he had fallen so far that he had attempted to kill David, murdered priests, and even consorted with a witch. Ultimately, Saul committed suicide by falling on his own sword. To conclude the parallel with the parable of the sower, Saul most definitely withered away just as the seed sown on stony ground.

The story, however, isn't over there. When we enter the book of 2 Samuel, we learn how David reacted to Saul's death. He lamented, "How are the mighty fallen!" (2 Samuel 1:19, 25, 27). In that chapter, there was more to the death of Saul than the mere death of a man. This was the Lord's anointed. David repeated this phrase in his memorial of Saul. This man had not simply fallen in a battle, he had fallen from the height of anointing to the depths of depravity. "How the mighty are fallen!"

The Legacy Continued

Saul's backsliding left a legacy for all who would follow in his footsteps. The list of Old Testament men that did so is quite extensive. If we call to mind the fall of Solomon, Asa, Joash, and others, we realize that the direction Saul chose is a well traveled path. Many Calvinists would refuse to recognize these examples on the basis of dispensation; however, what happens if the old familiar path is recognizable in the New Testament? What if Calvin was wrong? What if it is possible for a person to fall away from the Christian faith never to return?

Calvinism argues that a true believer cannot fall away from the faith. Some have been so bold as to assert that the New Testament does not have any examples of people who did so (This is an example of crying for narrative as I stated earlier. Under normal circumstances, Calvinistic scholars refuse narrative for didactic, but here they most definitely appeal to narrative.). This is absolutely a false statement. Even if they are not as readily available as the examples in the Old Testament, there are several examples of people who did turn from the faith in the New Testament. We should not expect there to be as many examples for a number of reasons. First, the narratives of the New Testament only cover a period of about 35 years. The Old Testament covers approximately 4,000 years of human history. This is a significant difference. Second, it is also notable that most of the books in the New Testament are not narratives. The four Gospels include many narrative sections, but only Acts includes extensive narrative from the early Church. Most of that narrative surrounds either Peter or Paul. Backsliders would naturally not occupy a significant place in such a _didactic_ narrative. Even still, there are examples available. One example would be enough to prove the point; however, more than one example exists.

In the Gospels, there were numerous followers of Christ that turned back. We will not consider Judas in this category as there could be a justifiable argument that Judas was never a true follower from the beginning. There were others, however, that seemed sincere. They were not a major part of the story, so we do not have names; nevertheless, they are mentioned for our benefit. Take, for instance, the crowd of 5,000 that ate the loaves and fish. They had followed Jesus to the point of risking their own exhaustion in the wilderness. If we saw a person follow Christ to that level in the modern day, we would certainly mark their sincerity, yet many of these turned away when Jesus accused them openly for seeking only the bread (John 6:26). They were long gone by the time He hung on the cross. John records, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66). The desertion must have been extensive because Jesus followed it by asking the twelve if they were going to leave also. Is it possible that all of those that turned away were unbelievers? Possibly, but the greater likelihood is that many of them fulfilled the parable of the sower.

When we move into the book of Acts, we see another example. Granted, we are never told of the conversion of Ananias and Sapphira, but it is apparent in the text that they were part of the Church. Strangely enough, Calvinists often argue that they were believers. It seems to me that it would be much easier to argue their position from the perspective of the two never having received salvation. The question of the eternal state of Ananias and Sapphira will be discussed in another chapter. Here, we will simply place them in the list of examples of people that fell into sin and ultimately the judgment of God.

Paul calls two individuals by name that fell from the faith. 1 Timothy 1:19-20 records the end result of two individuals that made "shipwreck" of their faith. Hymenaeus and Alexander apparently were part of the congregation in Ephesus. We do not know the events of their fall, but Paul's pronouncement is clear.

In 1 Timothy 6:10, Paul refers what seems to be another group of people who have departed from the faith for money. We don't know their names, but Paul presents it as a reality. "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (1 Timothy 6:10).

The most striking example in the New Testament is not found in the narrative text. Instead, it is necessary to trace the life of this individual through the writings of Paul. Demas was a companion of Paul. Colossians 4:14 includes his greeting to the Church. He is also included in Philemon 24 as a "fellowlabourer" along with Marcus, Aristarchus, and Lucas. These being the Mark and Luke who authored Gospels that bear their names, Demas was named in good company. It is absolutely inconceivable that Paul would list Demas with these others in this way unless he was convinced that Demas was saved. If Paul saw a fault in Demas, he would not have been in Paul's company at all. Remembering how he handled Mark (Acts 15:36-41), it would be hard to imagine that he would readily accept an unqualified worker. To argue that Demas was never saved is to argue against Paul's first hand judgment. Demas must have continued with Paul for quite some time depending on the dating of Colossians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy. The most accepted reconstruction of Paul's life places the writing of Colossians and Philemon during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome. Those texts suggest that Paul expected to be released (Philemon 22). In 2 Timothy, however, Paul is clearly awaiting execution. The most accepted understanding is that Paul was released after writing Philemon and then imprisoned again for the writing of 2 Timothy. Demas apparently accompanied Paul during this period, but when Paul was imprisoned the second time, it was too much for Demas. Paul laments, "For Demas hath forsaken me; having loved this present world" (2 Timothy 4:10). He chose the world over fellowship with Paul, and in so doing, chose the world over the ministry of Christ.

Let it not be said that the New Testament has no examples like that of Saul and the stony ground. There are examples. Some of the examples stand out as poignant due to the fact that they happened under the ministries of Peter and Paul. If it happened to those under the care of Peter and Paul, then none of us is exempt from the legacy of Saul taking place in our own congregations. What if Calvin was wrong?

The Legacy in Modern History

Have you ever heard of Crawford Toy? Crawford Toy was a Southern Baptist. To be more specific, he was a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. To add to his credentials, he was at one time engaged to be married to Lottie Moon, the famed Southern Baptist missionary to China. Moon had been one of Crawford Toy's students. Apparently he had made quite an impression on her. Then something happened. Toy began to study Darwinian evolution. Not only did he study it, he bought into it. As a result, he began to question the inspiration of the Bible, but more than that, he started teaching his new views to his students. Two things happened as a result of Toy's new views. First, he lost his job. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary had no choice but to eventually terminate Toy's employment because of his refusal to cease teaching his radical views. Second, Lottie Moon terminated their engagement.

Someone may want to argue that Crawford Toy was never saved. This could be true. How could we possibly know? He may have fooled his teachers, ministers, and even the board of directors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It is possible. He may have even fooled himself. Surely at some point in the application process he would have been required to give testimony of conversion. He must have given that testimony in the affirmative. Even still, he may have been wrong. Maybe he was never saved, but what if there is another option? What if Calvin was wrong?

Someone else might argue that he was saved all along. They will want to argue that even in his fallen state, he continued to be covered by the grace of God even though he never recanted his heretical views. They may even go so far as to argue that they will see him in Heaven when they get there. What if they are wrong? What if Calvin was wrong? We know that Crawford Toy was wrong. He was very wrong. Is he in Heaven? If he was ever truly saved, the Calvinist must say that he is.

Not too long ago, I spoke with a minister friend of mine that related this story. When he was a young preacher, he was mentored by a man of God that was quite committed to the Word. So much so, in fact, that he would constantly encourage my friend in his study and devotion. While I listened to this story, I was blessed to hear of such a quality mentor. Then my friend continued, "Last I hear of him, he went the other way." What! I wasn't sure I had heard correctly, so I asked some questions. Sure enough, this man had backslidden to the point that he did not want to have anything to do with God.

An even more contemporary example that is quite personal to me ended just about two years before this writing. There was a young man named Zachary Tims who had gotten into some trouble. He wound up incarcerated. At some point, he got saved, and his whole life was changed. He felt a calling on his life to become a minister. After studying, he opened a church in Orlando, Florida. The reason this story is so personal to me is that I personally attended several services in his church. He was a powerful speaker. His reputation as a speaker was also growing on a national scale as he was often seen speaking in the pulpit of T. D. Jakes. His church grew dynamically. I once heard him say that there were 6,500 members. For Zachary Tims, everything looked like there was no limit to success, but this is not how the story ends. After quite a number of years of successful ministry, the news broadcast reported that Tims had fallen into adultery. As a result, he lost his wife. Even still, he managed to hold onto his church for a while.

Throughout this time, my wife and I had occasion to drive past his church on a regular basis. It was a large church. Several thousand had attended during the height of Tims' success. We watched as things began to slowly wither. Even still, we were completely caught off guard when we learned that Tims' dead body had been found in a New York hotel. The cause of death was a drug overdose. The details surrounding the events are all quite strange to say the least. More questions were left than answers.

Was this man ever saved? Who of us could say? Maybe he wasn't. Maybe it was all a facade. Maybe he went into the ministry for the money or the fame. Maybe he fooled his congregation. Maybe he fooled T. D. Jakes. Maybe he fooled me. Or, maybe there is another answer. What if Calvin was wrong? What if Tims started off well like those seeds sown on stony ground? What if he started off like Saul did? What if Calvin was wrong and it is possible for a saved person to fall away never to be renewed to repentance?

Chapter 5

Why Fear the Parables?

If you ever read literature concerning hermeneutics (the principles for interpreting Scripture), you will likely find very strong warnings about forming doctrine based on the parables of Jesus. This has always been an interesting presupposition to me. To my knowledge, I have never read or heard an explanation in defense of this method of Biblical interpretation other than just a blanket statement that the parables can lend themselves to various interpretations. This practice is often just simply stated as a fact of life. While it may be interesting to research the history of this hermeneutical strait, the purpose here is not so much to unearth the origin as to analyze the effect and consider the motive behind modern propagation of the same. This chapter will deal with the simple question of whether or not this is a valid practice and then evaluate Calvinistic eternal security based on the parables.

Dissecting the Bible

Literally hundreds of thousands of people across North America call themselves "Bible believing Christians." Strangely enough, for so many people to be in agreement about the validity of the Bible the amount of disagreement that exists among these professing believers is extensive. Ultimately, the disagreement boils down to interpretation. Paul told Timothy that the Scriptures were to be divided (2 Timothy 2:15). How exactly is that to be done?

When considering the Bible as a whole, the Christian community is somewhat in agreement regarding the validity and usefulness of the Old Testament. Most evangelicals weigh the doctrines of the Old Testament through the filter of New Testament theology. As an example, the prohibition of eating certain meats that is so stringent in the Old Testament is repeatedly overruled in the New Testament. Christians can eat meats that were considered unclean in the Old Testament without jeopardizing their relationship with God. Your ham sandwich will not have an effect on your salvation. This is a division that we mostly agree upon.

Beyond that, however, there are other divisions that are not so nearly universal. One of those is the division between didactic (teaching) and narrative (story) texts. Some argue that the narrative passages of the New Testament should not be used for any formation of doctrine while others are more than willing to take doctrine from narratives. If you choose to agree with those that omit narrative from inclusion in doctrine forming texts, you have effectively eliminated much of the Gospels and all of the book of Acts. Considering the Bible as a whole, this is an overwhelmingly large omission. It would be so great, in fact, that it might undermine the integrity of all doctrine. As an example, the book of Genesis opens up with a narrative that lasts three chapters. Without this narrative, it would be almost impossible to construct the doctrines of creation, original sin, the fall of man, atonement, and redemption. Without these narratives, the whole of the New Testament would be nearly disabled. We would not know where sin originated. We would not know why we are judged as sinners. We would have no option but to believe evolution, and we would not know that we need a Savior. Any person who argues that narrative texts should not be used in forming doctrine must be careful to be consistent in eliminating all narratives rather than just distasteful ones. If this was done, there would be little left to build doctrine upon.

Another division that has become prominent in recent years is to divide the Bible into Old and New Covenants rather than Testaments. The idea behind this is to place the transition between the old covenant and the new covenant at the death and resurrection of Christ. Everything that happened after the resurrection is part of the new covenant and everything that happened before the cross is the old. I have heard this teaching on more than one occasion from more than one "Bible believing" source. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough because we must all admit that there was a powerful spiritual transaction that took place through the death and resurrection. No believer would deny that. What isn't as easily noticed is what this teaching effectively does to the teachings of Jesus before his crucifixion. Ultimately, it makes everything that Jesus did and said part of the old covenant. By doing so, only the teachings of Jesus post-resurrection are valid for the Age of Grace. This is a big cut. I have a question. If we eliminate almost all of the teachings of Jesus from our faith and practice, can we still call ourselves followers of Christ?

The first time I heard this doctrine, I was surprised by its audacity. I had taken a small team to go door to door sharing the Gospel. One of our team called to me from across the way, so I went to see what was going on. When I arrived, I met a gentleman that I later learned was a Baptist minister. He was studying for his doctorate and was more than happy to get into a semi-public debate over eternal security. It was on that occasion that he expounded his understanding that the new covenant began at the resurrection. After a few moments of listening to his commentary on the subject, I simply said, "I am not so ready to simply dismiss the teachings of Jesus." He was not sure how to respond, so I invited him to my house to discuss it further. He came, and we became friends even though we disagreed on some points. Since then, I have heard this teaching elsewhere although I must confess that I do not know to what extent it is being taught. In reality, however, Jesus clearly defined in His teaching where this division should be made and it was not at the time of the crucifixion at all. The division between the old and new should clearly be placed at the end of the ministry of John the Baptist and the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16).

Another variation on this theme is to limit the doctrine forming material to books that are specifically written to the gentile church. Like the teaching above, this eliminates the Gospels, Acts (because it is a narrative), Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, & 3 John, and most of Revelation. Eventually, all that is left by this measure are the books of Paul. To correct this view, however, it is important to realize that the entire New Testament is written to believers and should be seen as such.

In spite of all these methods of eliminating portions of God's Word, the people who promote these teachings call themselves "Bible believers." What I do not understand is why the testimony of the Bible itself is not taken into consideration in forming these belief systems. " _All scripture_ is given by inspiration of God, and is _profitable for doctrine_ , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, emphasis added). Just for fun, you will notice that these verses were taken from a non-narrative, didactic passage written to a half-gentile pastor of a gentile church after the death and resurrection of Christ.

What about the Parables?

Even a casual perusal of the Gospels will reveal that one of the primary forms of teaching used by Jesus was the parable. Some were short similes and others were complex narratives involving several characters that represented various personalities. Some of the parables have explanations given in the text and others do not. The subjects are also varied significantly. One thing that they all share in common, however, is that they are all the doctrine of Jesus. Mark 4:2 states, "And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine. . ."

Why then do Calvinistic writers warn their readers so earnestly against using parables for doctrine? I do not know the motive of the originators of this practice, and I do not pretend to know the motives of the writers I have read. Still, it seems unreasonable to silence the teachings of Jesus so easily. If we look to the parables of Jesus, is there something there that may not be palatable to the Calvinistic conscience? Is this the reason that arguments against eternal security that appeal to the parables are dismissed out of hand? What if Calvin was wrong? What do we do when Calvinistic theology and the parables of Jesus disagree? They do disagree often. How do we handle that?

The rest of this chapter will be dedicated to a brief discussion of several of the parables of Jesus that conflict with Calvinistic teaching. As you will see, some of them are in blatant disagreement with the Calvinistic teaching of eternal security. Do we dare break the recognized rule of hermeneutics? In a previous chapter we have discussed the parable of the sower. Here, we will consider the parables of the vine and the branches, the wise and foolish virgins, the unforgiving servant, the unmerciful servant, the talents/pounds, and the salt.

The Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-6)

The vine and the branches is one of the parables for which Jesus provides interpretation, so we need not guess at its meaning. To summarize, Jesus is the vine. We, meaning the disciples of Christ, are the branches. The Father is identified as the husbandman or vinedresser. With these symbols clearly identified, there are really only two simple questions that the parable addresses. Will we bear fruit, and will we abide in Christ?

In an effort to eliminate controversy over the identification of the branches, let us observe a few details that the text brings out. To begin, the setting was the night before the crucifixion. Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples for the last time. Judas had already been identified as the betrayer and had departed (13:30). If the end of chapter 14 indicates that they had left the upper room, then they must have been either in transit or at the Mount of Olives. The context indicates that this company included only the closest of Jesus' followers and likely only the remaining eleven apostles. With this setting as the context of this parable, the personal pronouns are particularly interesting. Specifically, when Jesus says "Ye are the branches" (15:5), He includes the apostles. It is certainly within the scope of the passage to include any true disciple of any age in that "ye." Seeing as how there were no unbelievers present, it would take significant manipulation of the text to suggest that "ye" included unbelievers.

The question that arises out of this discussion is whether or not all of the branches were true believers. All of the people in this context who are compared to branches would have been true believers. In addition to the information above, they were called "clean" in John 15:3. These are clean disciples that are attached to Christ.

None of this creates too much controversy until you apply it to 15:2. What did Jesus mean when He said, "Every branch in me..."? What does it mean to be in Christ? Could it ever be imagined that Christ would apply these terms to an unbeliever? Unbelievers are most definitely not in Christ. In short, there is no part of the context of this passage that refers to unbelievers. The entire parable is to and for believers that are in Christ.

Where is all this going? Well, Jesus said that the branches in Him that don't bear fruit are taken away by the Father (15:2). What does this mean? Verse 6 provides the detail. These fruitless branches are "cast forth" and ultimately "burned." If the branches are identified as believers throughout the parable, then this parable specifically declares that believers can and will be cut off from Christ and burned. What if Calvin was wrong?

The Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:21-35)

The content of Matthew 18 is also shared in the intimate fellowship of Jesus and His disciples. In this context, Peter asks Jesus about forgiveness. Jesus answers with this parable. As we examine the basics of the text, it becomes readily obvious that Calvinists will have trouble with this one.

The parable opens with a servant owing a debt he cannot pay. The servant's desperate request prompts the king to forgive the debt. The same servant, however, refuses to forgive a small debt owed him by one of his fellows. When the king hears of this, he cancels the forgiveness he gave the servant and turns him over to the tormentors. At the end of the parable, Jesus addresses the disciples saying, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (Matthew 18:35).

This is a major issue. Is Jesus really saying that His own disciples are in danger of being turned over to tormentors by the Father if they refuse to forgive? It would certainly appear so. To think of these tormentors as earthly and temporal would be out of character in the teachings of Christ.

The Unmerciful Servant (Luke 12:42-46; Matthew 24:45-51)

This parable is somewhat unique as it sets up one story with two potential endings. At the beginning of the parable we are introduced to the one character. He is described as a faithful and wise steward. As a result, he is put in charge when the lord leaves. If you look at the text carefully you will notice that there is only one steward. If the steward does well, he is rewarded, but if he does not do well, he is sorely punished. Matthew calls him "evil" if he chooses to do wrong. This does not signify that he started off evil; otherwise, the option of him doing well is preempted. The parable specifically calls him faithful and wise in the outset. Luke uses an interesting phrase to describe the outcome if the steward rebels: ". . . and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers" (Luke 12:46). In both accounts there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Is Jesus saying that a faithful and wise person can turn from their faithfulness and receive the punishment of unbelievers in Hell as a result?

The Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)

The setting for this parable is much the same as the vine and the branches. The hearers were the disciples of Jesus rather than the crowds. Again, we see Jesus unapologetically threaten his closest followers that they may be caught off guard and lose out at His coming (Matthew 25:13). In short, the point of this parable is that we must be ready when Christ comes. If we are not, we will be shut out of His kingdom.

