Rob and all: That long post is from Steve Schaper, who can’t post because of Linux. I will pass his on as I can. (Hi Rob!)

IM has been updated with a new article: A Career in Foolishness- Reflections on Thirty Years of Preaching.

SteveS sent me this to post. (Locked out by Linux) Be assimilated brother. Its painless.

In Matthew 6, it is “pros ton epithumesai” (sp) and “gunaikos” So, the translation should be something like “he who looks at another man’s wife in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” “pros ton” has the force of “in order to” in Matthew, “epithumesai” is the same word used to translate “covet” whereas “lust” is an OE word translated “like”. Gunaikos would seem to mean specifically “married woman” as opposed to “gunai”, “parthenos” or
widow, or prostitute. This is clearer when cultural conditions are taken into consideration (the historical part of grammatical-historical) In keeping with the discourse, it could then be that Jesus was, as in the other elements of the Sermon on the Mount, reiterating what the Law really said, as opposed to the interpretations of the rabbis. Part of the whole “You have heard it said. . . but truly, truly, I say unto you” formula.
FWIW.

It is tricky to teach and be understood correctly about perseverance of the saints (aka eternal security) without ones hearers concluding either works to persevere or cheap grace. Without those so disposed obsessing on whether or not they’ve committed the unforgivable sin, and without people thinking it is ok to not take up their cross and follow Jesus.

Chris Smith: Chavez is a Marxist dictator. He was overthrown because he commanded the military, in addition to his death squads, to open fire on hundreds of thousands of protesters. He also supports the Marxist terrorists in Columbia who kidnap and torture missionaries. You support this guy? (Comment by Michael: Large Amen! Can America attempt to have some morals? Will the Europeans mind?)

Rob,
In the Adamic covenant, was there any provision for a civil government, and a law given to it to enforce?

Bart,
The covenantal nature of marriage is such that it would take physical intercourse to break it and induce the death penalty on the adulterer.

Ronald:

1. Francis Schaeffer
2. J. R. R. Tolkien
3. Peter Kreeft
4. Bob Yarborough
5. Edith Schaeffer

(only five???)

Dan,
In the modern Nashville-rite existentialist church, it would be very easy for a non-believer to fake their way through. In church discipline, we have to (after step three) treat the person as if a non-believer, because we can’t tell if they are regenerate and backsliding, or unregenerate, and love would require that we not just assume they are saved, and fail to try to convince them of the Gospel. I’m not so sure about the interpretation of the parable of the sower given here that the one that bore little fruit due to cares and troubles is unsaved, or that the one that responded with joy and then perished was saved. Plenty of people like the idea that God likes them and doesn’t hold anything against them, which a defective preaching of the Gospel can sadly communicate.

5. W.O. Spencer, my pastor growing up. A profound man of God who was more holy than anyone I ever knew.
4. John MacArthur: Saved me from my seminary education with his straightforward approach to ministry and preaching.
3. Paul Duke, my pastor during seminary and the finest preacher I know. Would sure love to hear him again.
2. Michael Horton
1. John Piper

I am back. And I am highly surly. Thinking about Chris’s link to the British press has ruined my day.
Bart: Wonderful children. Now, seriously. Whose are they?
DGC: Having children at a hospital? Hmmmm. Here in Ky our women have the children while working in the fields. Much less stress on the man.
Eric: Brother, at the end of the day it is saved by grace, chosen in grace, sanctified by grace and preserved by grace, while persevering in the power of the Spirit given by grace. If there was ever a lack of balance, it was in ignoring perseverance to the point of sounding as if grace did nothing more in a person than make them righteous and safe in heaven. It also makes us faithful, and persevering, and sends us forward after the prize. My word to you would be, if texts are disturbing my theology, then guess what needs to change?
RonC: Way down the blog, you said that the elect are saved, so OSAS. You said more, but that sentence could perpetuate the idea that election is salvation, which it is not. Election is unto salvation, but election without justification, sanctification, perseverance, etc is not salvation in its fullenss.
To all in the OSAS debate: nice discussion. I think its over, and we differ graciously. (or begrudgingly, take your pick.)

Chris: Welcome back. The British Press…...The European Press in general….. how could you? Listen to this about Bush’s reaction to the election/removal/return of the Castro coddling Hugh Chavez: “No conclusive evidence has yet emerged to suggest that the US supported the botched overthrow. But it is clear that it knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. Throughout the ordeal America, which has roamed the globe since September 11 declaring its determination to protect “democracy and civilisation” at the barrel of a gun, lost its tongue.”