This parable presents a difficult conundrum for Calvinists who believe in eternal security. In order for their doctrine to stand the test of this parable, they must prove that the five foolish virgins represent people who have never been saved. I once heard David Jeremiah explain this problem away by referring to the Greek word that is translated as "gone out" in verse 8. He said that in the original Greek, it is implied that these lamps were never lit from the beginning. In other words, the verse should read, "our lamps will not light." This rewording disagrees with the King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, and Contemporary English Version. I don't know about you, but I am always a little skeptical when someone suggests rewording the Bible. This is even more questionable when the rewording suggested agrees with their personal theological bias. Let the Bible say what it says, and make your doctrine from that. Don't make your doctrine and then try to change the Bible to make it match. The sense implied in all of the listed versions above is that their lamps had either "gone out" or were "going out." This means that their lamps had been lit previously. A candle that has never been lit cannot go out.

Seeing that this parable was given to the disciples rather than a crowd, it is virtually impossible to assign the meaning of the virgins to the saved and the lost. To state the obvious, the lost are not sitting at the door of Christ's Kingdom hoping to get in. Another important detail that must not be overlooked is that all of them were virgins which represents purity. There were not five virgins and five harlots. There were fully ten virgins. Matthew 25:13 makes it very clear that this warning was for the disciples: "Watch therefore, for _ye_ know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" (emphasis added).

The Talents/Pounds (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27)

These two parables have significant variation; however, the point that is relevant to our discussion is quite clear in each. In both parables, the lord leaves entrusting money into the hands of his servants. The servants are then responsible to put that money to use in the lord's absence. When the lord returns, he calls the servants to account for their stewardship. The symbolism of this parable is readily obvious. Jesus was planning to leave earth and then return at some point in the future. He entrusts His goods to His followers. Upon His return, He will examine the work of each man's hand. This all seems simple enough until you get to the last of the servants. Both parables have a servant that is fearful. He hides his lord's money. When the lord comes to reckon, the money is taken away, and in Matthew, the servant is punished severely and permanently. It is important to notice that this man started off as an entrusted servant of the lord. He was not a stranger or an outsider. He was a servant.

Is Jesus saying that a servant of Christ can fail of the grace of God and be cast into outer darkness as a result? Does this parable imply that this could happen to a disciple?

The Salt of the Earth (Matthew 5:13)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus compares us to salt. In unequivocal terms, He declares that if the salt loses its saltiness it is to be cast out. Calvinistic scholars are quick to point out that salt does not lose its saltiness. They follow this with the statement that Jesus must have been talking about the salt that comes from the Dead Sea. The salt from there is not a pure salt; therefore, it can be mingled. Pure salt, however, does not lose its savor.

Why would it be so important for a Calvinist to make such an argument? Maybe they think that if they can somehow prove that the salt Jesus was meaning was flawed in the beginning, then their Calvinistic doctrine of eternal security can withstand this verse. If the salt was flawed, then this represents a person that was never saved.

This is a classic case of shifting the argument. Whatever kind of salt Jesus was talking about must have been capable of ruin; otherwise, the parable is universally flawed. Jesus was not talking about pure verses contaminated salt. Without reading any outside meanings into the parable, Jesus starts with salt that is salty and ends with salt that is not salty anymore. The use of the word "ye" indicates that this is pertinent to believers and not simply hypothetical. Unsalty salt is to be thrown out.

Does this teach that a person can be saved and then become an outcast to God? Does this teach that God will throw them out if this happens?

The Parable of the Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9)

This parable is of significant interest as it hits the root of one of the Calvinistic myths that will be discussed in detail later. The thinking behind the myth is based on God's foreknowledge. Why would God invest time in something that has no future? If God already knows that something is going to fail, why would He invest any energy into it at all?

A brief analysis of the context of this parable provides little insight into its meaning. The parable is not about repentance as is the previous text. After the parable, Jesus moves right into a healing that has no immediate connection to the parable either. The only potential helpful hint is in the fact that this was done in the synagogue.

If this parable is taken as a statement to the Jews, then it could be easily paralleled to the replacement of the Jewish system and the old covenant in favor of the new covenant and the Church. Using this route, the controversial matter of the parable can almost be avoided; however, there remain two questions. First, if this parable is meant to demonstrate the displacement of the Jewish system, then does it have any relevance for believers? Second, how do we explain the expended energy on a potentially dead end?

In considering our first question, it is possible to parallel this to the Jews. Throughout the Old Testament, there were men and women that interceded with God to avoid the extermination of the chosen people. Moses had to do this on several occasions. In parallel to the parable, the Jews did not finally produce the desired fruit. History records that they were cut down both spiritually and literally. It must be assumed that the fig tree in the parable failed to produce also, and the end result was for it to be cut down. Now that the parallel has been established, we ask what this is saying to us? It would be negligent to miss the connection between this parable and Romans 11:22. In Romans 11, Paul teaches how the Jews were cut off so that the gentiles could be saved. So far, the parallel is perfect. What does this say for the gentiles? "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell, severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" (Romans 11:22).

The second of our questions relates to expended energy. Why would God, who possesses perfect foreknowledge, expend energy on something that has no future? This is a common Calvinistic argument. Here, we will not address it fully. We will simply state that this is not the question of the parable. The parable does not indicate that foreknowledge is an issue. At the request of the vinedresser, the owner consented to give the tree another year. Here is my point. If we compare the tree in the story to the old covenant Jewish people and the owner to God, there is no escaping the fact that God did indeed spend considerable and even painful effort on a system He fully intended to replace. God may not operate according to our standards of logic. We should probably be careful about making statements regarding God's actions just because we cannot tell why He does or does not do something. He can and will often act outside of our realm of understanding.
Chapter 6

Fish Bait

Every fisherman knows the value of quality bait. It is the difference between success and lack thereof. Once, I was fishing with a friend of mine. We were having a great day together, but the fishing was somewhat lousy. Then one of us decided to try a lure that had a white body and a red head. POW! Maybe it was simply chance, but after two fish in less than five minutes, the theory of chance was ruled out. We both fished with white body red headed lures the rest of the day, and we both caught fish. It is hard to imagine why a fish would be so attracted to a particular color on one day, and completely uninterested in it at other times. Regardless of the reason, fishermen know it can happen. If you have the right bait at the right time, you can have a day to remember.

The point of this illustration is that the devil often uses bait to lure believers into trouble. He is an expert at this sport. He has had plenty of time to practice. The question for us is not so much to analyze this device of the enemy as it is to consider whether or not it has the potential to lure us to the outright loss of our salvation. Calvinists dominantly proclaim that this is not possible, but what if Calvin was wrong?

Faulty Premise

One of the verses that Calvinists often cite in favor of their argument says, "No man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand" (John 10:29). This verse, however, says nothing of our ability to fall. It is speaking specifically of the power of Christ to protect us from others. This is not related to our own failures. This is a classic example of switching the subject. It happens all the time in debate. If a skilled debater can slightly change the subject in the middle of the debate without his opponent recognizing the shift, then the argument is already won.

Many evolutionists try to pull this stunt. They will begin by demonstrating microevolution, small variations within a species, and end with macroevolution, the change of one species into another species. All through the process, the line between microevolution and macroevolution is blurred. This creates confusion.

The same technique is done by Calvinists with this passage from John. The passage is clearly talking about being "plucked" by an outside source. To switch the subject to falling of one's own accord is not an acceptable line of argument.

Impossibility of Being Plucked

It is absolutely impossible for anyone to pluck us out of God's hand. This is certain. The devil knows this. He will not even likely try. There is no use. It is impossible. Unfortunately, he also knows that even though we cannot be plucked out, we can be lured. The Bible provides a very vivid picture of how this works. In order to see it, we will need to take a journey back into the Old Testament.

After the Children of Israel came out of Egypt, they spent a year at Mt. Sinai before traveling toward the land of promise. When they arrived, they failed to enter because they believed the report of the ten spies that slandered the land. As a result, they spent forty years wandering through the wilderness. Part of that wandering placed them in the vicinity of the land of Moab.

When Balak, the king of Moab, realized the situation, he attempted to hire Balaam to curse Israel. This is one of the most interesting and peculiar stories in the Bible. Balaam was obviously able to hear God. In reading the story (Numbers 22-24), you might think Balaam was a good person. He did exactly what the Lord told him to do and said what he was told to say. He refused to curse Israel saying that it was impossible to do so. "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed?" (Numbers 23:8). "Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it" (Numbers 23:20). "Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel" (Numbers 23:23).

So far, we see the principle of the protection of God. Israel was in God's hand. They could not be plucked out. It was not possible for them to be cursed, and Balaam knew it. He tried to convince Balak that it was impossible, but Balak was persistent. Balak was not willing to settle for failure. His persistence paid off. The narrative in Numbers does not tell us the full story of what happened. It simply moves from the story of Balaam and Balak to the matter of Baal-Peor. What happened?

Revelation tells us that Balaam was ultimately responsible for leading the Children of Israel into idolatry. As the narrative in Numbers continues, the people of Moab began to invite the Children of Israel to their idolatrous feasts. These feasts were accompanied by gross immorality. Many of the people of Israel took the bait. They had been drawn outside of God's protection.

The key to the story is found in Numbers 23:21, "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel." At first, the people of Israel could not be cursed because God found no iniquity in them. Now that there was iniquity, there was no reason for Balaam to curse them. They had brought the curse on themselves. Many of them died as a result (Numbers 25:9).

Through this story, we learn an important principle. It was absolutely impossible for Balaam or Balak to pluck the Children of Israel out of God's hand of protection, but it was very possible to lure them so that they would leave the protection of God of their own volition. This raises a question. Is it possible for a Christian to be lured out of God's protection to the point that they fall entirely out of the faith? Calvinists would argue that it is impossible, but what if Calvin was wrong?

The Lure of the World

Is it possible for a Christian to be lured by the world? It would be nothing short of foolish to deny the fact. Christians are enticed and tempted by worldly pleasures all the time. Do some of them fall by reason of the temptation? Absolutely. There is no question about it. The only question is whether or not they can fall completely. Calvinists argue that it is impossible. Is this true? From all Biblical indication, Demas fell due to the lure of the world. We are never told that he recovered. To assume he did recover would be more than the Biblical record would permit as it does not suggest such. Let's explore this subject from some of the New Testament writers.

James 1:14-16 states, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren." It is very important for us to recognize that this was written to "beloved brethren." These were people of the household of faith. James declares that there will be temptations. The enticement of the world is in mind here. This is the lust of the flesh which includes appetites for every sinful pleasure. When this lust brings sin, the end result is death. What kind of death is James talking about? Is he talking about physical death of a temporal nature, or is this spiritual death like that of Adam? Easily we can determine that this is not physical death.

I once knew of an impressive minister. I received a copy of a teaching series on soul winning that he had taught, and I was thoroughly blessed as I listened with tears in my eyes. This man's evangelistic zeal was contagious, and his presentation was powerful. Unfortunately, his zeal and his faithfulness were not on the same level. When it hit the news that he had sustained an adulterous relationship for nine years, I was shocked. The news hit me like a ton of bricks. The reason I am sharing this story is not to demonstrate the power of the lure of the world. I share it to prove the point that when his lust brought forth sin, he did not die physically. In fact, he is still a minister only a couple of miles from the church where he had been before. He is very much alive in the physical realm.

"Do not err, my beloved brethren." If sin brought forth only physical death, there would not be any of us around. The human race would have been extinct a long time ago. This cannot be the answer to the point that James is making. Just like it did for Adam and Eve, sin brings forth spiritual death. You may live and breathe on this planet for years after your sin, but you may be spiritually dead. Sin brings forth death. It is a principle that does not change, and it cannot simply be physical death. James puts an exclamation mark on this by finally stating, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). Those who become the enemies of God are not headed toward Heaven.

Paul confirms this teaching in the book of Ephesians. "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Ephesians 5:5). What if the people who are behaving in the ways Paul listed were once believing Christians with a convincing testimony of conversion? Do they form an exception to this verse? What if Calvin was wrong?

John also speaks of the lure of the world. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1 John 2:16). It is for this reason that he gives warning to his readers. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15). Is John warning his readers that if they are drawn out by the lure of the world that they will be in danger? If they take the bait, is he saying that they will not have the love of the Father in them anymore? What if Calvin was wrong?

In reality, there are lots of people who are lured by the world to the point that they become the things the apostles warn about. If, as James says, they become the enemies of God, how can they go to Heaven. Paul says they have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. John says that they do not have the love of the Father in them. Am I to believe that a person caught away by the lure of the world dies and goes to Heaven? That is a tremendous stretch!

The Lure of Unholy Alliance

My observation has shown that one of the most deadly lures in the tackle box of the enemy is the lure of unholy alliance. It is unfortunate that this lure has such a power of attraction, yet as Christians, we must be aware that it exists. Not only does it exist, it is potent. So potent, in fact, that the poor soul who enters an unholy alliance invites not only all kinds of unhappy circumstances but also the real potential to be drawn away entirely from the faith.

To illustrate this point, we can look to Solomon. The Bible is very clear that his downfall was because of the unholy alliances that he made by marrying foreign wives. The women turned his heart to idols. This is one of the saddest stories of the Bible. How can a man who started off so well fall so far? He made unholy alliances. Can an unholy alliance be the lure that causes a Christian to fall from the faith? What if Calvin was wrong?

I call this the spiritual law of gravity. We all know how gravity works. It always pulls down. If I stand in a chair and clasp hands with my wife, who weighs considerably less than me, it would be far easier for her to pull me down than for me to pull her up into the chair. Why? Gravity. It is always easier to pull down than up. If you link up with a person that is lower than you, you will be pulled down. It is a spiritual principle. Don't try to argue with it. It is simply true. "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Corinthians 15:33), or as the New King James Version puts it, "Evil company corrupts good habits."

While this principle is by no means limited to a relationship between a man and a woman, it is particularly dangerous on this front. When a believing person enters into a relationship with an unsaved person with romantic intentions, there is a breach. Paul makes it clear that to do so is the same as uniting Christ and Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15). Do you want to find an unhappy Christian? Look for one that married to an unsaved person. You will find all the unhappiness you want. These unions are never successful because they violate God's order. Beyond unhappiness, many believers that enter relationships with unclean persons are drawn away from Christ even before they become married. This lure has extra hooks.

What about other kinds of relationships? What about friends, fishing buddies, business partners, or even unsaved or unsanctified family members? There is no getting around the principle. The company you choose will have a significant impact on your eternal outcome. Proverbs 22:23-24 says, "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." It isn't just a negative influence, but a snare to your soul. What does that mean? Does that suggest that your soul may be in danger if you hang around certain people? It seems so. The opposite is also true. If you escape the lure of unholy alliances you will be like the man in Psalm 1:1. "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful."

One of the most difficult things that you will ever do is break off the unholy alliances that you have already made. Try looking a long time friend in the face and telling him that you will no longer spend time with him because of the bad influence he has in your life. Try doing this with a family member. If Calvin was wrong, then failure to do so puts your soul in a precarious predicament. Is it worth the chance?

The Lure of False Teaching

The New Testament warns repeatedly that false teachers will abound. There is no question that this is true in America. It seems like every time you look up, there is a new teaching that is drawing people away. The draw of these teachings may be explained by the spiritual law of gravity. It is easy to "fall" into these false ways but climbing in the truth is difficult. There is no denying the effectiveness of the lure of false teaching. It is real, and it is dangerous.

One Saturday, I heard a knock on my door. When I opened to see who was there, I found myself facing two Jehovah's Witnesses. Once I had requested them to properly identify themselves, I decided to ask a simple question: "What were you before you became a Jehovah's Witness?" I am not sure whether the answer was surprising or disgusting. One of the men said he had originally been a Methodist and then had been a Baptist. For a Methodist to become a Baptist or vise versa is not much of a surprise and it certainly is not disturbing. The jump to Jehovah's Witness, on the other hand, is alarming. How is it possible for a man that has a history of evangelical teaching to make such a leap? The lure of false teaching prevailed in his life.

On another occasion, my wife and I visited a local city manager to ask about renting a city owned facility. The manager warmly invited us into his office. He was an older man that looked like the kind of person that should be a city manager. Our first impression was quite positive, but as soon as we entered his office, something seemed off. There were several impressively displayed paintings on the wall, but there was a strangeness to them. I asked, "Are you a religious person?"

He was most happy to tell me that he was a Mormon. When I asked him how he became a Mormon, his story was eye opening. He had been a Baptist. His sister had become a Mormon through their door to door method. He visited the Mormon church a few times. Still, he hesitated. As he continued, he said, "Then the pastor at the Baptist church made a huge mistake. He preached against the Mormons." From that point on, he left the Baptist church and has been a Mormon ever since.

It isn't a wonder that the apostles constantly warned against the draw of false teachers. They knew the dangers. The subject of false teaching comes up repeatedly in the epistles. The epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude are so vehement against false teachers that only a negligent Bible teacher would overlook the subject.

In a brief survey of the New Testament teachings on false teachers, it seems that most false teachers come in two distinct categories. To clarify, we are talking about false teachers that claim some connection to Christianity. This discussion does not include false religions of a non Judeo-Christian background. The two basic categories are those that demote Christ and those that promote works, although these are often blended.

Many of the cults and false teachings of today are guilty of demoting Christ in one way or another. As an example, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Christians teach that Jesus is God using the Trinitarian language of one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. John was particularly concerned with this type of false teaching. His gospel constantly and consistently affirms the deity of Christ. From the first verse of the book, there is reference after reference indicating that Jesus is one with the Father (John 1:1, 10:30). Jesus is to receive equal honor with the Father (John 5:23). Jesus can do all that the Father can do (John 5:19). The clincher is in John 8:58 where Jesus calls Himself by the divine name: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (see Exodus 3:14).

The other type of false teachers commonly seen in the New Testament was constantly trying to get people to revert to the law in one way or another. They insisted on circumcision or some particular element of Jewish tradition. This is still happening in our modern day. There are many groups that try to oppose the book of Galatians. If a person reverts to works of any kind in an attempt to earn salvation, there is a breach. Ephesians 2:9 makes it clear that salvation is "not of works." Even so, literally multitudes of people are participants in works based quasi-Christian organizations. Some are very explicit, while others operate out of guilt motivated tactics.

I received a book in the mail once that insisted that those who worship on Sunday had received the mark of the beast. I did not read the book. I was able to find this statement quickly. I knew this teaching would be in there because this particular group emphasizes the fourth commandment as paramount. Beware! "Whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

No matter what the form, religious groups based on false teachings about Jesus or enslavement to the law are growing rapidly in this country. Many of their constituents come out of evangelical churches to the detriment of their eternal souls. Calvinists must argue that it is impossible for a true believer to lose their soul because of the lure of false teaching. The New Testament does not give such assurance. Instead, it consistently warns believers to be alert and test the spirits lest they be carried away. 2 Peter 3:17 says, "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness" (2 Peter 3:17). What if Calvin was wrong? What if it is possible for a true believer to be persuaded by a false teacher and fall from grace?

### Chapter 7

10 Myths of Calvinism

Myths are interesting in that they are easy to spread and hard to stop. They spread so easily, in fact, that it seems we are prone to accept them without thought. Several years ago, I decided to pay close attentions to the slogans that people often repeat to evaluate the truth behind them. Often, on further inspection, they came up lacking. Let me give you an example.