Let me make this short: I don’t care how Chavez got in office. It’s not the job of our President to gurantee the rights of Venezuela to elect a leader who hops in bed with Castro and the oil interests of supporters of terrorists and the rest of our enemies. Its the job of our President to watch out for our interests. If liberals want a leader who gurantees world prosperity while screwing us, the U.N. is a good place to start. The reason I feel this way Chris, is the rest of the world is not wanting to be nice to us- if you haven’t noticed please check recent news accounts from NYC. We are successful because we have the most freedom, the stongest economy, the most human rights and the power to defend ourselves. In this fallen world, that’s the way the game is played. The European press would like NOTHING MORE THAN FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPON TO KILL MY FAMILY and millions of other Americans so that we will learn our lesson and collapse. Nothing we do will be right in the eyes of these amoral scum. Not defending ourselves, not defending someone else, not acting in our interests, not seeking justice, NOTHING. We gave hundreds of thousands of American lives so the Europeans can right this sort of thing in English rather than in German, and they adopt this sneering, condescending tone? They write in quotes of our desire to further “democracy and civilisation?” How much American blood guranteed theirs? When the Muslims overtake Europe and European women enter the dark ages enjoyed by so many Arab cultures, the European press can send us a note. But don’t expect another Omaha beach. If they don’t see the point of our country, then they can manage the party without us.

My article was clear: it’s a fallen world. All nations are flawed and sinful. But on the scale of common sense values, this is the greatest nation in the history of the world, and anyone who doubts it should takes their wives and children to Saudi Arabia or China or Mexico or Russia or France and then come back and give us a report. And please take Alec Baldwin along for company. I will teach my children it is right to love America for its goodness, and right to pray for America for its problems. In our flawed concern for “democracy and civilisation” we have much to be proud of. I will teach my kids that terrorists and the nations who support them are bad, and that will include freely elected chums of communist dictators whose prisons and cemetaries are full of his opponents, and freely elected coddlers of OPEC who want to bring this nation to its knees.

If I had more copies of British newspapers, I could spend a lot less on bathroom tissue.

Rob, I agree that Jesus was not trying to give more reasons for people to divorce. He was always going past the letter of the law to the heart of the law, trying to get us to see that sin starts with our wrongful thoughts and motives.
As for God’s not striking Cain dead, all I can say is that it was a demonstration of His extreme goodness and grace. And aren’t we glad He is so gracious!
Bart, I have to disagree that adulterous thoughts are the same as adulterous actions. Yes, sin is sin, and we can’t go around trying to justify our wrong actions or thoughts by saying, “Well, at least I’m not as bad as So-And-So. I just committed a little sin.” But in reality, there is no comparison between a lustful thought and an actual extra-marital affair. One may lead to the other, but they are not at all the same in their effects on the people involved. I’d sure rather my spouse have a straying thought while watching a female wrestler on TV than to find him in bed with someone! ;)
By the way, three beautiful children! Congratulations!
Dann, Congratulations to you, too! We’ll be praying for you and yours. Hope all goes (or went!) well. Keep us posted, O.K.?

5, huh? Uhh, Michael Sp…just kidding!!
1. John Wesley
2. E. Stanley Jones
3. John Piper
4. Robert Coleman
5. Flannery O’Connor

Just when you thought only priests did it…

Here are the worlds most awsome children….easter_1.jpg

Killing Cain would have destroyed 1/3 of the gene pool. God needed his genetics

CS:
One scripture, one source of the scripture, one thought process. Adultery is adultery, whether in action or in thought, they are the same. Does that mean that there are zillions of people who have the right to get divorced? Yep. Should people use the idea of mental adultery as a basis for divorce? Perhaps. Internet affairs are now used as grounds for divorce. Does that mean that there are thousands of people who don’t have a clue that their everyday exploits are considered sin and therefore separating them form God? Yep.

Rob: According to Jesus, adultery is the only reason you can divorce. Of course, in another gospel, he does not even mention adultery, so even adultery is not firm. If I follow the reason that the death penalty is the reason why you cannot atone through sacrifice for murder and adultery, then you must also include the following:

1. Working on the Sabbath (Ex 31:15)
2. Practicing slavery via kidnapping (Ex 1:16)
3. Sex with an animal (Ex 22:19)
4. Allowing loose animals to kill people (Ex 21:28 – 29)
5. Drinking in church – Aaron’s sons (Lev 16?)
6. Cursing father or mother (Lev 20:9)
etc.