People often say, "Don't be too heavenly minded, or you will be no earthly good." This has such a catchy rhythm that it is easy to repeat and pass on. It is such a well know statement that I would not be surprised if some preacher somewhere has sermonized it. The truth, however, is that it is a false statement. How heavenly minded do you thing Jesus was? How about Paul? They seemed to be of value to the earth. Do you get my point? Heavenly mindedness makes us of great value to the earth. The only kind of person that will repeat this little saying to you is one that attempts to discourage your devotion to Christ. Subtlety often is the mask of error.

The idea that a heavenly minded person is no good to the earth is often even propagated in the ranks of Christians. For instance, if a drug addict becomes saved and delivered from his addictions, the first thing we think is that this person would be the best suited to lead drug addicts to Christ. Is this so? Does a delivered prostitute make the best witness to prostitutes? The Bible does not support this assumption. Jesus was the best minister that a prostitute could ever hope to have, and His testimony is spotless. You do not need a seedy past to speak to the seedy. A testimony of holiness will work just fine. In fact, the lure of such past addictions may prove to be a very unstable environment for those that were once enslaved by such. Continued exposure in such cases could prove very ill advised.

If you were to take the time to investigate the slogans that have been passed along, you would find that many of them are false. You would not know this unless you take time to consider them, and that is their power. In this chapter, we are going to explore some myths of Calvinism. Some of them may not have been originated by Calvin personally; nevertheless, they fall within the context of academic argument related to eternal security. Once again we will ask, what if Calvin was wrong?

Myth #1: All of the Elect Go to Heaven

R. C. Sproul, in his book, _Grace Unknown_ , clearly defines the Calvinistic position that all of the elect go to Heaven. Is this true, or is this just a Calvinistic assumption. Strict Calvinism _requires_ that all of the elect go to Heaven. The whole system of Calvinism falls apart if there is doubt about this statement. More will be said about this in the chapter called "Hazard Lights," but for now we will stick to the subject of Myths. Do the elect all go to Heaven?

It may seem easy to explore the subject of the elect; however, this has been a subject of debate for many centuries. Here we do not intend to exhaust the arguments over the matter. We only would like to point out a few observations that make it abundantly clear that the Bible does not support this position.

First, we will look to the people of Israel. Without question, all of the descendents of Israel are among the elect. Any person attempting to make an elite elect within Israel would find that a difficult premise to uphold Biblically with the possible exception mentioned below. They were all elected by God as His peculiar inheritance. "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name" (Isaiah 45:4). "The LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth" (Deuteronomy 7:6). Does this mean that every Jew that ever lived went to Heaven upon death? Hardly! How could anyone make that argument? The Jewish people as a whole have been far from faithful to the covenant that God gave them on Mt. Sinai much less as individuals. The Old Testament is full of Jewish people that died in their abominations.

In the New Testament, Jesus had no tolerance for the stubborn Jewish Pharisees. He denounced them at seemingly every opportunity. He told them that they would die in their sins (John 8:21-24). He also made this startling statement, "Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:11-12).

Paul also denounced the unbelieving Jews on many occasions. He even told them that they counted themselves unworthy of eternal life (Acts 13:46). Couple this with the clear teaching of the New Testament regarding the inability of the Law to save, and there is no question that Jews of the first century died without mercy.

What about now? The vast multitude of Jewish people today are not devout. In fact, it is universally understood that most of the modern Jews are atheists. How could any true believer of the Gospel think that unbelieving Jewish people that die today enter Heaven? Unbelieving Jews are not even saved. How can they go to Heaven? I don't know anyone who argues that they do. This would contradict the New Testament in so many ways it would be difficult to mention them all. Through observing the elect people of Israel as a whole, it is easy to conclude that the elect do not all go to Heaven.

What if the field is narrowed a bit? Let us consider only the Levites. God took the Levites as His own in place of the firstborn of Israel. In a sense, they became even more intimately elect than were the descendents of other tribes. It is also interesting that they were given the greater spiritual responsibility. Even so, the Old and New Testaments are both full of Levites that failed to be spiritually pure. To name a few, we could include Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Eli's sons, Caiaphas, and Annas.

While the subject of election is not the focus of this argument, the myth that all of the elect go to Heaven starts with election and ends with eternal security. It is one thing to be elect, and quite another to be guaranteed Heaven as a result. Strict Calvinistic teaching requires that all of the elect go to Heaven because to believe otherwise undermines eternal security. I have no intention of diving into the depths of the doctrine of election; however, it is not possible to deal with the eternal security side of the matter without some discussion on the subject.

Is it possible for someone to argue that the election of the Jews is somehow different from Christian election? This is a dispensational question. If elect Jews are not guaranteed Heaven, do elect Christians enjoy a guarantee that the Jews do not? This would be a hard argument to sustain. The most elaborate explanation of election in the New Testament is in Romans 9. That chapter teaches the principle of election using the Jews as _the_ example. Even a brief analysis reveals that the election that Christians enjoy is of the same essence of that of the Jews. In fact, it appears that the election of Christians comes out of the election of the Jews having the same roots. It is the divine choosing of God, and it will not be undone in either case. To jump to the conclusion that this guarantees Heaven is not within the context of the Biblical argument, and it usurps the evidence provided by both the Bible and history.

Myth #2: God Takes Disobedient Christians to Heaven Early

The first time I heard this taught, I was completely taken back. I could not believe my ears. Since then, I have heard it from more than one prominent source. More than once, I have heard a Calvinistic speaker declare that God kills Christians who are particularly disobedient and takes them to Heaven early because they cannot be trusted on earth. We will evaluate this statement from a few angles.

The Biblical basis of appeal that is used to assert such teaching is the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5. (Honestly, I think it would be easier and better for Calvinists to argue that these two were never saved, but that is not their argument here.) The argument proceeds that these two saved believers were not obedient to God. God responded by killing them so that He could take them to Heaven because they could not be trusted on the earth.

When I first heard this teaching, I was flabbergasted. I could not believe that anyone would be willing to believe this one. It is even more unfortunate that one of the individuals that related this teaching was someone I highly respect as an academic genius, yet on this point he has clearly missed it. I recently heard this teaching again on a nationally broadcast radio station that is owned and operated by Calvinists.

Let's pursue this teaching with a line of logic. How soon do you want to go to Heaven? If you would like to go now, then you need to commit a heinous crime in the sight of God. If you do, then you might be able to go as early as today. He might just snatch you into Paradise. Is this Biblical teaching? Does the Bible ever suggest that anyone will be rewarded for wickedness with an early entrance to Heaven? I still find it difficult to believe that intelligent Christian people would propagate such a view. Apparently, however, this myth is circulating in some Calvinistic circles. Otherwise, it would not be on the radio.

I have not had the opportunity to ask one of these teachers why they come to this conclusion, but the answer is clear. They have only two choices. When a person looks at the world through the lenses of Calvinism, things are black and white. If a young man comes to Christ and then falls into gross sin during which he comes to his demise, the Calvinist must either denounce his salvation from the beginning or preach him into Heaven. There is no other option, unless, of course, Calvin was wrong.

The clear teaching of the Bible, however, opposes this view. Ephesians 5:5 states, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." If a man dies in his sin, how can anyone declare that God killed him to take him to Heaven? 1 John 3:15 says, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." How many professing Christians die with hatred in their hearts? How many professing Christians die coddling the sin of covetousness or lust? Do we dare overturn the words of the Bible to keep Calvin alive? What if Calvin was wrong?

Myth #3: God has Already Forgiven Sins of the Past, Present, and Future

Preachers sometimes confidently proclaim that our sins from the past, present, and future are already forgiven in Christ. Is this true, or is it just a clever slogan? It is guaranteed to make people feel good. Just imagine that you were currently living in sin that you did not want to give up when a preacher says you are already forgiven even if you continue unchanged. To you, that would be great news, but is it what the Bible teaches?

The basis for this statement is in the fact that Jesus died only once. He is not going to die on the cross again; therefore, by his one death all atonement for sin is already in the past. This much is true. Jumping, however, to the conclusion that forgiveness is already granted may be entirely a different subject. Does the fact that the means by which forgiveness comes is complete necessitate that the forgiveness itself has been granted?

To begin, it must be stated that there is no place in the New Testament where a person was granted forgiveness for a sin they were currently committing. Every sin that was forgiven had already been committed and completed. It was not currently taking place. In addition, there is no place in the New Testament that says a present sin can or will be forgiven. As to the state of future sins, there is no statement related to forgiveness. The only statements related to future sins are in the sense that when someone falls into sin, they can ask to be forgiven (1 John 1:9), but when they do ask, the sin would then be in the past. We are not told to ask forgiveness for a sin we intend to commit tomorrow. Where do they get this teaching? It does not come from the Bible?

The Bible does declare the sins of the past forgiven to every person who believes. Romans 3:25 states, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of _sins that are past_ , through the forbearance of God" (emphasis added). Here we clearly see the remission of past sins. What about the present and future sins? There is no such statement. There is no place in the Bible that pronounces a presently sinning person forgiven. If it were true that present and future sins are already forgiven, repentance in the life of a Christian would be entirely worthless. Some people are actually teaching this, although I will be quick to admit that this is not likely a reflection of mainstream Calvinism. Even if it is not said, however, the truth of the matter is still present. Repentance is optional if Heaven is guaranteed and sins of the present and future are already covered.

I had a conversation with a local pastor that shocked me. In that conversation, he presented a hypothetical scenario to express his beliefs. He said, "If you were to pull out a gun and shoot me in the head, and then run down the street and shoot yourself, we would both go to heaven even if you didn't repent!" Really! Are you kidding me? 1 John 3:15 disagrees with his assessment of the scenario by stating, "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Without repentance, the forgiveness purchased by Jesus on the cross is of no value.

Myth #4: If You Didn't Do Anything to Earn It, You Can't Do Anything to Lose It

This is a clever argument; however, it has some significant problems. Let us start by examining the picture that it presents. The fact of earning or not earning anything is not the criterion that is used to determine whether or not that thing can be lost. For example, if I earn my paycheck, I can lose it on the way to the bank. If you choose to give me some money, I could still lose it. The absence or presence of my effort in earning has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to lose something.

Spiritually speaking, however, things are not so simple. I recently read a Gospel tract that dealt with this subject briefly. The writer stated that repentance is not a condition of salvation because salvation is a free gift. He continued by commenting that repentance is the means by which salvation is received, but that there is no effort by us required in our salvation. This is simply not true, but this is what many Calvinists require. As an example, I heard a minister on the radio say, "If you will be saved, Jesus must do it all!"

It is true that salvation is a free gift. This does not mean that it comes to us without our willing involvement. It is necessary that we be an active participant either to accept or reject the free gift. In order to accept the gift, we must repent. This was the message of Jesus (Mark 1:15). We are indeed saved by faith apart from our works, but this does not mean that our salvation will come without work. Martin Luther once said, "Salvation comes by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." Salvation does not just happen to us. We must be involved in the processes of decision, response, repentance, and even follow this with obedience. There is no automation.

As we look back to the myth, the assumption that we do nothing to receive salvation is erroneous. We are most definitely involved in our salvation. Otherwise, why would Paul say, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). That sounds like personal effort to me. It is true that we do not earn our salvation, but to take this out of the context of Biblical teaching and assume that absolutely no effort is required is error (see more on this in the chapter called, "Hazard Lights").

The idea behind the myth is that since our good works cannot earn salvation, our bad deeds cannot cause us to lose it. Don't get tripped up on this. The Bible teaches otherwise. Over and over again the Bible warns us not to fall into sin as it can and will cause us to be exempted from the promises of God. One example is found in 2 Peter 2:20-21, "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." If you ask me, it sounds like they lost something that they had never earned. We will cover the means by which one may lose salvation in much more detail in the chapter on "Salvation Killers." For now, let it suffice us to know that this clever little phrase is simply not true.

Myth #5: Nothing Can Separate

Christians often say, "Nothing can separate us from the love of God." This is a common argument that Calvinists use to support their doctrine of eternal security, but is this what the Bible teaches? On the surface it seems pretty air tight, but we will examine it to see.

Where does this statement come from? It comes from Romans 8:35, 38-39.

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Shall We Add to the Text?

This is a very extensive list of things that cannot separate us. It seems safe enough to jump to a blanket statement and replace all of these things with the word "nothing." The text, however, is not so quick. It does not say "nothing." It says "who." Verse 39 is specific enough to say "any other creature." So, what is the difference? The word "nothing" would require that this list be exhaustive, and it isn't. There are two distinct omissions from Paul's list that we need to notice.

First, there is no mention of sin in this passage. The passage is neither about sin nor its consequences. For a Calvinist to apply this passage to sinful behavior is to wrest it from its context. From the beginning to the end of the Bible, sin always separates us from God. If Paul had meant to include sin is this list, he would have done so. To insert it ourselves is beyond the scope of the passage, yet Calvinists do this regularly to "prove" eternal security.

Second, there is no mention of self. Examine the list again, and you will see that every item on it is external. Each item is outside of us. Are we to assume that we are incapable of separating ourselves from God? This is clearly what Calvinism teaches, but this disagrees with many passages in the Bible. We need to remember the previous chapter, _Fish Bait_. We can be lured out of God's hand. Those who think they are safe should be awakened to that fact. "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12).

Switching the Subject

We have already discussed the tactic of switching the subject, and this is another example. When a Calvinist uses Romans 8:35 to argue for eternal security, it is easy to miss the fact that the subject has already been switched. To clear up this confusion, this list speaks of the things that cannot separate us from "the love of Christ." The immediate context is not even talking about salvation. It is talking about the love of Christ. This raises a question. Can someone be loved by Christ and be lost at the same time? Are lost sinners, separated from the "love" of God, or are they separated from salvation? These are not one in the same.

Mark's Gospel illustrates the point. Mark 10:17-27 tells of the rich man that came to Jesus asking what good thing to do to be saved. In the middle of this dialogue, the Bible records, "Then Jesus beholding him loved him" (Mark 10:21). This man was not separated from the love of Christ. Even in his fallen, idolatrous state, Christ still loved him. This love did not prove that he was eternally secure at all. In fact, quite the contrary. The story proves that he was not eternally secure by the love of Christ, but rather he was capable of destroying his own soul by turning down the greatest offer of all ages.

There is apparently even a difference between being the subject of God's love in a general sense as this rich man was and abiding in His love specifically as a child of God. The delineation between the two can be seen in John 15:9-10, "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." Here, we see that the love of Jesus is the constant. He loves. The variable is whether or not the disciples will abide in that love. This is an example of an "if" passage (see _Hazard Lights_ ). What happens if a believer fails to keep the commandments of Christ? Does He still get to abide?

Now that we understand that this is a switch of subject, we can see that Romans 8:35 does not guarantee Heaven for those loved by Christ. We may be loved by Christ, as the rich man was, and still answer to Him in final judgment for our sins.

Myth #6: Nobody's Perfect/Everyone Makes Mistakes

Just the other day, my wife and I spoke to a man that said, "I'm a Baptist. I drink cold beer and raise cane." He had a beer in his hand to prove his point.

I asked him, "If you were to die today, are you 100% certain you would go to Heaven?"

Without hesitation, he said, "Yes!"

Later in the conversation, he said, "Nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes." He even followed it up with, "We all fall short of the glory of God."

I cannot even begin to tell you how gross a misuse of Scripture this is. The verse says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). We cannot use this verse as an excuse to live in sin. This verse is talking about "sins that are past" (see v. 25). It has nothing to do with sins that are present. Don't be confused. There is no teaching in the Bible that will allow you to live in sin.

All kinds of people say, "Everyone makes mistakes." In order for this to be true, we need to clearly define "mistake." In most instances, a mistake is an accident. It is something that happens without premeditation. As an example, if you trip on a threshold, that is a mistake. If you lock your keys in your car, that is a mistake. If you tell a lie to your neighbor, that is NOT a mistake. That is a sin. Jesus did not come to die for our mistakes. He came to die for our sins. There is a huge difference.

If you lock your keys in your car and say, "Everyone makes mistakes," I am ready to agree with you. We all have accidents. It is quite another thing if you cheat on your wife and then say, "Everyone makes mistakes." In this you are greatly mistaken. Can you see the switch of subject again? I have recently heard numerous people who claim to be Baptists say that "we all make mistakes" as an excuse to continue in their sin. No! We must not do this. The Bible makes no allowance for this. It says, "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him" (1 John 3:6). It also says, "He that committeth sin is of the devil" (1 John 3:8). If you are expecting to live in your sins until Jesus takes you away to Heaven, you are deceived.

Similarly, people often say, "Nobody's perfect." Jesus taught, however, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). If Jesus commands perfection, then it must be possible. It would be unreasonable for Him to demand something that we could not accomplish even if we need His help to do so. So, how do we look at this?

The word "perfect" in the Bible is very different from what we understand today. When we think of "perfect" we think of something without blemish. We have never seen, nor ever will see, a man that meets that definition with the exception of Jesus. This is not what the Bible means when it speaks of "perfect." "Perfect" in the Bible is more like what we would consider "complete." As an example, Jesus was made perfect by suffering (Hebrews 5:8-9). If we put the modern version of "perfect" into these verses it would make Jesus imperfect or flawed before He suffered. This is not the case at all. Biblically, however, Jesus was not perfect before suffering because the suffering completed (perfected) His ministry on the earth.

With this definition, we can now understand the verses that speak of Christian perfection. Ephesians 4:12 summarizes this point nicely when it says "that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God." Also, Hebrews 13:20-21 says, "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Now that we have a proper understanding of "perfect," let's go back to the slogan, "Nobody's perfect." Is it true? Every child of God is capable of perfection. We just need to see perfection through God's eyes rather than our own. If we do, we will understand "that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" (Colossians 1:28).

Calvinists, however, use this phrase to justify people when they sin. If someone commits an open sin, they often say, "Nobody's perfect." I contend that there are some perfect people out there. So did the Apostle John when he said, "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" (1 John 3:9).

The problem with the "Nobody's perfect/Everyone makes mistakes," mentality is that it sets up a justification comparison that looks to man as the standard. When we look around us, we can find lots of people to make us feel comfortable with the way we live, but is this the right way to decide how we should live? Clearly, it is not! We can never look to those around us to define our standards of conduct. Even if we look to well respected Christian brethren, we will not get the proper perspective. The only place we can look to define what Christianity should look like is the Bible. Otherwise we only justify ourselves.

Myth #7: "Jesus Is Your Savior. Will You Make Him Your Lord?"

Is it truly possible for a person to be saved by Christ without becoming subject to Him as Lord? I have heard this teaching throughout the years, but have never understood how the proponents of such can come to this viewpoint. The culmination of such teaching brings forth the altar call that says, "Jesus is your Savior. Will you now make Him your Lord?" Is this even possible? Is it possible to be saved without surrendering to the Lordship of Christ?

Even a brief evaluation of the Scriptural teaching of salvation will prove that this myth is false. There is nowhere in the Bible where a person is granted entrance into the grace of God apart from submission to His Lordship, but since this myth exists, we will have a look at it. Anyone who promotes this myth has a definite misunderstanding concerning the conditions by which someone gains entrance into salvation. Here we will look at a few erroneous views that are relevant.

On one extreme, some think that the grace of God is bestowed without the active involvement of the subject. In other words, the person is a non-participant in the process. I heard a man on the radio say, "Friend, if you would be saved, Jesus must do it all." Charles Finney found this kind of thinking in the members of the church that he attended as a new believer. He, of course, rebelled against this teaching and insisted that it was the duty of all men to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ immediately. Theologically speaking, this was the impetus behind the power of his ministry. Initially, it gained him many enemies among the clergy, "But wisdom is justified of all her children" (Luke 7:35). (Strangely enough, there are still those who think Finney was wrong about this, and that he did more damage than good.) There is no teaching in the Bible that encourages inaction as an entrance into salvation. Of necessity, it must be stated that this is a non-Scriptural view.