The point is that there are more than two things to put someone to death for, yet the person speaking said there were only 2 sins that you could not atone for with sacrifice: murder and adultery. In scripture, I see that you are not to sacrifice an animal with defect or flaw, but not that you must not sacrifice for murder or adultery. I thought this he was talking about not taking the ransom for someone who had murdered another, (Numbers 35:31 – 32, Ps 49) but he then mentioned adultery. At best, he can quote Proverbs 28, which states a man tormented by the guilt of murder will be a fugitive until death. I guess, you could create an argument with Mt 5:21, but you would have to take it out of context.

Thoughts on this one. I heard a speaker this week talk about how murder and adultery were the only two sins that you could not atone for through sacrifice. I did not get a chance to ask where he got this from, but I cannot find a scripture on this. Having studied the Pentateuch, I know that you cannot pay ransom for a murder, but have never heard of sacrifice not covering this sin. I am still looking, but wanted to get some thoughts on this.

Michael: I like the quote of Romans 8:1 (no condemnation of those in Christ Jesus). Note the rest of the chapter. It talks about those that are in the Spirit. One who continues to use grace as their backup plan is not acting in the Spirit, at least not looking at the fruit produced (Gal 5). We are still under the law, but out of respect for the sacrifice made for our sins (grace), and not as a means to earn our way to heaven. You can fall on either side of this line. On one side, grace is therethere for willfull sin; on the other, you become so caught up on the law that it consumes you. While there is nothing wrong with the logic in either position, taking them to an extreme takes you off the narrow path.

On the once saved, always saved: In many ways, it fits better with Calvanistic viewpoints than Armenians, although it seems the Armenians espouse it. I believe thoroughly that we have to pick up the cross and die daily, as the self (world) creeps in. I find myself fighting sins again and again. I know that I need to let go, but my pride gets in the way.

On the middle east: I agree that it does need to be bigger than good guys, bad guys. There are peace loving Palestinians. My point is the tactics of the armies are completely different. There is credible evidence that the Palestinians have shot their own children on television to get it blamed on the Israelis. We also have the attack on the Jewish civilians just recently. There are a couple of issues here.

1. The leaders of the two groups have different stances. The Israelis are treating this as a civilized war, and the Palestinians are not. Of course, war is hell, right?
2. There is a certain amount of indoctrination in the Palestinian children to desire to martyr oneself. This trend will take a generation or more to erradicate.

I am not sure Sharon is the best leader, from a PR standpoint, but it is not my country. ;->

Rob: You are right. I misspoke. What I meant was what you said: sanctification is what happens over a lifetime. I guess my point is that if the sanctification isn’t there, neither is the justification. And I still say that I have to answer that question for me, not everyone else.

Michael S: I agree. I guess like everything else, balance in teaching is the key. I just love your teaching/preaching (one of the only unpleasantries about moving was leaving MPC and your leadership), both in church and chapel, and I would hate to see you become unbalanced in the good news of grace message you are so great at communicating (not that that is what’s happening, I would just hate to see it). You know as well as I do that people already hear enough unbalanced preaching about the place of works in the believer’s life. I know you would never preach that, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that I would hate for people (specifically nonbelievers) to perceive that you are preaching that. I don’t even know if I’m making sense (story of my life).

EricR: God is absolutely the gracious gurantor of our perseverance. 1 Thessalonians 5:24 24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. Philippians 1:6 6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. The is the strength of all who are pressing forward. It is especially the source of the strength to get up and start over. Romans 8:1 ESV Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. But I would say that the temptation for many Reformed people is to say Grace gurantees that if I commit this ______________ sin, (Fill in blank) I will still go to heaven. That is isolating grace from all that God says goes with it. And that is really really important for all of us who believe we are made right with God entirely by grace. The grace alone that saves never produces faith that is alone. But many good grace oriented Christians overly devalue what comes along with grace-produced-faith. I always have the feeling that some Christians believe obedience, the church, worship, the sacraments, perseverance, church discipline, public confession are somehow the enemies of grace, and that if we emphaisze any of them, we are attacking “grace alone.” No, no, no! These are the GRACIOUS means God uses to guide me to heaven.