Another erroneous view of entering salvation is far more common and more difficult to refute because it can be supported with proof texts. This view says, "All you have to do is believe in Jesus." You might be thinking, _Wait a minute! That IS all we have to do!_ Let me illustrate my point with two stories that happened recently.

My wife and I were at the store when a man approached trying to sell me something. Honestly, I was annoyed at first because I was not in the mood to be solicited, but before I acted on my annoyance, I thought, _This guy just volunteered to hear the Gospel_. I asked him, "Are you a Christian?"

He said, "Well, I believe in God, but I don't go to church." He then proceeded to tell me a few of the faults that he had with hypocrites and such in the Church.

When he paused, I said, "I have a question for you. The Bible says that the devil believes in God, and you say that you believe in God. What makes you better than the devil?"

Very quickly he said, "I'm not saying I'm better than anybody."

I was thinking, _Even the devil?_ _You can't say you're better than the devil?_

When his mumbling stopped, I said, "I can tell you the difference between you and the devil. The rest of that verse says that the devils believe in God and tremble. Here is the difference: you don't tremble. The devil has more reverence and respect for God than you do."

He said, "Well, he KNOWS that there is a God."

I quickly said, "You told me you believed in God." At this, he ended the conversation and with a smile walked away saying he felt it was no accident that we had met. This man's belief was a sham.

My wife had a similar encounter. She spoke to a man who told her the same thing. We had observed this man's life for several years, so we knew what we were dealing with. When she began to reason with him about giving his life to Christ, she met the cold-as-ice wall of spiritual resistance that is so common in personal evangelism. The man said, "I believe in God. Can't nobody change my religion!" Unfortunately, he was right. Nobody can change his religion (or lack thereof).

In both of these stories, the person was convinced that if they believed in Jesus they were "in." Is this true? After all, Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

What did Jesus really mean when He said believe? Is belief without action truly belief? James, the half brother of Jesus, did not think so (James 2:14, 17). He saw through the sham. He recognized the difference between head knowledge and saving faith. Faith that does not act is dead. It always has been and always will be. In both of the cases above, these men said they believed, but their hearts were far from God. Jesus understood when He said, "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:7-8, see also Isaiah 29:13).

In light of the Bible, we will now briefly mention the requirements for entrance into salvation. We have already mentioned the necessity of repentance. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30). In addition to repentance, Paul outlines the necessity to believe and confess. "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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10).

In light of the Biblical requirements for salvation, we find an interesting phrase. We must confess, "the Lord Jesus" (Romans 10:9). If we do not confess Jesus as Lord, then we do not confess Him at all. There is no entrance into the Heavenly Kingdom apart from the Lordship of Christ. This is why it is great error to tell people that Jesus has saved them and now wants to be their Lord. No! If they are unwilling to submit to His Lordship, they are OUT! Jesus was very clear on this subject. At the end of one of the parables, He said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27).

Myth #8: "He Will Never Leave You, Nor Forsake You"

Once again, we see a myth crouched in the very language of the New Testament. "For he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Hebrews 13:5). This verse is true, and the point that it is making is completely valid. The problem comes when a Calvinist makes it mean something that it does not mean.

Even the devil can quote Scripture. When Jesus was in the wilderness, the devil came to Him saying, "It is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone" (Matthew 4:6). From this text we can learn a few things. First, the devil does not always quote the Scriptures accurately. In this case, when we compare it with the source text in Psalm 91:11-12, we find that he left out the phrase, "to keep thee in all thy ways." Leaving out this phrase is a critical omission. The devil desired to take Jesus out of the way rather than keep Him in it. Second, even if the devil had quoted the verses correctly, his application was flawed. The context of the verse is divine protection. It is not a challenge to throw yourself off of a building. The point is that a verse can be quoted accurately and applied to the wrong situation. This is exactly what some Calvinists do with Hebrews 13:5.

It is absolutely true that Jesus never leaves nor forsakes His own, but does this mandate that they cannot leave Him? No, it does not. This is much the same argument as we discussed in the chapter titled, _Fish Bait_ (Also see _When Sovereigns Collide_ ). McGee, however, argues in his commentary on Hebrews 13:5 that "it does not matter who you are or _what you do_ , if you have responded in faith to the Word of God, you have been brought to the place where you can know that He will never leave you or forsake you" (emphasis added). Is this what the text is saying? Is it really saying that no matter what you do, you are safe?

The context of Hebrews 13:5 is provision: "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me" (Hebrews 13:5-6). This passage is not talking about keeping or losing salvation. In fact, it isn't even talking about salvation at all. It is ultimately as reminder for the believer to cease from worry over money. God will provide. To turn this into an eternal security verse is to do great injustice to the text.

When we look at the context a little wider, we find an even more glaring problem with what McGee has said. The previous verse says, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4). What if a true believer falls into adultery? We know he could repent, but what if he doesn't? What if, as we have documented earlier, he lives in adultery as a lifestyle? Which part of this passage applies? Will it be "God will judge" or "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee"? According to McGee, it would be the latter. McGee says, "it does not matter...what you do." I think the writer of the book of Hebrews would disagree. Clearly, in the context, it DOES matter what you do! To be more specific, Hebrews 13:1-17 has no less than ten directives telling us what to do. Apparently, it matters a great deal what we do. To apply Hebrews 13:5 in an argument for eternal security is mythological.

Myth #9: "God Wouldn't Start Something He Didn't Intend to Finish"

I have heard Calvinists use this argument before. They base it on Philippians 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." This myth draws on the traditional Calvinistic thinking that speaks of God's limited atonement. Let me explain. The traditional Calvinists teach that the atonement of Jesus is limited in scope. It was never designed for everyone, rather it was only provided for the elect. The idea is that the perfect provision meets the need perfectly without waste. Then follows the question, why would the atonement be provided for all if all are not elect?

Most Calvinists have drifted from this line of thinking, however, our present myth is crouched in the dogma that placed God in a position not to waste His own efforts. In order to unravel this myth, we will need to prove this original premise false.

Does God ever invest energy into something that He knows will be destroyed? Absolutely! There are many examples of just such a thing. Just to name a few, God created the earth, and it will have an end (2 Peter 3:10). He gave Moses the Ten Commandments in stone knowing that those stones would be destroyed (Exodus 32:19). God even gave the Law knowing full well that it would be "done away" (2 Corinthians 3:7). I am not sure how many examples are necessary, but the point is clear, God does invest time and energy into things that He knows have an end.

Does God invest in men knowing that they will be destroyed? Absolutely! Again, we could find many examples. I think Adam and Eve would be a good place to start. God invested considerable time in them knowing that they were going to fall. Several years ago, I had an interesting insight in to the story of Adam and Eve. I have heard people say things like, "When I get to Heaven, I'm going to have a few things to say to Adam and Eve." I never really thought about it until the thought crossed my mind, _Are Adam and Eve even going to be in Heaven?_ I had always assumed that they would. After inspection, however, I am not as sure. First, they never truly repented of their sin. The Bible never indicates that they did so. They did not build an altar or make any effort for sacrifice. The teaching that insists that God atoned for their sins by sacrificing animals for them (thus the skins to cover their nakedness) is entirely speculation with no basis in Scripture. If that were true, it seems strange that He would turn them out of the Garden and over to death. If they were atoned for, they should have remained in his grace. There is no indication of such.

To the contrary, however, it was Cain and Abel that made the first sacrifices. The writers of Genesis were very careful to preserve when someone made an altar. We must assume that Adam and Eve did not do so. Also, there is no place in Scripture that indicates that they made any effort to reconcile to God. In fact, the Bible is very clear that it was in the third generation that men began to call on God. Before that, apparently they did not even try. "When the Bible says, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" (Genesis 4:26). If Adam and Eve lost the Garden of Eden, lost eternal life physically, and by all indication of Scripture lost eternally life spiritually, then God made considerable investment in two people that were destroyed.

There were plenty of others as well. Consider this! God caused Aaron's two eldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, to be ordained as priests. They were called by name by the Lord for this purpose and included in some very important moments (Exodus 24:1, 9, and 28:1), yet they were destroyed for offering strange fire (Leviticus 10:1). Why did God invest such time knowing that they were going to be burned?

Consider how much of an investment that God made in the first generation of Israelites that came out of Egypt. He showed them signs and wonders on Mt. Sinai, in Egypt, and in the wilderness. He gave them the priesthood, the Law, and even manna, yet in the end He littered the wilderness with their carcasses.

The parable of the fig tree says it best. Luke 13:6-9 records the passage of a man that invested in a questionable fig tree with full intentions of cutting it down if it did not produce. This is the way God operates. It as if God operates in the temporal world. We know that God transcends time. We know that He knows the end from the beginning, and that He has never had a surprise. Strangely enough, however, He often seems to operate with man as if He is living without foreknowledge. We know that He has foreknowledge, but on many occasions, it seems as if He chooses to operate as if He did not. The classic case of this is Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 18:20-21 records, "And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know." Was God really ignorant of what was going on in Sodom? Was He really unsure as to whether or not He would destroy these cities? I cannot imagine arguing that point. Even so, in the text, He participates as if He does not know the future.

The same thing happens in the book of Jeremiah 18:7-10. Look how the Lord speaks as if the future for a nation has yet to be determined:

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

How much effort did God expend sending prophets to Jerusalem before it was destroyed? Nearly a third of the Old Testament has that running theme. God called, but they refused. On and on and on. So we see that God has always been willing to expend energy on people even if He full well knows that their end will be a lost eternity.

Philippians 1:6 does not negate this premise. It says, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." There is no question that God's work will be completed, but does this guarantee our salvation? Hardly!

When I was a young preacher, I had a congregant that asked me, "Why do you always preach about what we are supposed to do rather than what God does?"

I answered quickly and without much thought, "His part will get done. It is our part that we need to be concerned about." Since that time, I hope that I have matured a bit (even in the content of my preaching), but the point is the same. God will always do His part. He is faithful. That does not mean that our salvation is guaranteed. It only guarantees that He will be faithful to His Word. He will do what He has promised to do. We, however, are perfectly free to fail of His grace. "Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled" (Hebrews 12:15). Philippians 1:6 is not a promise that we will be successful or, in the words of Calvinists, persevere.

Myth #10: God's Grace is Sufficient

"Grace" is one of the most abused and misunderstood terms in the modern Church. Every true believer is eternally grateful for the grace of God, but the way the term is used today is not at all the way it was intended in the New Testament, and to apply the words of Jesus about His grace being sufficient as an argument in favor of eternal security is nothing less than abuse to the text.

Most people think of grace in the simple definition of "unmerited favor." God bestows His favor upon us without any merit on our part. While even this definition of grace is debatable, the whole of grace is far beyond this. Grace is power! Before we deal with power, however, I want to shed some light on the modern usage of the term.

In many churches today, grace is taught as a covering for sin. Whether it is said outright or through implication, the congregant is led to believe that sin is covered by God's grace. You might be thinking, _Wait a minute. Isn't that the Gospel?_ True enough, but not as it is often implied. The modern teaching implies that grace covers our present sins. As an example, Don Fortner, in his web article _Absolute Forgiveness_ , states, "Though we sin a thousand times a day, as we all do, God will not charge his people with sin... Though you and I commit the most hideous offenses, God will not charge us with sin, if we are in Christ." This teaching is found nowhere in Scripture! In addition, if you are sinning "a thousand times a day," there is something grievously wrong. If you think you can commit "hideous offenses" and still be fine with God, then you are horribly mistaken.

When Jesus said, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9), He was not talking about a covering for sin. The statement regards a difficulty that Paul was facing. He called it "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me" (2 Corinthians 12:7). We really do not know what this problem was, however, it is quite obvious that Paul was not speaking of a habitual sin in his life. He possibly was speaking of some kind of physical infirmity or maybe even some kind of attack of the devil, but it seems quite a leap to say that Paul had a besetting sin that Jesus refused to deliver him from. Is that the kind of Savior we serve? Do we have a God that is willing to leave us in our sins? Jesus has "washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelation 1:5). He did not come to wash us IN our sins but FROM our sins. If the Gospel you preach does not have the power to deliver FROM sin then it is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

If we apply the words of Christ to a sinning believer, then we get a very confused picture of who Jesus is and what He is all about. Let me illustrate. A man comes to his pastor with an addiction to alcohol. The man says, "Pastor, I'd like to stop drinking, but I just can't seem to break through. I know drinking is wrong. What should I do?"

The pastor responds, "His grace is sufficient. God understands our weaknesses." The addicted man leaves comforted, not to mentioned terribly deceived.

I have heard Calvinists say that if a person is living in open sin, then they were never saved from the beginning. I would be more likely to agree with this than to look at the same person and say that God's grace is sufficient. I can think of another "grace" verse that seems more appropriate for this situation. "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:29).

The reality of grace is not that it is liberty to live in sin and go to Heaven. The reality of grace is the ability to have victory over sin and live holy. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:11-12). Grace becomes our teacher. It teaches us to live holy. It never ever teaches us to take comfort in present sin. Only the sins of the past are covered by grace. Those in the present are confronted by grace. Sins of the future are circumvented by grace. Therein lies the power.

When Jesus told Paul that His grace was sufficient, His grace was the power that Paul needed to overcome. As a believer, we have been given through the grace of God the power to overcome all sin in our lives. There is no sin that has the right to have dominion over you. God's grace is sufficient. You can be free by His grace.
Chapter 8

Suicide Is Not the Unpardonable Sin

One day, the wife of a Southern Baptist minister asked me, "Do you think it is possible for a person who commits suicide to go to Heaven?" As I began to speak with her about the subject, she shared this horrific story. She said that the pastor of her church had a daughter that committed suicide. The girl was going through some problems at the time. She was very deliberate in her own death as she lined the bathtub with plastic apparently to make it easy for those left behind to clean up after she was gone. I later learned that this all happened a good number of years ago, but it was still troubling this woman. What seemed to trouble her most was that her pastor along with her own husband were very adamant about the girl's eternal heavenly home. They insisted that she was in Heaven. Is this true? Is it possible for a Christian to commit suicide and still go to Heaven?

The Problem of Suicide

Suicide has become a major issue in the United States. From the perspective of a pastor, there are really two major concerns. First, we must do what is necessary to prevent suicide from taking the life of one of our own. Second, we must be ready to answer some very difficult questions in its wake if it ever does occur close enough to hurt our people. We must also be ready to counsel people through the grieving process in a way that would please the Lord.

When I was a young man, I was in a music group that traveled from church to church. At one particular church, there was a man that asked if he could speak to me. He then told me that he intended to kill himself after the concert. As I continued to talk to him, he asked, "Do you believe that if I kill myself I will go to Hell?" In spite of my discomfort, I told him that I did and proceeded to talk to him more. Shortly, I was very happy when a more experienced member of the group joined the conversation allowing me to slip away. I was not ready to face this type of situation, and I knew it.

Later, I related the situation to another member of the group. I was startled as he looked at me with a stern expression and said, "You didn't tell him he would go to Hell did you?" I admitted that I had. Upon hearing that, he shook his head in disgust and walked away. I was stunned and more than a little intimidated. Dealing with a suicidal man was distressing enough, but this additional entanglement left me feeling even more unsteady. Why was he so forceful?

I was not sure how to respond to his comment because I had never heard anyone say that a person could commit suicide and go to Heaven. This was a news flash to me. Nobody had ever taken the time to share with me how the proponents of eternal security ensure Heaven for many who commit suicide. I did not realize at the time how important this issue is to Calvinists. Now, I know it is crucial. Calvinist doctrine requires that if a one time believer commits suicide they must go to Heaven. What if Calvin was wrong?

Calvinistic Responses

It is a fact that many Calvinists believe that a person can go to Heaven by means of suicide. Their doctrine requires it. Otherwise, they would be placed in the position to denounce the salvation testimony of all persons that kill themselves. For the Calvinist, there is no other option because of the belief in the doctrine of eternal security. As a result, the Calvinist confidently proclaims in various terms that the deceased is peacefully resting in a heavenly home.

Mental Illness

One common way to affirm the heavenly resting place of the deceased is to attribute their last state as a mental illness; however, this brings up a new question that dives into the gap between the fields of modern psychology and Biblical Christian Counseling before the question of Calvinism can even be approached.

Jay Adams, in his masterpiece, _Competent to Counsel_ , takes on the daunting task of contrasting the modern methods and underlying assumptions of modern psychology to the teachings of the Bible. His research indicates that there is a vast difference between the two and the difference is irreconcilable. One of the major pillars of Adams' teaching is his outright denial of the concept of mental illness. He readily recognizes that there may be damage to the brain through trauma, disease, and drugs or other chemical imbalances, but he absolutely refuses to grant mental illnesses that are not categorically medical. Modern psychology speaks of emotional illnesses/disorders such as schizophrenia, multiple personality disorders, bi-polar, depression, and such. Adams contends that these are not diseases at all as they have no basis in the physical make-up of the brain. To him, they are all byproducts of sin and its companion—guilt.

Psalm 107 gives us some insight into the mindset of a person before they commit suicide: "Fools because of their transgression, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted. Their soul abhorreth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of death" (107:17-18). Psalm 38 also speaks of the severe depression that people experience before they kill themselves, and the source of the misery is sin. "For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me." (38:4). "My heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me" (38:10). In both of these Psalms, however, the distressed person turns to the Lord and is saved, but what happens when a person does not turn to God?

If Adams is correct concerning mental illness, and I believe he is, then what does this say about claiming mental illness as a factor in suicide? It says that mental illness, as classified by modern psychology, is the product of sin. Then ultimately suicide is the product of sin as well. If so called illness is induced by sin and the illness brings suicide, then the suicide is the fruit of the sin. This should not be surprising as the Bible says that this is the case. James 1:15 says, "And sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." So to put this all together, the Calvinist pastor stands before the congregation at the funeral of a person who committed suicide and proclaims that mental illness (which resulted from sin) was ultimately the cause of this tragedy; therefore, the deceased is in Heaven. Is this what the Bible teaches?

What does the Bible really say concerning suicide? To begin, the precedent for God's concern about human life is abundantly clear throughout the Bible. Starting with Cain and Abel, there is a clear pronouncement from the Almighty concerning ending a human life. The Ten Commandments includes "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). Is there any way to reconcile suicide and the sixth commandment? We often use the terms "killed himself" as equivalent to suicide. Is this the same as murder? If so, then 1 John 3:15 is relevant when it says, "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." If we put a person who commits suicide in Heaven, then would we not also need to proclaim a Heavenly home for a person who dies in the act of killing someone else? I heard one Calvinist go so far. John teaches otherwise on both counts.

Demonic Activity

I have heard of Calvinists that explain suicide by attributing the despair and depression of the deceased to demonic activity. While I completely agree with their conclusion, I find it quite interesting for two reasons. First, many modern Calvinists deny or at least minimize the reality of demonic activity in present day America. This may not represent all of the Calvinists; however, this is not an unusual understanding. If a Calvinist who minimizes demonic activity turns to attribute suicide to demonic activity then this is a convenient inconsistency. The second reason that I find this response interesting is because it readily admits to the power of demonic forces over a saved person. Is this the message that we intend to convey? Is it the message of the Bible?

I find it difficult to imagine looking at this world, particularly the psychiatric mayhem that fills our institutions, without recognizing demonic activity. Denying demonic activity in the modern age violently clashes with both my intellect and experience. I most definitely believe that demonic activity exists; therefore, it is not difficult for me to believe that people who have committed suicide were troubled by demons.

I also have no difficulty believing that a demon can be troublesome to a true believer. Otherwise, Paul would not warn the believers at Ephesus: "Neither give place to the devil" (Ephesians 4:27). I do not even have trouble with the idea of a true believer being completely overcome by demons provided they open the door as Paul warns against. My question is not about the demonic activity. I want to know the condition of the person's soul. If a true believer opens the door to demonic activity to the point that they are completely overcome and kill themselves, were they still a true believer at that time?

When you consider a truly demonized person, the qualities that you will find are very far from the qualities that the New Testament ascribes to true believers. For example, if you attempt to compare the commonly observed behaviors of a suicidal person to the list of qualities a believer is supposed to have, there are no similarities. A suicidal person is usually severely depressed, withdrawn, refuses to eat, fails to groom, and other common symptoms. The Bible describes the believer as a person that is full of faith, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, temperance, etc. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). Suicidal people do not produce Christian fruit. Jesus said this was indicative. Can an absolutely fruitless demonized person go to Heaven? When Jesus said, "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away," I don't think He was meaning that they are taken away to Heaven. More likely as Jesus continued, "Men gather them, and cast them into the fire" (John 15:2, 6).

Suicide Is Not the Unpardonable Sin

In a rather intense conversation, I once discussed the subject of suicide with a prison chaplain. His response was, "Suicide is not the unpardonable sin!" I really don't like clichés. Most people who use them do not even stop to consider their validity, and what is even more bothersome is that they use them as if they have somehow dealt the ultimate argument. Nevertheless, his response was not very surprising. I had heard it before.

As I continued to speak to the chaplain, I said, "Are you saying that a Christian who commits suicide goes to Heaven?"

He answered affirmatively and then explained how people often go through hard times and make bad choices.

I continued, "Are you saying that if I have a bad day, I can just shoot myself and go straight to Heaven? I suppose I could just go to Heaven later today."

He was a little surprise, but he managed to say, "Yeah, but you won't."

There is no escaping the end of this logic. If Christian people who commit suicide go to Heaven, then we can all go whenever we want. We can go today or wait till tomorrow if we like. Just keep the gun loaded for that special occasion.

Now, we will have a look at the absurdity of the idea that suicide is not the unpardonable sin. This is a blatant effort to shift the argument. The unpardonable sin is not in question when discussing suicide. Nobody is comparing suicide to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I am only familiar with two Calvinistic teachings concerning the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. One says that it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to take the words of Christ and attribute them to the devil. The other says that it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to continue in unbelief until your death. Interestingly enough, if the second of these definitions is true, suicidal people are not living by faith. The opposite of living by faith would be to live in unbelief. Some suicidal people may have a testimony of conversion, but if they are living in unbelief to the point that they take their own lives, then they may indeed fulfill this definition of blasphemy of the Spirit as defined by many Calvinists.

Could we not apply this same principle to other sins like stubbornness? Stubbornness is a sin that causes people to refuse to repent. It is likened to idolatry in 1 Samuel 15:23. Stubbornness is not the unforgivable sin. Does a person that dies in unrepentant stubbornness go to Heaven? We could go on and on with examples because ultimately any sin can be said not to be the unpardonable sin, yet any sin for which a person refuses or even fails to repent can and will be damning to their soul. Ultimately, it does not matter whether or not suicide is the unpardonable sin.

Even if, in theory, suicide is forgivable, a person must repent to be forgiven (1 John 1:9, see also Luke 13:3, 5) When would this happen? Some scoffers have suggested that if a man jumps from a tall enough building, he could repent on the way down. I will let one of them try that to see if it works. Jesus said, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12). In addition, a suicidal person does not repent on the way down. They look forward to the end. They are not trying to delay it. They are trying to embrace it, but what if it is not really the end after all? What if the Calvinists are wrong about this?

The danger of this teaching is that it inevitably provides the wrong kind of hope to the suicidal. Who would really commit suicide if they truly believed that a burning Hell awaited them on the other side of the pavement? Who would pull the trigger to escape the terrors of the earth if they truly believed that they would be eternally tormented in a real and painful Hell forever as the Bible teaches? If, however, Calvinistic teaching can somehow convince the suicidal person that there is hope in death, then fear of self-annihilation can be overcome. If the penalty for sin can be wiped away, at least in the mind, then the suicidal person can muster the nerve to trust in the unknown. If the penalty is taken away, then the suicidal person is just like Eve in the Garden of Eden when she thought that she would not surely die! But, she did!

Hope for the Suicidal

The only hope for the suicidal is the truth. Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Jay Adams, in his advice to the Christian counselor, advocates a method of bringing suicidal persons to face the sins that have put them in that condition. He states,

In suicidal cases, when a client has such a low opinion of himself that he thinks the world would be better off without him, it only hurts to deny that his low estimate is valid. Counselors should acknowledge that he is probably right about the present worthlessness of his life, and should attempt to discover how bad he has been. However, they should take issue with his proposed solution, and instead point him to God's solution through repentance and holy living.

### Chapter 9

Salvation Killers

The Bible teaches us that we are not ignorant of the devices of the devil (2 Corinthians 2:11). In reality, however, many Christians are ignorant. They go about as if the world is a great place to live without ever stopping to realize that they are walking through a minefield. We do have a real enemy, and he is looking for Christians to destroy. 1 Peter 5:8 says, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Don't pretend that you are not on the menu.

In this chapter, I intend to reveal several of the murder weapons that the enemy uses against unsuspecting believers. I call these salvation killers. Hopefully, this will help you be alert to the devices of the enemy so that you can escape his treachery.

Unforgiveness

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches us to pray. Immediately following the recitation of what we call the Lord's Prayer, Jesus makes a stunning statement concerning forgiveness. He says, "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matthew 6:15). Is our forgiveness really contingent on our own forgiving?

We have already discussed the parable of the unforgiving servant that is recorded in Matthew 18:21-35 as one that stands in opposition to the Calvinistic teaching of eternal security. If we look closer, we will understand why. In this parable a very interesting turn of events takes place that must not be overlooked. The king forgave his servant, but upon hearing how his servant behaved, he reversed the forgiveness. Matthew 18:27 records, "Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt." It was done. The servant was no longer responsible to pay his debt. It was forgiven. Look, however, at the end of the parable. "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (Matthew 18:34). The forgiveness was effectively reversed. The debt that had been canceled was once again effective. This servant was once again responsible to pay all. This is startling, but the next verse is even more so when it says, "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (18:35).

As believers, we all take great comfort to know that our sins have been forgiven by God. We know that every wicked thing that we have ever done is covered by the blood of Jesus. We also know that when we stand before God at the end of our lives, we will not be accountable for the sins of our past. This is the heritage of the children of faith. Yet, what if it is possible for our forgiveness to be canceled? Is this what Jesus was teaching? If we refuse to forgive, is our forgiveness really canceled like that of the servant in the story? Can this be explained as hypothetical?

Can you imagine the forgiveness that you have enjoyed being canceled? Can you imagine standing before God completely responsible and uncovered for every lie that you have told, every lustful look, and every hateful thought? Can you imagine paying the full penalty for your own sins one by one until the debt is fully paid? The Bible teaches that you would never be able to pay your debt. You would burn in Hell forever "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). "For our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29).

What does this teaching say to the modern church? How many people are there that sit on church pews each and every week that hold grudges against their neighbors, relatives, or even the pastor that preaches to them? Ask any experienced Christian counselor, unforgiveness is a major issue. It paralyzes relationships in families, and it immobilizes entire churches.

If you want to find a miserable person, just look for someone that refuses to forgive. That person will be a very unhappy person. They will be unhappy on their jobs, at home, and anywhere else they frequent. How much more so is this true for a Christian? The reason for this is quite simple. The Bible says, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (Psalm 32:1). If God reverses a person's forgiveness, then that person is no longer blessed! How can they be blessed if they are not forgiven? The only thing left is misery, but what if there is more?

What if misery on this earth is only the beginning of misery? What happens when an unforgiving person stands before the Creator of Heaven and Earth? What will be the verdict if their sins are not forgiven? Will their misery end upon death as they are ushered into a celestial home? Think not!

Hatred

Hatred is the natural outflow of unforgiveness, and the two are ultimately inseparable. Even so, we will deal with hatred as an entity in and of itself as there are extreme consequences for this sin. Before we do so, however, we will need to establish one fact based on reality that will help us clearly define how hatred can kill the salvation of a true Christian.

Let it never be said that it is impossible for a true believer to fall into hatred. Any person that denies this temptation lives in a sheltered and unreal world. If we do not forgive people, then bitterness sets in, and hatred is the fruit of that bitterness. Let it also never be said that true Christians always forgives eventually. This is a hypothetical straw-man like when Calvinists say that the person was never saved from the beginning. True Christians are tempted to nurse grudges. True believers do find themselves tempted to feed bitterness. True believers are tempted to hate. Some fall into this temptation. So, what does the Bible say?

1 John deals with this issue directly. The contrast between love and hate is presented in the text in such a way that there is no question what John intends to communicate. He writes, "He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:14-15). To drive this point home, 1 John 4:20 teaches, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" Also remember that Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22).

Someone might argue that this kind of hatred proves that a person was never saved. I don't think this is the answer. Instead, the Bible teaches that bitterness can spring up in a believer. Paul says that a husband should be careful to avoid bitterness toward his own wife: "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them" (Colossians 3:19). The writer of the book of Hebrews says that bitterness can happen in a believer. Even more, it can be the mark of ruin. "Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled" (Hebrews 12:15). However you divide this verse, bitterness brings either the defiling of many or causes people to fail the grace of God or likely both.

The most surprising element in all of this is the gross hatred that is demonstrated in churches all over the country. Churches are split apart by factions that war against one another. There is no question that "thereby many be defiled." Do we say that these believers were never saved? Sometimes that may be true but surely not always. Do we say that they are still on the path to Heaven in the midst of their hatred? This would be a clear contradiction of the Bible.

Again, 1 John teaches, "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love" (4:8). Love, being categorically opposed to hate, is then the measure by which we know God. People who operate in hatred are not operating in love. It is safe to say that they do not know God? If a person is in a state of not knowing God, do they go to Heaven when they die? What if they once did know God, but are now embroiled in a web of hatred? How do we interpret this intricate and often repeated scenario?

The truth is that if you allow hatred to become part of your life it will stifle and eventually kill your salvation. It is unreasonable to assume or conclude that a true Christian cannot hate. It is not Biblical to support the eternal salvation of a person full of hatred. It is, therefore, necessary to understand that a true Christian can be tempted and fall into hatred thus bringing the real potential of damnation.

Lying

Is it possible for a true Christian to tell a lie? I think that anyone who answers that it is not would be guilty of the same. True Christians lie. Unfortunately, Christian lies are quite frequent. This is very sad, but ultimately true in the house of God. If lying has a place in your life, you must deal with it. Revelation 21:8 says that "all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." I am disposed to believe that this indeed means all liars.

Recently, my wife was talking to a man that told her with a grin, "I'd lie to you." What a frightening indictment against his own soul. On another occasion, she had a co-worker that made this memorable statement: "I won't lie to you; I do tell lies." Both of these examples came from unconverted people. Unconverted people are sometimes strangely honest in their dishonesty. Christian people are not. They are almost never willing to admit that they tell lies, yet often they do. Many have become so hardened to their lies that they feel almost no conviction about them.

How many Christians will "shade the truth" about simple things? Using the proverbial example, how big was that fish after all? If you will lie about fishing, you will lie about anything! Christians tell the same kinds of lies that the people of the world tell. Women often lie about their age or weight. I know of one very prominent Christian woman that did so. Men often lie about their feats of triumph. Many pastors are guilty of this by embellishing their stories from the pulpit. We live in a world that is overrun by fiction. Why not invent your own version of your life and share it? That's what the world does, and Christians are not an exception. Some Christians make money that they never document on their taxes. Some receive money from the government through fraudulent paperwork. The list could go on and on. Christians do tell lies.

I was once invited to visit a church member that was considering leaving the church. He had been a well respected member of the church and had even taught the adult Sunday School class for quite a while. In that interview, he said, "If I thought the Lord wanted me to, I'd give my entire paycheck to the church!" After the interview, I learned that he did not even tithe.

I knew a pastor that held a meeting with one of his associates. Before the meeting, he promised that there would be no surprises at the meeting. During the meeting, however, that same associate was given a letter that announced his termination.

On another occasion, I learned of a teenaged girl that became pregnant. She was the daughter of one of the deacons of the church. A few months later, the pastor of the church told me personally that it was a false alarm. The girl was not pregnant. I believed him. It was only later that I learned the truth of the matter. In reality, the girl was forced by her father to have an abortion. The pastor knew this, but chose to cover it up with a lie. Just as a footnote to this, the Bible gives clear directions as to how this should have been handled. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:19-20).

In addition to blatant examples, there are many lies that prevent proper relationship healing and maintenance. To illustrate this, you have probably known someone that said, "I don't have anything against you." Yet, in reality, there is clearly a problem. No matter how many times you ask, you get the same answer: "There is nothing wrong." It doesn't fix the problem to deny its existence. It only creates a new one. Some wives do this to their husbands. They refuse to admit that they are hurt, but maintain a cold pouting distance for hours. This is lying.

Many times lies hide in the guise of social norms. Christians tell other Christians, "I love you with the love of the Lord," when in realty they are nursing some grudge against that person. Many Christians will pretend to like you even if they don't. If we could only know what they say when we leave the room. They will smile to your face and curse you to your back. Sometimes, it is very difficult to get these individuals to be truly honest about anything. Are these people on their way to the pearly gates? Remember, "all liars" go into the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).

Flattery is a form of lying that is normally quite acceptable in the churches. People tell a sister that her broccoli casserole was nice when, in fact, it was nearly unbearable. People tell their pastor that they enjoyed the sermon when in reality they were bored. Watch out for someone who speaks of everything in grand and glorious terms. You will not know what they really think. This is dishonest. The Bible tells us to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). Many Calvinists approach these types of sins by referring to 1 Corinthians 3:15, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." This verse, however, is not referring to sin but rather worthless works. To apply 1 Corinthians 3:15 to sin is erroneous teaching. Worthless works cause us to lose reward. Sinful works cause us to fall into judgement. "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons" (Colossians 3:25).

When we take time to consider how God feels about lying, we can learn why this is a salvation killer. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists lying as one of the six things God hates. Even these are abomination. Why is lying in this list? It conflicts with God's nature so much that it is incomprehensible for God to endure it. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He wants to be one with us, but He is not willing to be one with anything other than the truth. How can He become one with a liar? It would pollute His nature. We must be purified in order to be with Him. It must be for this reason that liars will not be permitted to enter into the celestial city: "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" (Revelation 22:15).

So, what happens to a person that truly believes in Jesus Christ and truly surrenders to Him but then continues to tell lies? What if Calvin was wrong?

Unbelief

The book of Hebrews masterfully delineates the power of unbelief in the life of a believer. This sounds like a strange thing to say. Can unbelief become a reality in the life of a believer? The writer of Hebrews apparently thought so: "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God" (Hebrews 3:12, emphasis added). If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you have likely gone through a test of faith. James speaks of these and says that we should count it as joy (James 1:2). Why would he say this? Mature Christians know that it is through these tests of faith that we come to a confident trust in the Savior. If we did not have the tests, we would be fair-weather Christians. The tests make us strong.

One of the common elements in tests of faith is exactly that. They test our faith. What does that mean? It means simply that we are tested to see whether or not we will believe God in the midst of our trial. As an example of this kind of trial, I will tell you the story of my uncle, Paul. I never met Paul. I only know his story. Last year, I had the opportunity to stand over his grave and also visit the site of his departure from this earth. To me, it is still meaningful even though it happened many years before my birth. When Paul was nine years old, he was invited by one of his older cousins to go for a swim in the river that ran nearby to his house. He was undoubtedly happy to go. My mother was only six at the time, but she tells how she can remember looking down the road watching for him to come home. Paul did not come home that day. In fact, Paul never came home because both he and the older cousin drowned without explanation. This event left a ripple effect in our family that has lasted for sixty years, but what it did in the lives of my grandparents was devastating. They were never the same.

Have you ever had a faith shaking experience? Have you ever gone through something so extreme that you considered giving up? I hear many people testify of this feeling. They feel like giving up. It is in that moment that they are being tempted to fall into unbelief. Will they fail the test? My grandparents could easily have turned against God during the aftermath of Paul's death. They could have easily questioned God's sovereignty or His love. They could have blamed God as many people do when they go through tragedy.

It is easy for a bystander to look into the face of a hurting devastated person and say, "Don't blame God." It is quite another to look into the coffin of your son or daughter and, like Job, refuse to sin with your lips (Job 2:10). Many look into that coffin and say to God, "Why did You let this happen?" It is easy for a person that watches their family fall apart to say to their Maker, "If you can't help me, then why should I serve you?" This is why it is called a test of faith. Your faith will indeed be tested. On the other side of the fine line that separates faith from unbelief is a dark and mysterious world. Many people retreat to the comfort zone when they reach the edge of their ability to believe. They take offense at God, and they run. This may be why Jesus said, "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Matthew 11:6).

Still the question remains. Can a believer sin the sin of unbelief? If you recall the familiar story of Matthew 17, when Jesus came down the mount of transfiguration, He was met by a crowd of people. A man had brought his son to the disciples, but they could not cast out the devil and cure the boy. When an opportune time came, the disciples asked Jesus why they could not cast out the devil. His answer is interesting: "Because of your unbelief" (Matthew 17:20, see also Matthew 28:17). Unbelief was active in the lives of the most dedicated believers in Christ. There is no question that unbelief can plague a true believer.

The next question follows: to what extent can unbelief operate in a true believer? The word "unbelief" occurs four times in the book of Hebrews and presents an interesting message to believers, as the whole book of Hebrews was written to believers. Preserving the order of the verses, we will start with 3:12, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." Here we see it is "brethren" that are addressed. The pronoun "you" indicates that this statement was meant for the original reader and not some stranger on the side. The obvious warning here is for believers to "take heed." Take heed of what? Take heed of the fact that unbelief can and will lead you to depart from God. Granted, you might not depart from going to church, but unbelief will cause your departure from the faith.

The second mention of unbelief in Hebrews is in the same chapter: "So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief" (3:19). In the context of the chapter, this is talking about the children of Israel that died in the wilderness. The elect of God could not enter into the promise because of unbelief. We have to remember that God does not have respect of persons (Colossians 3:25). We must remember that these were the people that ate manna in the wilderness, followed Moses, saw the glory of God on Mt. Sinai, ate the quail, and drank water from the rock. My point is that they did not depart the assembly and formally say "good bye" to God. They still huddled around the sanctuary. They still ate the manna. They still attended the feasts. Do you get my point? They did not depart from attending church.

Often, when we think of the true apostate, we look for some fool who was raised in church but abandoned the faith to proclaim his faith in atheism and hatred toward God and His Word. Granted, there are plenty of those around, but in the context of Hebrews 3, the apostates were still following Moses and Aaron until their deaths. It would be nice if all of the apostates would leave the church and proclaim themselves so. In truth, this is not the case (see the chapter titled, "The Age Old Problem"). Many of them are still with us. They oppose progress, interfere with the move of God, and try to control the church through politics. They are insubordinate and malicious all the while wearing the garments of sheep (Jude 10-13).