Some quick thoughts from a mental cripple on OSAS et al:
1. Yes, we must persevere to the end, because salvation isn’t a one-time thing, only to be looked back upon. Future grace and all that. (Hope I did that link right so Michael won’t insult me again :-)
But we must be careful to explain to those who have questions that it is God’s grace and strength that causes us to persevere. If left to my own devices, I WILL FAIL. Period. Total depravity. I must have God’s grace and strength in order to make it. Now this is not the same as just lying back and watching God do everything. As Schreiner says in his article (I think it was Schreiner), we cannot just refrain from any effort at holiness and say Well, God, I can’t do it. It’s up to you! That is a sign of insincerity. But I still say that, in reality, I can’t do it without God’s grace and strength. I make this distinction because I can easily see people saying, What’s the use? I’m not going to be able to persevere in the way the God of the universe wants me to, and it sounds like these people are saying that I can lose what I have by not doing everything just right. I don’t even want to start trying.
It just seems to me that, if we don’t preach/teach this right, it simply becomes You Can Lose Your Salvation all over again, with a new name. What a depressing doctrine that ignores grace!
2. This all boils down to a close look at our own hearts and motives and relationship with God. I think this is a very personal doctrine. There is no way I can (or should) go around and tell others the condition of their salvation process. God deals with people as He so chooses, and I can not possibly see His master plan. I think to be so presumptuous is probably a sin. What I have to do instead is take a good, hard look at my own heart. That’s the only way. Trying to figure it out for everyone is depressing and circular and unproductive.
I’ve got too much work to do to be typing such drivel! BTW, nice Apocalypse Now reference (Napalm in the morning), Mike B!

Mr. Rigney, the first Uncle Buck reference was mine. Keep up please. There are hordes of younger applicants wanting your job.

GUYS: I would like to make an e-mail listing on the side bar so people could correspond privately. If you DO NOT want me to list your name (and addy under the link) please write me and say so in the next couple of days.

MikeB: Thou art close to the Kingdom of God ;) ;) ;-)

#1 The Bible does not teach you can lose your salvation. From GOD’S POINT OF VIEW Romans 8:29-30 is absolutely true and is the best text for OSAS.
#2 The Bible does say examine yourselves to see if you are the real deal. Scripture does function in a “test of genuineness” fashion.
#3 Shreiner and Canaday are saying that the traditional ways of looking at warning passages (My proof texts and about a dozen in Hebrews and the parables, etc.) are 1) tests of genuinenesss or 2) loss of salvation.
#4 They are proposing a third way: that the texts are genuine warnings and are aimed at Christians with PERSEVERANCE in mind. Perseverance being what happens in the Christians life from OUR EXPERIENCE. God uses the warnings to guide his elect through life. The force of the warnings is real, because if I abandon the faith I am not saved, was not saved, will not be saved.
#5 I am saying that OSAS minimizes even eliminates this for millions of Baptists. “Since OSAS, and I am saved, the warning does not apply to me, so I will ignore it. And since you can’t fall, it always means something else and doesn’t apply to me. So all that applies to me are the assurances.”

Got the Uncle Buck ref there, Matthew! (And somebody did a Mutiny on the Bounty the other day—I haven’t fallen asleep on the job!)
BTW, the results from our survey should be back from the independent auditing firm tomorrow. Everyone waits with bated breath!

MichaelS, DGC: I love the smell of proof-texts in the morning. :) My question to you this morning, gentlemen, is, to whom are the warnings given and why? Are the warnings given to Christians who are in jeopardy of loosing their salvation? Or, are the warnings given to the unsaved who—because of some external act such as baptism, church membership, or walking an isle—believe they are a Christians, when, in fact, they are not?

MichaelS: I find it interesting that Paul admonishes: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified” (2 Cor. 13:5 NKJV) The test is not whether one is about to lose his/her salvation, but rather, whether he/she is “in the faith.” Those who do not “continue in the faith” or “press on toward the goal for the prize” or “pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love . . .” fail the test and are disqualified from calling themselves a Christian. (“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that NONE OF THEM WERE OF US.”). (1 John 2: 19 NKJV; Emphasis mine) (You had to know I was going there :)

Dann: What the parable of the sower teaches me is that there are a number of people who have some external appearances of salvation for a time (3 out of 4, if you want to take the parable literally) but only those who continue in the faith and produces fruit are genuinely saved. Eventually, the true state of the person will manifest itself. Take Judas, for example. To the remaining twelve, he had all the appearances of a genuine disciple of Jesus. Right to the very moment of his betrayal of Jesus, none of the remaining disciples had any idea what Judas was about to do. (“Now as they were eating, He said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.’ And they wee exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him ‘Lord is it I?’” Matt. 26:21, 22) Nonetheless, Jesus referred to Judas as “a devil.” (John 6:70). Judas didn’t forfeit his salvation because of his betrayal of Jesus. Judas was never saved in the first place. (If one assumes that a “devil” cannot be truly saved). Also, I see the parable of the unforgiving servant as a warning that a cold, unforgiving heart is, once again, a test of whether one is truly saved. To answer your question, no, I do not believe the servant demonstrated genuine repentance.