The third mention of unbelief is in Hebrews 4:6, "Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief." Here, the door is open to us. No longer is this speaking of entering into the promised land. This is speaking of entering into the rest of God. This is spiritual rather than geographical. They didn't enter the land, but we have a chance to enter into the true rest. There is no question but that this passage is now talking about Heaven and Hell.

The last reference is Hebrews 4:11, "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." There are several implications in this verse that I will mention briefly. First, what happens if we don't "labour"? Do we still get to enter? This is an example of the conditional nature of grace. Salvation is not automatic. Second, we see that labor is necessary. Salvation does not come without works even though it cannot be earned by works (we will spend considerable time on these first two points in the chapter titled, "Hazard Lights"). Third, for this chapter's purpose, there is a real danger that we (born again Christians) can fall like the children of Israel did and fail to enter Heaven. Where else would we go? What if Calvin was wrong about this? True apostasy is possible and even probable if we do not "take heed" and "labour" as Hebrews teaches us to do.
Chapter 10

The Age Old Problem

I visited a church one time where I heard a woeful story. There was a division in the congregation between the older members and the younger members. The division, at least on the surface, was over music. The older people did not want to allow modern instruments such as drums into the church for worship. The younger people did not see any problem with this, and thus, the division began.

In this situation, our first reaction may be one of frustration because we may be able to see the validity of each side of the argument. We certainly cannot let every fad enter into our worship. At the same time, even the piano was a new invention about 200 years ago. Should we remove pianos from our churches?

On the surface, this seems like the generational conflict that our culture has propagated, but there may be something deeper that we need to investigate. What if these elderly people had fallen victim to the Age Old Problem?

In a recent prayer meeting, my wife selected a number out of the hymnal for us to sing. It was the old hymn, O Sacred Head Now Wounded. As we sang the song, we sang the last stanza which clearly and succinctly expresses what I call the Age Old Problem. It says,

What language shall I borrow

To thank Thee, dearest Friend,

For this Thy dying sorrow,

Thy pity without end?

O make me Thine forever,

And should I fainting be,

Lord, let me never, never

Outlive my love to Thee.

Is this possible? Is it possible for a person to outlive their faith? Is this Biblical? Does the Bible support such a bold statement? What if Calvin was wrong?

As we look through the Bible, we will discover that the Age Old Problem is not new. It has been documented thoroughly. The key elements of the problem are both clear and repeated. A person starts off well with the Lord. Gradually as they begin to age, they begin to grow distant until they find themselves in the throes of apostasy.

Biblical Background

One of the classic examples in the Bible that illustrates the age old problem is the life of Solomon. Nobody could argue about the greatness of Solomon's beginnings. In reading through the accounts in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles, it is clear that Solomon was nothing less than a devoted follower of God. His prayer at the dedication of the Temple climaxes the whole of his life's work up to that point. Once the Temple was finished; however, Solomon set his mind on other things. Through the influence of his many wives, Solomon began to drift farther and farther from the Lord. Eventually, he became the pessimistic preacher of Ecclesiastes.

For a moment, I want to contrast Solomon's beginning and end. When considering Solomon at the time of the dedication of the temple and then at the writing of Ecclesiastes, it is hard to imagine that this is the same person. It is amazing what a slow slide over many years can do to a person spiritually. Solomon's end was not like his beginning. Instead of leaving a legacy of greatness, he left a legacy of idolatry. This is the Age Old Problem in action.

Another example of the Age Old Problem comes in the life of Asa (1 Kings 15:8-24, 2 Chronicles 14:1-16:14). This man started off well. He had impressive military victories and even removed the idols from Judah and Benjamin, but when he was old, things changed. 2 Chronicles 16 details the gradual fall of this once great king. Apparently, over the course of his long reign, he began to lose confidence in God. When it came time for war, he made an alliance with Syria for help, but the Lord sent a prophet to rebuke him. Asa put the prophet in prison and began to rule poorly. Finally, he had a disease in his feet, but refused to seek the Lord. Instead, he turned to doctors.

Another grievous case of the Age Old Problem is found in the life of Uzziah. Most Christians are familiar with the name Uzziah because of the grandiose vision of Isaiah that begins, "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple" (Isaiah 6:1). The story behind this vision is not as familiar as it is a story of great sadness. Uzziah was one of the best kings that Judah ever had. His life was exemplary. 2 Chronicles 26 tells of his greatness. He continued as king for 52 years, but in his latter days, he made a terrible choice. He decided to offer incense in the temple. The priests confronted him, but he wouldn't listen. At that time, God broke out on him with leprosy, and he died a leper. As a result, he was buried in a field rather than in the city of David as most of his predecessors had been.

The fall of Joash was even worse. 2 Chronicles 24 tells his tragic story. Joash became king at only seven years old. He was mentored by a Godly priest named Jehoiada. As long as Jehoiada was alive, Joash was a great king. Of his own mind, he repaired the temple (2 Chronicles 24:4). He was quite diligent about the matter, but when Jehoiada died, Joash made a drastic turn. The people turned to idolatry and like the days of the Judges, God sent in the enemy to oppress. Eventually, Joash killed one of Jehoiada's sons for prophesying against him. Then he was killed himself by a conspiracy. The interesting thing about Joash is that he only lived to the age of 47. For him, the Age Old Problem did not wait till old age.

What about the New Testament? It would be easy for a someone to say, "There is no example of this in the New Testament!" This is not true. Apparently, this is exactly what happened to Demas (2 Timothy 4:10). One of the reasons, however, that we do not see many examples of the Age Old Problem in the New Testament is that Acts is the only narrative of the early Church. The purpose of the book of Acts was to relate the spread of the Gospel. It was not intended to cover every detail of Christian experience. Also, the book of Acts ends its narrative only thirty years after Christ's ascension. The young Christian Church, especially the Gentile churches established by Paul, may not have had time to see the effects of the Age Old Problem by that point in history. We do know that it existed in the New Testament, however, because it is carefully documented in the book of Hebrews. The book of Hebrews is almost entirely written as a warning against the Age Old Problem. Continually, throughout the book, warnings are given for believers to be diligent in holding on to the faith. As time had passed, these believers were showing signs of weariness. The beginning of the book warns, "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip" (Hebrews 2:1). In the middle it is said, "And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end" (Hebrews 6:11), and toward the end it says, "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds" (Hebrews 12:3).

The Problem Persists

One of the greatest tragedies in the churches is the repeated theme of older members who fall prey to the Age Old Problem. They sit on the pews week after week, pay tithes, and occupy positions on the board, but their spiritual life has long since vanished away. How can this happen? There are several ways, but the end of each is the same. The Age Old Problem produces spiritually bankrupt elderly people that fill the churches, stifle the growth of the kingdom, and dominate church politics.

Start With a Full Glass of Water

How can a glass of water become empty? Well, obviously, you could pour out its contents, or you could break the glass so that its contents spill. In each of these answers, the glass becomes empty quickly. This does not demonstrate the age old problem. The age old problem happens slowly. Another way a glass can become empty is to simply do nothing. If you put a full glass of water on the table, it will eventually become empty without your help. We commonly call this evaporation. Natural laws demonstrate spiritual laws, so we should expect that there is something for us to learn in this. What I am about to share with you is frightening. Even so, it is in the Bible, so we better pay attention.

If we apply what we know about evaporation to the life of a believer, we get a picture that looks like this. The person starts off well. They are full of the life and love of Christ. They are healthy and vibrant, but they take this health and vibrancy for granted. They begin to focus on the past more than the present. Their devotion life starts to wane. This is, of course, gradual. It may even take years. Ultimately, they come to the conclusion that a daily time of devotion is not really all that necessary if they go to church, thus church attendance becomes the soul lifeline to their spirituality. After years of this, they really do not receive that much from attendance. They attend out of habit, tradition, to visit with friends, or even out of guilt. They may speak out with strong opinions which generally oppose progress, thus further deluding their own consciences to believe that they are fine. In truth, however, they are as Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27). All of the life and vitality has vanished over time. It happened so slowly that they are not even aware of it even if they do look back with nostalgia on the "good old days."

The book of James speaks on this subject quite pointedly. He asks, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? . . . Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:14, 17). How long will it take for an absence of works to kill your faith? Oh, don't be mistaken. If you stop living a life of obedience before God, your faith will die. You don't even need to go out and commit a major sin. Just stop listening to His voice and following His leading. Your faith will dissipate just like the water in the glass.

Have you ever looked at a glass that evaporated? What is left? All that is left is a dirty film coating the inside of the glass. Does this describe many of the older generation in our churches today? I am not writing this to throw stones at the elderly. God forbid! There are many vibrant and Godly elderly people. I have been blessed to know some aged and blessed saints of God, but what about the others? What about the ones that are cantankerous? What about the ones that have nothing to say unless it is to complain? What about the ones that oppose the young rather than encourage them?

Now, let us examine the scenario that was presented at the beginning of the chapter between the old and young constituents fighting over music. Could it be that God wanted to use music to win the lost youth of that town? What Godly person would want to shut the youth out of the Church? What Godly person would sacrifice the youth on the altar of tradition? The kind that have fallen victim to the Age Old Problem will do so. Was this what was happening? Who could know? We must at least open the door to this as a possibility. If you love your traditions more than you love people then something is definitely wrong.

The Dead Sea

The most deadly thing that you can do to a water system is remove the outlet. The Dead Sea has no outlet. It is the deadest place on the planet. Nothing lives in its water. Why? It has no outlet. There is no outflow. The Jordan River and numerous other freshwater streams flow into it. They have fish and wildlife, but it has none. Everything that flows into it dies.

Does this happen to believers? Do believers who fail to outflow die on the inside? Just imagine what life would be like if you did not have a physical outlet to your body? How long would you live? Believers were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). What happens when you fail or refuse to do the ones that have been designated for you to do?

There was a man that attended my church when I was a young boy. He was a nice guy, but he was one of the most miserable people that you could ever imagine. One day, I learned the source of his misery. He had a calling on his life to preach the Gospel, but because of fear, he had never fulfilled that calling. It was like capping off a live spring. The man had no outlet. As time went on, he eventually began to question whether or not he was even saved. Why would he think this way? He was dying. He even knew it, but still he did not take up the pulpit of his calling. I am not sure he ever did.

One of the most dangerous things that a person can do is retire. It is fine to quit working a secular job, but never retire from working for the King of kings. There is always something that you can do to be of value in His economy. This is one mistake that many elderly people make. They retire from their jobs, move to Florida, and quit working in the house of God. This is a terrible and tragic mistake. Do not stop the outlet of the grace of God in your life. You will die just like the Dead Sea.

The Stagnant Pool

A realtor once showed me a house that had a stagnant swimming pool. It was green. I am not talking about the beautiful green of an aquarium. I am talking about the scum lined green of a septic tank. Stinky! Is it possible for the Age Old Problem to produce rotting stinking former believers? Some Christians grow old gracefully. Others do not. What is the difference? In my experience, those that grow old well are constantly learning and constantly giving of themselves in one way or another. Those that do not grow old well fail to do one and probably both. Rottenness sets in. Stink prevails.

I once knew a lady that presented herself as a vibrant and exuberant Christian. I believed her. She would sing and lift her hands with the smile of radiance during the music portion of the service. She was not exactly a widow, but we sent one of our Sunday School classes out to help her repair and clean her house. A team of ten or more adults spent an entire Saturday working for her. I'll guarantee that none of them will do it again. This lady's attitude was so hateful that she actually accused these people of refusing to help her. Eventually, this accusation spread to the whole church. Pity the man that tried to correct her.

I know another lady that may have been a wonderful child of God at one point in time, but I can't see it now. In a casual observation of her life, the only fruits that readily appear are gossip, slander, deceit, manipulation, and fear. Stinky! If you think about it, I am sure you can name names as well. Could it be that the Age Old Problem is the cause?

Walking with God

Micah 6:8 says, "Walk humbly with thy God." One of my favorite stories in the Bible is told in only one verse. "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (Genesis 5:24). Enoch should qualify as an elderly person as he lived to be 365 years old. In his day, he was a youngster, but he lived well long enough to fall prey to the Age Old Problem. The secret to his success was the walk.

We are all invited to walk with God. All we have to do to stop walking with Him is stop walking. What if Peter had stopped walking with Jesus? Would Jesus have stopped with him? Jesus gave him the chance to stop in John 6:66-68, but Peter refused. Don't be like Solomon, Asa, Uzziah, or Joash. Don't evaporate or stagnate. If you fail to take measures against the Age Old Problem, it will become a problem in your life. What if Calvin was wrong?
Chapter 11

Holding the Holy Spirit Hostage

It is the common understanding of Christians in general that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in a true believer. The oft quoted verse states, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:9). The question raised by this issue is quite simple. Can the Holy Spirit leave a true believer or not? The claim of the Calvinist is that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to depart from a saved person.

To comprehend the Calvinist argument, we will briefly discuss Psalm 51. David composed Psalm 51 in the aftermath of his experience with Bathsheba. It is well known as his Psalm of repentance. In this Psalm, he made a statement that is quite relevant to our current topic. He said, "Take not thy holy spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11). J. Vernon McGee in his commentary, _Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee_ , writes, "By the way, no Christian today can pray that prayer, because if you are indwelt by the Spirit of God, He will never leave you. You can grieve Him, you can quench Him, but you can never grieve Him away or quench Him away. . . Therefore no child of God can lose the Spirit of God."

If Calvin was wrong, then it is possible for a person to forfeit salvation and become lost. This would require that the Holy Spirit depart from the fallen believer. If Calvin was wrong, then does the Bible give us a picture of what falling looks like? If Calvin was right, then how does that scenario change? There are two places in the Bible that give us a good idea how and why the Holy Spirit can leave a person. If the Holy Spirit cannot depart in the dispensation of grace, then what does that look like?

Samson and Saul

Samson is one of the most interesting and perplexing characters in the Bible. His life is full of adventure, but it also presents some complicated theological difficulties. Rather than get into the intricacies of Samson, however, it is my intention to concentrate only on the charismatic element of his life. Like several of the other judges, Samson had the powerful experience in which the Spirit of the Lord came upon him. For others, this seemed to be a single and very temporary event. For Samson, it was more than that. Samson is recorded as having the Spirit of the Lord come upon him on three separate occasions (Judges 13:25, 14:6, 14:19). This makes him one of the most charismatically inspired figures in the Old Testament.

When we understand the background of Samson and the Spirit, it sets the stage for one of the most startling verses in Scripture. As the story moves forward, Samson finds himself lured into revealing the secret of his strength. Once the secret was out, he was vulnerable as never before. The Bible does not leave us to guess what happened. It tells us plainly. "And he wist not that the LORD was departed from him" (Judges 16:20).

In analyzing this narrative, I do not want to concentrate on whether or not Samson was "saved" from the beginning, and I do not want to question whether or not he repented to salvation at the end. I simply want to note that the Lord left him. For now, whether or not this is possible today is not the question. The fact is that the Lord did leave Samson. There is, however, a question that is relevant for our purposes here. Why did the Lord leave? Was it because of his hair, or was there something more? The text does not specifically say, but we can observe the facts.

The first thing that we will observe is the quality of Samson's youth. Samson testified to his vow as a Nazarite and his strict upbringing. Samson's generation was apostate, but it would seem from the story that his parents were devout to a certain extent. They were faithful to the commands that were given them concerning Samson. Samson knew this and respected his parents even though he rebelled and hid things from them. While we cannot be certain, it would seem that Samson had a better spiritual upbringing than the Israelites around him and that he had been thoroughly taught the meaning of his Nazarite vow.

The second observation is that Samson began to live a life of sin. It is impossible to read the story without recognizing how far Samson lived outside of the commands of God. He dishonored his parents, disregarded his Nazarite vow by touching dead things, married a Philistine, and eventually lived in open depravity. All the while, the Lord apparently did not leave him because the statement concerning departure was after all of this. Finally, however, when his hair was cut, this was the ultimate symbol of his depravity. His lifelong vow was broken. The Lord departed.

King Saul gives us another important insight into the subject of the Holy Spirit. We have carefully detailed Saul's life in a previous chapter, but here I want to point out something that is of relevance. "But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul" (1 Samuel 16:14). Like Samson, we can easily recognize that the departure of the Spirit from Saul happened well after he had become compromised. He had disobeyed the Lord on multiple occasions before the Spirit left. Finally, the Spirit did leave. What does all of this mean?

Striving Spirit

The book of Genesis has an interesting statement that predates the Law. As such, it cannot be said to be assigned to the dispensation of Law, so to dismiss it from continuance, there would need to be a theological reason other than to simply say we are not under the Law. The setting was the time of Noah. God was grieved over the way that men were living. So much so, that He expressed remorse over making man at all. In the midst of this context, there is an intriguing insight into the mind of the Almighty: "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3). The direct connection with the wickedness of the people makes one thing about this statement very clear. The long-suffering of God is not eternal. There is a limit.

When we look at the Genesis account of the days just prior to the flood, we see an amazing parallel between this and the lives of Samson and Saul. In all of these cases the person or people rebelled against God. They continued for a time while the Spirit strived with them. Then the striving came to an end. In the case of Noah's contemporaries, the flood waters covered the earth. The people of Genesis died physically, while in the cases of both Samson and Saul, they continued to live without God, but the parallel is quite distinct.

Some might say that the principle in Genesis is not for individuals but rather for humanity as a whole. This may be true also, but there is no escaping the reality that this principle worked individually in the lives of Samson and Saul. Now we will move to the question that remains for us. Does this principle apply now?

What if?

If the principle does apply, then it gives us a beautiful insight into the grace of God. Let me illustrate. We will start with a Christian who is truly born again and desires to serve God. He has the Spirit of the living God dwelling inside him. Then he comes into temptation. As a result, he is drawn away of his own lust and enters into sin (James 1:14-15). What happens then? Based on the precedent established by the Genesis principle and the illustrations of both Samson and Saul, the Spirit of the Lord will begin to strive with him. The Spirit may be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), and will perform the work of reproof that is so clearly outlined in John 16:7-11. At this point, it is hoped that the erring brother will see the error of his ways and turn from his course (James 5:19-20). He can then confess his sins before God and be forgiven (1 John 1:9). In this case, based on what we have observed concerning the Spirit, it would appear that the Spirit does not leave the man. The Spirit, possibly under duress, stays to bring to pass the outcome that the Bible indicates, but what if the man does not see the error of his ways? What if he does not repent? Does the Spirit still stay?

One of the real life situations that Calvinists face is defending their doctrine in spite of this fact. What do you say when a man drifts away from the faith and does not return? Does the Holy Spirit stay inside of him as a bird in a closed cage? Is the Holy Spirit trapped inside of the unholy vessel of a man full of vice?

I recently met a man that had a very interesting testimony. He told me that as a young man he had been very interested in the things of God. He told of how he had really and sincerely sought the Lord. As time progressed, however, he began to question his faith in light of his feelings. He said, "If this is real, I ought to feel something." Apparently, he did not feel anything, and this began the descent. Now, he is in his forties. In an effort to probe for some level of faith, I asked him whether or not he believed that there was ever a man named Jesus that died on a cross. He looked me straight in the eye and said, "No." Then he proceeded to tell me that he believed in reincarnation, and our conversation went down the drain from there.

Based on this testimony, there are only two ways for a Calvinist to deal with this situation. First, this man could be written off as one who was never saved. It is true that in our conversation, he did not testify of a conversion experience (I did not ask about a conversion experience); however, it seemed clear that he had called on God through the means of the Christian faith (he testified of having been a Baptist). "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13). The second way for a Calvinist to look at this is to say that the man is still saved with the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of him. Let's consider this second option for a moment.

If this man did indeed repent of his sins and was saved as a young man, then Calvinistic doctrine requires that he is still saved. This means that, as McGee argues, the Holy Spirit of God still indwells him. This also means that for the last twenty years the Holy Spirit has been trapped inside the body of this sinful, reprobate, blaspheming fool (Psalm 14:1). Is that a real picture of what the Bible teaches?

Does the Holy Spirit of God still indwell believers that have converted to Mormonism or have become Jehovah's Witnesses? This would mean that the Holy Spirit is forced to attend their demonically inspired meetings. I have mentioned earlier that I had a Jehovah's Witness that testified that he had previously been a Baptist. Would it be appropriate to think that the Holy Spirit of God is still in this man as he goes door to door spreading those false teachings?

My dad once heard a Calvinist minister on the radio. This man's ministry is so big, that I am almost certain that you know his work. He said, "One of the great problems that we have today is that there are so many Christians worshiping in the occult!" Really! If he had said that there are so many people worshiping in the occult, I would have agreed, but he did not. He said Christians. If this man is correct, then the Holy Spirit has been forced to attend and participate in the most heinous rites of witchcraft and Satanism. Let me tell you how many Christians there are that are worshiping in the occult—ZERO! Vibrant, victorious Christians do not suddenly find themselves sacrificing an animal (or a child) in their back yard. This kind of fall surely happens like the fall of Samson or Saul. And, I must contend that just as the Spirit of God left those two men on their way down, the Spirit of God has departed from anyone worshiping in the occult. "And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Corinthians 6:15). It is a very dangerous thing to teach this kind of doctrine. You would probably be surprised to learn how many people I have met that live wretched lives depending on the doctrine of eternal security to take them to Heaven. They may not clearly verbalize their faith in the doctrine, but the basic understanding is there. What if Calvin was wrong and the Holy Spirit can be grieved away?

For a while, I worked in a prison for youthful offenders (age 19-24). During that time, I had a co-worker that was a Calvinist. He had been raised a Baptist. We had several interesting spiritual conversations, then one day he told me something that was bothering him. He was working in the Faith Based program, and there was a screening process in place. Every time new inmates came to the facility, they were surveyed concerning their religious preferences. When he began to consider the results of the survey, he told me that he could not believe how many Christians there were in the prison. What bothered him even worse was that the vast majority of them marked "Baptist" as their denominational preference. I said, "I can tell you why. They have been taught eternal security. They have been taught that no matter what they do, they will still go to Heaven. And, here they are." Are these young men all filled with the Holy Ghost? Is the Holy Spirit obligated to continue to dwell in someone that is presently committing crimes against God and man?
Chapter 12

Hazard Lights

For a short time when I was very young, my family lived in Hazard, Kentucky. If you don't already know, Hazard is not a metropolis. It is one of those small mountain towns that you will never see unless you make intentional plans to go there. Regardless, that was our home.

While we lived there, my dad took a group of teenagers on a road trip. On the way home, he played with their fascination over the various features of the vehicle. In those days, buttons were labeled with words. There was a curious button labeled "hazard" that became the subject of conversation. My dad said, "If I push this button, the van will automatically drive us back to Hazard." They found it hard to believe, but the button did say "Hazard." Could it be true? Would the van drive itself automatically? Maybe they were a bit naïve, but can we as Christians learn something from their naiveté?

Calvinistic doctrine, in its truest form, presents a system of theology that is automated for the believer. One starts totally depraved. Without condition, one is elected to salvation. If one is elected, grace is irresistible and perseverance is guaranteed. There is no margin for error on any front. The work begins with God's election and ends with His perseverance. The believer is more or less a non-participant. Is this what the Bible teaches? Does the Bible teach that the Christian walk is automatic? Does the hazard button drive us to Hazard?

Martin Luther once said, "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Calvinists have struggled to overcome the paradox that immediately exists in the doctrine that requires free salvation to be a salvation that comes without human effort. As an example, I recently read a tract that attempted to deal with this issue. The primary point of the tract was that salvation is a free gift. The writer made efforts to explain that there is nothing that we can do to deserve it or _attain_ it. Apparently, he was struggling to make this all line up because when he began to talk about repentance he said that repentance is not required for salvation. According to him, repentance is only the means by which salvation is gained. What did he mean by that? It appeared that he was struggling with the paradox between the free gift of salvation without works and the requirement for men to repent (i.e. a work). Watchman Nee actually argued that it is not needful to pray for conversion to take place. Is this true? Paul argued that confession with the mouth is necessary (Romans 10:10). Even the thief on the cross cried out to Jesus with his voice. Does the divine providence of salvation as a free gift that is not of works exclude the necessity of human effort at any point? Is it acceptable to assign all works as important but unnecessary acts of gratitude as most Calvinists do? While it is true that salvation is a gift that cannot be earned, is there some point or even more than one in which human effort is required in its attainment?

This was exactly the argument that Charles Finney had with Calvinism during his time. He was completely unwilling to conclude, as the Calvinists of his day did, that man is impotent in the process of his own salvation. Finney required immediate action on the part of the sinner to renounce his sins and cry out to the Savior for mercy, yet there is still a prevailing understanding in Calvinistic teaching that human effort is not necessary for salvation.

Void of Works?

For a moment, we will need to explore the idea of conversion void of works. What would it look like for salvation to be free without any obligation of human effort? This is indeed a strange concept. If repentance is in and of itself a work, then to require it would negate the premise. Of necessity, it would require that a person be saved ultimately apart from himself. If this is true, then the individual would forfeit all ability to choose and lose all self-will, yet such forfeiture could also be considered work. It is not a wonder that Calvinists struggle to define this position. Unfortunately, I have read a Calvinist answer this problem with the cliché phrase: "You can't add anything to the Gospel!" This is certainly not a satisfactory answer to this question.

The most common reference to support this position is Ephesians 2:8-9 which says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." When taken alone, it would appear that the premise is correct, but does this verse require that all human effort is unnecessary? If so, how can there be any agreement between Paul and James? In order to understand this passage, we will need to consider what Paul was talking about when he said, "Not of works."

When Paul speaks of works, he is not meaning, as some have mistakenly understood, all human effort. Paul understood works in the context of his time. When we think of works in the mindset of the Jewish Pharisee of the first century, we recognize that the concept has absolutely nothing to do with an absence of human effort. It has everything to do with bargaining power in relation to the Law. To illustrate the point, there were times when individuals approached Jesus to ask him, "What good thing shall I do?" (Matthew 19:16). People who approached Jesus in this way wanted to earn salvation through their works. They wanted bargaining power with the Creator. This is exactly the kind of works that Paul speaks of when he says that salvation does not come by these. This does not, in any way, indicate that human effort is unnecessary. Quite the contrary is true. Effort on our part is crucial to the initial transaction of conversion. We must be actively involved in hearing and responding to the Gospel (Luke 6:47), repenting (Mark 1:15), and believing and confessing (Romans 10:9-10). Regardless of arguments made to the contrary, these elements are mandatory for conversion. A person who fails or refuses to participate by responding, repenting, and confessing will not become saved. It is, therefore, necessary to say that we are not saved by our works, but we cannot be saved without these basic works. Even John Calvin taught that "the beginning of conversion is, when any one renounces himself and his own lusts. But it is necessary to add another part of duty, that when any one bids farewell to his vices, he must devote himself obediently to God." To go one step further, Jesus referred to belief, in and of itself as a work. John 6:29 says, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Any theology that contends that belief is inessential is not a Christian theology at all. Any doctrine that refuses to accept human effort as essential for conversion is confused.

Without a proper understanding of the necessity of human effort in conversion, it becomes very easy to see Paul and James in opposition, but this is not the case at all. Both Paul and James refer to the Genesis account of Abraham. Paul comes to the conclusion that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works. James comes to the conclusion that Abraham was justified by his works. How are these two views compatible? To begin, we will restate Paul's understanding of works. When Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works, he is referring to that bargaining power that was so important to a first century Pharisee. He was not speaking of simple works of obedience. To be even more specific, he was speaking of works generated by the Law. Romans 3:20 states, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Within the context of Paul's argument, works are equivalent to "deeds of the law." A person cannot be saved by performing the Law. This, however, does not negate the need for human effort.

To illustrate, I want to paint a very familiar picture from the life of Peter. Peter was minding his business on the Sea of Galilee when Jesus said, "Follow me." Two things were immediately required. If Peter did not have both, then we would probably have never heard of him. First, Peter needed faith. Based on the Luke narrative, Peter had seen the power of God demonstrated through Jesus. Peter needed faith to follow. Second, Peter needed to obey the call (i.e. human effort). He did not need to bring some good deed to Jesus to buy salvation. That would not have gotten him anywhere. He did, however, need to produce the work of simple obedience. Imagine if Peter had said, "I have performed the works of the Law, therefore, I deserve to be your disciple?" What would have happened? He would have been rejected because salvation cannot be purchased by works or the Law. No works could have earned his entrance, but could "no work" have earned his rejection? Just imagine if Jesus told Peter to follow, but Peter did not move. What if he had just stood there? What if he even went one step further and professed, "I believe you are the Christ," but refused to take a step? Was his obedience required or just requested? James says that it was more than a courteous request. It was a full requirement without which death to faith would have been the outcome (James 2:17). As another option, could not Peter have followed obediently without faith? Many did. Peter could have performed the work in unbelief. This too would have been unacceptable. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that both faith and works are necessary to begin a walk with Christ. Neither faith nor works alone can save, and the works must be works of obedience to Christ rather than works to bargain with Him. There is no bargaining with God concerning salvation.

So we come to the conclusion, that works are essential to conversion. Conversion is not automatic as strict Calvinism claims (often this form of Calvinism is called Hyper-Calvinism). If we turn our attention to the present discussion concerning the modern teaching of eternal security, does the automation of Calvinism prove true?

Perseverance or Preservation?

R. C. Sproul argues that it is incorrect to state the doctrine known as eternal security with the term, "Perseverance." He contends that this implies that the believer is the one that perseveres. As he continues this argument, he explains that the concept is not so much that the believer perseveres in the faith but that God preserves the believer thus causing the perseverance. To put Sproul's argument simply, perseverance is automatic. Is this true?

Calvinists often utilize detailed illustrations to prove their points rather than depend on Scripture alone as Reformed theology supposedly requires. I think the reason for this is that the Scriptures do not support their claim. An illustration is much better for them. I heard one such illustration on the radio just recently. I will endeavor to capture the essence of the illustration without doing injustice to the speaker. I will put it in italics lest anyone be confused to think that this is in any way akin to my thoughts.

Just imagine that you were stranded on a raft out in the middle of the ocean. There is no way for you to be saved on your own. Fortunately, a ship passes by and sees you. The captain stops the ship to rescue you and bring you on board. Now, you are saved. Your feet are securely planted on the deck of the ship. If this happened to you, you would probably want to visit the captain to thank him for his help in saving your life. You would probably even volunteer to help out on the ship in an effort to show your gratitude. Some people are not like that, however. They do not show much gratitude. If they were asked to help out in the kitchen, they might choose to play shuffleboard or go climb the rock climbing wall instead. Now, it is important to know that the Captain is not going to throw you off of the ship. You have been saved, but if you don't fill your place on the ship you will not enter into the joy that can be yours in Christ.

I literally could not believe my ears when I heard this non-Biblical story. To even use the image of a pleasure vessel as the picture of the illustration is to insinuate that some people are playing and recreating their way into Heaven. This is an affront to the Christian life that is described in the New Testament. When we consider the illustration for what it is, the rescued person is guilty of insubordination if he fails to work when asked. How many times have people been made to "walk the plank" over insubordination? Today, they get fired from their jobs for it. Another brief interjection is that even if the rescued person is not thrown overboard, he would most definitely be put off at the nearest port of call. As an insubordinate (not to mention unpaid) passenger, he would certainly not be granted indefinite passage. What if the rescued person commits a crime or leads a mutiny of some sort? Will he get to stay aboard? Will he enjoy the freedom of the other passengers if he intentionally offends the captain? Will he only lose a reward? What if he commits a heinous act by outright assaulting the captain? Can he still roam the ship freely? Regardless of these trivial arguments with the illustration itself, we must put it to some hard questions. There is no question that this illustration agrees with Calvinism, but does it agree with the Bible?

When James argues for works as an integral part of salvation, was he arguing for the use of works in conversion alone or was this for the walk of a Christian as well? When considering James 2:14-26, it is clear that James intends to consider conversion. In his example of Rahab, she was commended for her work which accompanied her faith and thus her justification. What about the demonstration of faith in the life of the believer? James 2:18 states, "Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." This would appear to be ongoing. Earlier in the chapter, James gives the illustration of refusing to give aid to a needy brother or sister. He ends the illustration with the statement, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17). It would appear that James is contending that when works cease, faith dies.

To make the point more thoroughly, let us look closely at the illustration of Abraham. James 2:21-22 states, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Consider the time line of Abraham's life with me for a moment. Genesis 15:6 states, "And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." This was before he had Ishmael. Ishmael was at least 13 years old before Isaac was born (Genesis 17:25). By the time Abraham was told to sacrifice Isaac, Isaac was old enough to travel with his father, carry the wood for the sacrifice, and reason that they had no lamb (Genesis 22:6-7). At least twenty years had passed between the time of Abraham's justification and the offering of Isaac. While it may be argued that Paul was speaking of Abraham's justification from the narrative of Genesis 15:6, this would not be possible with James as the sacrifice of Isaac happened much later. So, we see that well after Abraham's justification by faith, works were necessary to perfect his faith. James specifically states that Abraham was "justified by works, when he had offered Isaac" (James 2:21). What if Abraham had refused to sacrifice Isaac? Would his faith have survived? Would he continue to be justified anyway? If so, would not this undo the theological thesis of this passage in James?

Moving back to our illustration of the rescued man on the ship, we will attempt to apply the principle found in James 2. In the illustration, the rescued man rejects his assigned duties and indulges in frivolity. This is ultimately paramount to Abraham refusing to offer Isaac. Is there anywhere in the Bible where this kind of decision is supported? If so, I am unaware of it. To advocate God's acceptance of such decision making is a thought process that exists only outside of the Scriptures. Never is a Christian told that he can take his ease in this manner, much less in lieu of responsibilities. Can a believer refuse to do what God says to do and remain justified?

The only way to come to a positive answer to that question is to do so from a line of thinking that comes from a faulty interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. This passage talks about our works being judged. The climactic statement at the end of the passage states, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15). Some interpreters teach that this is the same judgment that is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5:10, but there is a significant distinction. 2 Corinthians 5:10 speaks of the "judgment seat of Christ," and it is a judgment of things done "whether it be good or bad." This is not the case at all in 1 Corinthians 3. The judgment in 1 Corinthians 3 is a judgment concerning something entirely different. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble" (1 Corinthians 3:11-12). We see from the passage that it is possible to build worthlessly on the foundation of Christ, but is it possible to consider a sinful deed as something that is built on the foundation of Christ?

According to 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, the works of all believers will be judged by fire. The works are then valued as either "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble." Did you notice that some of these works are of great value? In addition, they will survive fire. Others are of almost no value and will be consumed. Even still, the person presenting stubble has something to present even if the value isn't much. What if the person has nothing? What if absolutely no works are found? In other words, what if a person chooses to lounge around, play shuffleboard, and climb the rock-climbing wall rather than work? Jesus answered this question very clearly in the parable of the talents. The man that buried his talent did not simply lose his reward. He was not saved "yet so as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15). He was condemned and sentenced: "And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30). Sounds like more than the loss of reward to me. It certainly does not sound like being saved.

Does the parable of the talents conflict with the didactic passage in 1 Corinthians 3:15? At first glance, it does. Calvinists would argue that the man in the parable was never saved, but that it is the saved who are judged in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Is it this simple, or is it more likely that the parable of the talents speaks of the principle found in James 2. All of those judged in 1 Corinthians have built on the foundation of Christ even if their works were worthless. The man in the parable of the talents did nothing. When a true believer stands before God with an absence of obedient works, then the James passage comes into effect. That person will not be judged as a believer at all. Rather, he will face eternal punishment as his faith toward God is dead, and it cannot save him. If we apply this to our little ship illustration, then our rescued shuffleboard player very well shall be thrown overboard. Only this time, he will sink to the bottom of the fiery abyss. There will be no recovery. All that remains is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30).

McGee says that 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 indicates that Christians who are carnal suffer loss of reward rather than eternal punishment. This is not what the passage says, and it is not even the point of the context. The context is the value of the works built on Christ. This is not about sin. Sin isn't simply worthless activity. It is deeds of disobedience. This is not good versus bad works as is seen in 2 Corinthians 5:10. Does this Calvinist interpretation agree with the rest of the Bible? It certainly does not agree with Ezekiel 18:24. Does it agree with the New Testament?

In Romans 3:8, Paul had been falsely accused of saying "let us do evil that good may come." When we put this verse together with the judgment described in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, we get an interesting problem when attempting to align it with Calvinistic teaching. The Calvinist would have us believe that we can sin, lose our reward, and still be saved. Would this not amount to doing evil so that good may come? Paul's pronouncement on such logic is clear. He ends Romans 3:8 by saying that their "damnation is just." That is frightening!

Why bother?

If the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security is true, then our lives are on cruise control. God sets the speed, and all we have to do is sit back and relax while we wait on Heaven. We will get to Hazard automatically as long as the hazard button has been pressed. This, however, raises a question concerning certain passages in the Bible that encourage self evaluation or even conditional blessing. What do we do with those?

Philippians 2:12 states, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." The New International Version says it this way: "Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." It seems that there is urgency on the concept of continuance. This is especially so seeing that it was written to people who were already converts of Christ. Does this mean you are to continually question your conversion experience? While it may be a worthwhile exercise to reflect on one's conversion, it would seem strange to do so continually. This does not seem to be the idea here. Based on this verse, however, there does seem to be a challenge to bring questions related to the current state of your soul on a continual basis. If you are a Calvinist, and you believe that you are absolutely guaranteed to go to Heaven, I have one question for you. Why bother? Why would you take the time and energy to work out something that is already your eternal possession? This would be an absolute exercise in futility. If Calvin was wrong, however, it becomes a real necessity. To add to the urgency, this verse requires that the working out be done with "fear and trembling." Why would fear and trembling be necessary if one is eternally secure? This verse was written to believers. Anyone contending that it was written to unconverted persons would need to prove that point. This verse was intended for the original recipients of the book which means the Philippian believers. So, why fear and tremble? If there is not a real danger, then this is simply ridiculous. If real danger exists, then it is paramount. So, which shall it be?

Another interesting verse that presents a Calvinistic problem is 2 Corinthians 13:5. It states, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith." Again, I have a question. Why bother? If you know that you are saved, and you believe that you are sealed forever without condition, then this is yet another invitation to waste your time. If, however, you are not eternally secure, and your perseverance is not guaranteed, then this verse invites you to question both your conversion experience and your present status as to the grace of God. Did you really get saved back when? Are you still saved now? Are you in or out? What is the status? The last three may be good questions to ask on an ongoing basis even if the first is answered to your satisfaction.