Finally, I will leave everyone with this. Jesus said, “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matt 7:22, 23). Even though these people recognized Jesus as Lord and had all the external trappings of a genuine believer, they NEVER entered into the personal relationship necessary for true salvation.

BTW: No, I don’t believe my text can beat up your text :-) However, I do believe there is ample Biblical support for the maxim that once you are saved, you are always saved. Again, the only alternative is that once you are saved you can be lost again. That, I believe, is contrary to Scripture.

DGC: All good stuff and I agree. The parable of the sower- and many other parables of Jesus- suffer when perseverance is not emphaisized as a reality. One of the key points in my own coming to know I had a problem in this area (and in my life) was hearing Charles Stanley handle the parables. I forget the parable, but in one its says the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness. Stanley said this servant was saved (had to be since OSAS) and this “outer darkness” was somewhere in the Kingdom of God. It was practically an evangelical affirmation of purgatory. The motivation was this: any language in a parable that indicated salvation existed once meant the subject was OSAS. Exegetical gymnastics followed. I believe the proper position is that those who are not finally saved may have many of the signs of salvation- but not perseverance. Perseverance- which is a future, not just a present, reality- is a sign of salvation too!

Just got a note that Clear Creek Baptist Bible College (about 50 miles from me and where I have many contacts) is forcing out a music professor over Calvinism. Sheesh. What is that all about? Singing too many Isaac Watts hymns? Should we break the news about John Newton or just leave them slumbering? How about “elect from every nation?”

MikeB/RonC: We differ substantially. (Ain’t it wonderful? ;-)

The problem with the language of OSAS is that scripture uses various tenses and descriptions for salvation to balance off the “already and not yet.” We were saved, are being saved and will be saved. OSAS has nothing to say to the last two. One of problems is my unhappiness as a preacher with my handling of texts under OSAS. I was not able to preach the warnings as real because, like MikeB, I thought it meant I believed in falling from grace Here is a prime example.

Colossians 1:21-23 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard…
My experience with OSAS is to say you believed, you are reconciled, therefore you are insured a place in heaven no matter what. (Faith past tense.) Scripture says you believed, you are reconciled and if indeed you continue in the faith he will present you before him etc. Colossians is balanced on the already/not yet.

Here is another with the “already/not yet” clearly brought out:
Philippians 3:13-14 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Paul says there is an aspect of salvation that I have not made my own, and I must press on toward it. The effectual call of God in the Gospel is the present “already” but the prize of eternal life is a future “not yet” goal.

Here is a typical warning that I would have ignored in the past:
1 Timothy 6:9-12 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. 11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

How does this warning to Timothy have any real meaning unless 1) the threat of destruction is real, 2) the threat of wandering from the faith is real 3) The fight of faith is necessary (not just the confession) 4) In order to take hold of eternal life to which he was called. How does this work for OSAS? Are the warnings real?

REMEMBER: In the lives of the elect, these warnings work as real warnings, not as hypotheticals. God keeps the elect, but these warnings work as part of the means.

MichaelS. I certainly cannot interpret the term once saved always saved for others. However, Webster’s defines “save” as: “1 To preserve or rescue from danger 2. To keep from being spent, expended or lost . . . 6 To deliver from the consequences of sin.” It does not mean, “profess,” “Baptize,” “join,” or “walk” (as in isle). If I go on a rescue mission to save a man stranded in the mountains and I bring him back in a body bag, I certainly cannot say the man was saved. Even if I successfully bring the man out of the mountains but he dies three days latter from injuries he suffered, I cannot say he was saved. However, if I bring the man back and he goes on to live a long, fruitful life, then to say the man was saved would be an appropriate description. Furthermore, there is no in between. Either the man was saved, or he was not saved. Period. If, then, a Christian is one who is “saved” from the consequences of sin, then that person must be “SAVED” from the consequences of sin. If at some point in the future that person suffers the consequences of sin (i.e. eternal punishment) then, by the very definition of the term, the person was never “saved” in the first place. The only alternative to OSAS is that once saved, you can be lost again. Such, I believe, would be contrary to the entire teaching of the Bible.