The most thought inspiring verse in this category is found in 2 Peter 1:10. It states, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." This verse presupposes three things. First, your "diligence" is necessary. There is no automation here. You are required to be productive rather than play shuffleboard. Second, your calling and election are not sure already. There is no automation in this either, as your effort must be applied directly to your election. What happens if you are not diligent concerning your election? Would that change anything? Third, it is presupposed that you can fall. Otherwise, the verse should read, _If ye do these things, ye shall never fall, but if ye don't do these things ye won't fall anyway_. So, again, the question is simple. Why bother? If you can't fall, and your election is sure already, then why do you need to be diligent? Take your ease.

In addition, what about all of the "if" passages? 2 Peter 1:10 is one of those, but there are others. The structure of these passages is based on a dependent clause that starts with "if." There are many passages in the New Testament that speak of "if." We will look at a few starting with Colossians 1:22-23. These two verses are part of a complicated sentence, so I will only reference part of each verse preserving the order. "To present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel." If ye continue in the faith? What happens if you don't continue? Will you still be presented as holy and unblameable? If you are not presented as holy, then how can you be presented at all? Hebrews 12:14 says, "And holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."

Hebrews 3:14 is another "if" passage. It says, "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end." There is a required action in this verse. We are to do the holding. What happens if we do not hold? Are we still made partakers of Christ? If we are not partakers of Christ, then what are we?

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 states, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." The Contemporary English Version says the last part of the verse this way: "If you don't, your faith was all for nothing." The New International Version says, "Otherwise, you have believed in vain." Is this verse really saying that if we don't "keep in memory" we "believed in vain"? This verse presents several problems for a Calvinist. First, it must be noted that there is no such thing as believing in vain for a Calvinist. They may attempt (as does the New Living Translation) to affirm that this verse speaks of those that have believed in the wrong things entirely or even to those who have never believed. This, however, is not the sense. To argue that they believed the wrong thing is to negate the beginning of the passage. Paul clearly tells them that they have received and stand in the Gospel that he preached to them. Likewise, it is also impossible to say that they did not believe. To have "believed" in vain would indicate that there was belief in the past. If there was belief in the past, then for a Calvinist, there must be belief now as there is no room for anything else if you are eternally secure. Even if it could be proved that the end of the passage speaks of those that have never truly believed, it cannot be obscured that the passage still places a condition on continued salvation: "Ye are saved if ye keep." What if you don't keep? Do you still get to be saved? If you keep in memory, then you are saved, but if you don't you are still saved? How many times could we see this scenario repeat with "if" passages in the New Testament? How many times are necessary?

Personal Exemption

Calvinism teaches personal exemption from all of the verses mentioned in the last section. There is no reason to work out your salvation with fear and trembling since Heaven is guaranteed. There is no need to examine yourself after you are saved. You are personally exempt. All of the "if" passages are optional as well since you will gain Heaven if you do or if you don't.

There are many instances in the Bible when people operated on the theory of personal exemption. One notable instance was Uzzah. Nobody was supposed to touch the Ark. Uzzah should have known this. The history of the Ark was surely not concealed from him. The whole reason that the Ark was being transported in the first place was because people had opened it and died as a result. In a moment of crisis, Uzzah apparently thought he was exempt, and he died for his error.

King Uzziah also thought he was exempt. Only the priests, the descendents of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi, were supposed to offer incense. Uzziah was not a priest. He was not descended from Aaron, and he was not of the tribe of Levi. He was descended from David and of the tribe of Judah, yet he decided to offer incense anyway. For his error, leprosy broke out on his head, and he died in shame.

How many Christians do you know who actually work out their own salvation with fear and trembling? How many born again believers do you know that actually examine themselves to see if they are in the faith? My fear is that many believers are like the village of Laish (Judges 18:27). They lived securely. They lived at ease. There was no fear. They lived in peace. Then one day, the children of Dan appeared. They came armed. They came to kill. For Laish, peace was over. Death was the order of the day, and there was no remedy for the problem.

Can you even imagine the surprise that will confront careless believers when they stand before God? They will have no works to present. They will likely have a long list of unconfessed sins. Their golf clubs will not matter then. Their fishing boat will not float them out of this one. How are they going to plea when 2 Corinthians 13:5 is read against them because they have not examined themselves? What will be their answer when Philippians 2:12 stands to witness against them because they have failed to work out their salvation? It is a dangerous thing to exempt yourself from the Word of God. It may cost you your life. It may cost you your soul. Don't refuse to do what the Word says to do. What if Calvin was wrong?
Chapter 13

When Sovereigns Collide

My wife and I were in a restaurant earlier this year when we noticed a nice family sitting near us. It appeared to be two parents and a few children on some kind of vacation. Toward the end of our meal, I overheard one of the little girls (probably about six years old) say to her mother, "I am the boss of me." The mother responded by informing the child otherwise, but that statement struck me. Ultimately, the little girl was right.

Having been a school teacher for years, I have learned many things about children. One of those golden nuggets is that children are truly their own bosses. We can scold them, threaten them, punish them, and even spank them, but if their mind is set to disobey us, they will do so. This is particularly noticeable in disorderly children because they have lost the fear of punishment. The freedom of the will is of such value to them that the punishments we offer fall far short of discouraging them from their enterprise. What we often fail to notice is that even the well-behaved children behave as an act of their will rather than ours. It is their will to obey and subject themselves to our rule. That is why they do so.

The point is that human beings have been created with a free will. We have the ability to choose our actions, attitudes, allegiances, and so on. It is the way that we were created. We were created with the ability to rule ourselves. This is why the little girl was right when she said, "I am the boss of me." She is. It is a right that she has been given since creation. She is her own sovereign.

On the same front, God is also sovereign. He can do as He pleases. Obviously, God's sovereignty is more expansive than ours. He has a greater power and responsibility than we ever will, but the idea of sovereignty is quite similar.

The question that forms the thesis for this chapter is this: what happens when two sovereigns collide? What happens when the sovereign will of man and the sovereign will of God are in opposition?

Presupposition

Calvinistic doctrine teaches the sovereignty of God. The presupposition of Calvinism teaches the sovereignty of God over the sovereignty of man (strangely enough, most modern Calvinists contradict this premise preferring a partial sovereignty which we will see later in this chapter). Is man a free moral agent or not? Calvinism says that he is not, yet from the Garden of Eden, the Scriptures teach that man is fully in control of his own decisions. Would anyone argue that Adam was predisposed to choose sin? Would anyone argue that God caused Adam to sin? Adam was most definitely not totally depraved at the time of his creation.

Strict Calvinism, however, contradicts the free will of man by presupposing that God's sovereignty overrules it. Remembering the acrostic TULIP, we see that in the mind of a strict Calvinist, man starts off totally depraved. In other words, man does not have the free will to choose to do good. Then God unconditionally elects regardless of the will of the man. It does not matter what the man's will is, the decision is God's. Passing limited atonement, we move to irresistible grace. Man does not have the free will to resist God's grace, and finally the man perseveres by the will of God. Calvinists do not normally argue (although some may) that God preserves men against their will, but choose rather to argue that the man's will is changed so that it agrees to be preserved. In the one case, the will is overruled. In the other it is negated. Regardless, there is no room in strict Calvinism for the human will. While this view is inconsistent with the Bible, it is at least consistent with itself. As McGee puts it, "I cannot reconcile election and free will. I have come to the place in the sunset of my life that I can say that God is sovereign, and He is going to do this according to His will" (Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee).

As stated earlier, most modern Calvinists do not adhere to all five points of Calvinism. Since the time of Charles Finney, the influence of the Calvinistic theology of election has been substantially diminished. Most modern Calvinists teach the free will of man with an emphasis on his state prior to regeneration. In other words, they insist that man has the right to choose whether or not he will accept the Gospel. The altar calls are generally made to "whosoever will."

It is indeed a strange thing for a Calvinist to reject the second and/or fourth points of Calvin and uphold the fifth. I have before thought that it would be easier for me to accept all of Calvinism than part. I found a strong voice to support this opinion in the autobiography of Peter Cartwright. In his day, there was a division that occurred between the Presbyterians. Those that branched off, chose to keep perseverance (eternal security) but oppose election. Cartwright brings to light that it is terribly inconsistent to uphold the sovereignty of God after conversion but to deny it before conversion. Even so, this is exactly the stance of the modern Baptists. Most reject irresistible grace (and/or election) and uphold perseverance. Simply put, man has a free will before conversion, but God is sovereign after the fact. If you freely choose God, you do not have the free will to change your mind. Not only is this view inconsistent with both the Bible and reality, it is even inconsistent with itself, and contrary to what Calvinists may teach, man has a free will from the beginning to the end.

A few years ago, a colleague of mine asked me some questions concerning personal matters. I shared with him what the Bible said for him to do. He objected to this advice and tried to argue his point. After a few rounds of discussion, he said, "Well, let's just agree to disagree." I have already mentioned my distaste for slogans. Imagine his surprise when I said, "No. I won't agree to disagree."

The reason I do not agree to disagree is because in every argument, there are only two possibilities. Either one person is right and the other wrong, or they could both be wrong. There is no such thing as an argument where both parties are right. I have learned to refuse to allow that slogan to bring pseudo peace in those circumstances. I would far rather examine the evidence to find out who is wrong (even it if is me), and come to a conclusion that brings healing.

In the discussion of the free will of man, either man has a free will or he does not. There is no both/and on this issue. It is also unreasonable to say that man has a free will at some times and not at others; therefore, we will conclude that man has a free will from the beginning of his life to the end. Man can choose to resist God's grace. Man also can choose to change his mind after conversion and depart from the living God (Hebrews 3:12).

Somethin's Gotta Give

You have probably heard the question, "What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?" Well, in the words of a good old country boy, "Somethin's gotta give." This is exactly what must happen when it comes to the collision between the will of God and the will of man. God is sovereign and the will of man is sovereign. Ultimately, it must then be determined which sovereign will surrender. They cannot both retain sovereignty. The Calvinists teach that it is man's sovereignty that is overruled, yet there is no place in the Bible the even suggests such a reality. The Bible does not speak of anyone who was forced to surrender to God, nor does it speak of anyone that was forced to be faithful to Him.

The reality of the matter is that when the sovereign will of God collides with the sovereign will of man, God yields. When it comes to God's offer of forgiveness and salvation, when met with resistance, He withdraws. The Holy Spirit may convict for a time, but if the hardness of the man's heart continues, even He will not strive forever. Ultimately, the man is left to his own will. This is the theme of Hebrews 3-4. Three times in these two chapters, the Bible says, "To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" (see 3:7-8, 15, and 4:7). If you are unwilling to hear today, you will be even more unwilling tomorrow. If it continues, the Lord will eventually give you up entirely. The idea that God will give you up if you do not yield is in both the Old and New Testaments. We will look at examples from each.

Hezekiah wrote a letter to the children of Judah and Israel. In the letter, he made it very clear that God had given their fathers up because of stubbornness:

7 And be not ye like your fathers, and like your brethren, which trespassed against the LORD God of their fathers, who therefore _gave them up_ to desolation, as ye see.

8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but _yield_ yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you (2 Chronicles 30:7-8, emphasis added).

In Psalm 81, the Lord, Himself laments the hardness of the people of Israel. These words are attributed to God; therefore, we learn the thought process of the Almighty in them:

11 But my people _would_ not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.

12 So _I gave them up_ unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels (Psalm 81:11-12, emphasis added).

As I already said, this is not only an Old Testament teaching. Look at the writings of Paul:

24 Wherefore _God also gave them up_ to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts.

26 For this cause _God gave them up_ unto vile affections.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, _God gave them over_ to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (Romans 1:24, 26, and 28, emphasis added).

In each of these cases, we see that God gives up people, but 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, _not willing_ that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (emphasis added). We know that it is not the will of God that any perish. It is the will of God that all men repent, but they don't. When they refuse to repent, God gives them up. It is a clear Biblical theme in both the Old and New Testaments. Clearly, God does not override the human will. He allows us to exert it to our own peril. Once we make our stance, God honors it!

What about after conversion? Do things change? We know that a man must surrender his will to become saved. Does this mean that he can never again exert his will? No. It absolutely does not. If that were true, then no true Christian would ever fall into sin. Our free will is still alive and well after we are saved, but do we have the power to exert our will and regain sovereignty after we have surrendered? Hebrews 6:4-6 says,

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Here, we see that it is possible for a person to fall away, and when they do, they are in a terrible condition. Paul says, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8). God will not exert His sovereignty by overriding our will to hold us in the faith. If we exert our will, whether through intention or negligence, He will honor it. Calvinists, however, refuse to acknowledge the will of man after conversion. They insist that the truly converted man can never fall from the faith. In other words, they insist that God will force His will over a man's. Is this true? Is this the way God operates? No, it isn't! Hebrews 10:26-31 makes it abundantly clear:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Calvinistic Commentary

Calvinists who write commentaries are faced with the daunting task of making comment on verses that clearly stand against their teaching. Hebrews 6:4-6 is one of many of those passages. It contradicts the teaching of eternal security. What do they do about it? For years, I have consistently noticed that Calvinistic commentaries bypass, negate, or sometimes even outright skip verses that disagree with their preconceptions. I was surprised, however, to find a Calvinist that noticed this same thing. According to Vernon McGee's commentary on Hebrews 6:4,

As we study this section, we are immediately confronted with the amazing fact that generally commentators have _avoided_ this chapter. Even such a man as Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, the prince of expositors, has completely bypassed it in his book on Hebrews. However, when we do come upon the interpretations available and summarize each, we can well understand why men have chosen to remain clear of this scene of confusion because we can get many interpretations (emphasis in original).

While I completely agree with McGee on his observation, I do not agree with him on his assessment. He thinks it is because of confusion and multiple interpretations that Calvinists "avoid" Hebrews 6:4-6. In reality, it is more likely because these verses conflict with Calvinistic doctrine. It is easier to gloss over it or ignore it than to face the reality of it.

Calvinistic writers dominate the scene of scholarly Christian writing. This is especially true if we limit the list to include only Evangelicals. The dominance is so thorough, that monopoly may be a better word than dominance, and there may be a reason for this that is beyond the scope of this book. Nonetheless, as McGee has observed, many of these scholars do not comment on Hebrews 6:4-6. This is not the only verse where absence of commentary speaks louder than anything else. For the past two decades, I have continually noticed how Calvinistic writers all but refuse to acknowledge some verses in the Bible. For example, McGee, himself, leaves out Ezekiel 18:21-30. These verses are not even printed in the electronic version of his commentary, but he is not the only one that is uncomfortable with certain verses. David Jeremiah also leaves out Ezekiel 18:24 in his study Bible. As another example, The Believer's Study Bible edited by W. A Criswell (said to be "Reflecting Baptist belief and tradition" with well known contributors such as John MacArthur, Jack Graham, Adrian Rogers, Dorothy Patterson, and with a forward by Billy Graham) completely leaves out comment on 1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith." Why leave out this verse? It seems worthy of a comment to me.

Strangely enough, some Calvinists write good commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:3 which says, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." I have always felt it a little strange, however, to allow for people in the last days to fall from the faith while it is supposedly impossible now. These commentators seem completely unaware of the doctrinal contradiction that their writing creates. Others, however, in true Calvinistic tradition, hold that these apostates were never true believers.

Other commentators negate passages like Ezekiel 18:24 as did Calvin. Calvin made good commentary on Ezekiel 18:24 and then negated the verse by presupposing that the righteous man in the verse was never really righteous at all. Matthew Henry says the same thing: "He never was in sincerity a righteous man." This undoing of the Biblical message is common among Calvinists in regard to passages that contradict their teaching.

One way Calvinistic commentators negate a passage is to deem it hypothetical. This is such a common method that a brief search will reveal its pervasiveness. I will supply one example. The King James Version Study Bible by Thomas Nelson says of Hebrews 6:4-6, "This passage does not teach that one can lose his salvation through disbelief or apostasy. These verses refer to a hypothetical situation."

Another way Calvinistic commentators negate passages is to simply say the opposite of the passage. An example of this is found in the Believer's Study Bible (see above for information about this volume). Their comment on 2 Peter 2:20-22 is, "These are not people who were once saved and then forfeited that salvation." This is a direct negation of what the passage actually says. The passage itself says,

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

The King James Bible Commentary (Jerry Falwell) also negates 2 Peter 2:20-22 by stating, "Peter does not say that these false teachers have escaped from the pollutions of the world." How can you read verse 20 and come to that conclusion? These kinds of maneuvers are not only examples of poor hermeneutics, they are outright dishonest.

Is this the way that we are going to interpret Scripture? Are we going to simply negate what it says to make it "mean" what we want it to say? Maybe we should ignore certain parts instead of negating them. What do you think? Please understand that this is the way of the Calvinist interpreter. He has no other choice. Otherwise, his doctrine falls, and to an avid Calvinist, the doctrine of eternal security is an unmovable object. Many would rather keep their doctrine at the expense of the verses they refuse to face honestly.

True to form, God will allow the Calvinists to exert their will. He will allow them to win. He will not force them to be honest with the Scriptures. He never has forced a man and never will. Somethin's gotta give. God is willing to be the one that surrenders if we won't.

Conclusion

After examining both the Biblical and observational evidence related to the Calvinistic teaching of eternal security as presented in this book, it is hoped that the reader has found logical arguments based soundly on the Word of God that will assist in formulating a firm doctrinal understanding of this topic. The object of this entire study has been to tear down the pillars which have held eternal security in place for the last four centuries not as an academic exercise only, but also in the context of personal faith and practice for believers as individuals.

If you are a Calvinist, I would like to challenge you to be honest. When you find verses that disagree with your views, be honest enough to say so. Don't sidestep the issue, change the subject, or even outright negate the facts. These kinds of tactics are not honest. In my research over the years, I have read dishonest "interpretations" in which these tactics have been used to wrest the Scriptures. Don't fall into that trap.

I would also encourage Calvinists to be consistent. Don't negate narrative and then appeal to it when it is convenient. Don't negate the parables or divide the old and new covenants at the cross and then make appeals to the teachings of Jesus to prove some point that is important to you. This is not a right way to operate.

If you are not a Calvinist, you have probably agreed with much that has been written in this book. I encourage you to teach these doctrines in your congregations. The Bible is very clear that it is our responsibility to teach our people sound doctrine. If we don't do it, then the devil will be sure to send someone else who will. Don't get caught up in fads and people-pleasing. If you do, many of the people who you were supposed to teach will curse your name from Hell as they burn forever and ever.

Be bold to teach against Calvinism. In the United States, you must assume that if your people have any background in religion that they have been indoctrinated by Calvinists. This is especially true for those Christians that listen to Christian radio. Christian radio is almost completely controlled by Calvinists in certain parts of this country. Also, Calvinists dominate the scene of Christian books. If your people listen to Calvinists or read their books, you will need to spend considerable time undoing what they have learned. Don't pretend that all of your parishioners agree with your stance. Preach boldly the true Word of God so that you will not be accountable for failing to do so.

I hope that this book has been of help. May the blessings of the Lord be upon you as you endeavor to honestly pursue His will among His people.
Connect With the Author

To contact Billy Prewitt, email him at

bp@speaktometoday.com

Please take the time to discover other the other books that I have written and write a review if you like them. Also, take advantage of various FREE resources available at SpeakToMeToday.com