Here is a blueprint for a war that will engulf the world. If Sharon thinks the U.S. is going to sit back and watch this, he is disturbed. This is what I mean by a lack of adequate politcal leadership on both sides to forge a realistic solution.

RonC and MikeB: Mike, I don’t know your denominational background, but I do know Ron’s, so come along for the ride. Ron, the term OSAS has produced 8 million invisible Southern Baptists who think they are saved. And several million Baptists in church who think the invisible eight million are saved. OSAS means perseverance like Jesse Jackson means minister. OSAS means “Once professed, always saved,” or “once told I’m saved/once Baptized/once a member of the church/ once down the aisle, always saved.” I grew up neck deep in this. It was an article of faith, and it meant that any person who professed Christianity once was always saved. it was point in time total salvation. It was “believed” (Past tense) as the only condition of heaven. We had a preacher here at OBI who was a former student. He was talking about a guy who was a big-time Christian when he was a student, who is now an angry, Christianity loathing atheist. He said he believed the guy was still a Christian. That is OSAS. The BFM statement is fine, and describes the fact of perseverance. But it doesn’t describe the process, which is believing the promises and heeding the warnings and obeying the commands. Running the race, not entering the race.Finishing the race, not dropping out. (Read all the warnings in Hebrews.) It really is describing “preservation” and not perseverance. OSAS says when you enter the race you win. Perseverance of the saints says when you run the race to the end, you win. Preservation says you were going to win all along because God gurantees it. I don’t think OSAS has simplified anything for the average person. It has confused the commoner. I appreciate your contention that it is milk. If so, why has not a single Baptist Catechism or Confession adopted the language?

MikeB: R.C.’s definition is good, but again, it describes preservation (God’s part) not perseverance (our part) and it is the failure to grasp our part that has produced the 8 million invisible Baptists. A genuine Christian is one who runs the race to the end without abandoning the race. He who perseveres to the end will be saved. Could we say he who perseveres to the end was saved? Sure. But scripture chooses the first version.

How is it that if we use the term “perseverance,” we are theologically correct, but if we use the term “once saved always save,” we are theologically incorrect? I’ve always thought the terms were synonymous. In his book “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith: 100 Key Doctrines in Plain Language,” (I realize this is incredibly lightweight theology for most of you) R.C. Sproul defines the doctrine of perseverance of the saints this way: “In essence the doctrine teaches that if you have saving faith you will never lose it, and if you lose it, you never had it.” (pg. 197). Where does Sproul’s definition of perseverance fail? How does this definition differ from Schreiner’s assertion that “true believers will never apostisize.”
I guess what it comes down to is this: can a genuine Christian lose his/her salvation? If the answer to that question is, no, then what is most important is that people understand that truth, not the language used to convey that truth.

An addendum to the picture thingy: Why is he touching her? Isn’t that cause for at least a maiming? “Bug, you see this hatchet?”

Gregory: Once Saved Always Saved is, I believe, a denial of the true Biblical doctrine of perseverance. In “the book” Canaday and Schreiner destroy and demolish this error. (I am dialoging with Canaday over at DB. All invited.)

Thanks for the responses on the photo. “Bug, have you ever met a serial killer?”
We have a big formal debate tonight on campus. It’s my Bible classes debating the resurrection. My daughter is heading the “against” team!! It should be fun. We’re using wrestling-type intros (Linkin Park!) so the students will get a kick out of it.

SteveM: Victimization is power. We are a long way from seeing people gain power through self respect and success. Its persecution and lawsuits. See my magnum opus on this phenom. One bully and the whole school may be shut down and all of you sent to Hillary funded re-education camps. I will agree that the lawyers for the homosexual advocates have picked the wrong state. If your principal takes any heat over this it will be to your advantage. 8th grade and openly gay. When I was in the 8th grade I knew so little about sex I couldn’t have told you where babies came from.

Welcome to Steve Schaper, who says he doesn’t agree with me on everything. Imagine that.

GregoryB: In my view the Middle East solution has to be bigger than good guys, bad guys. There are many decent and peace desiring Palestinians (read the Easter piece) and also many peace hating terrorists. As the Jesse Jackson of Palestinian politics, Arafat is the biggest obstacle because he doesn’t want a solution. It is ANYTHING but peace with Israel. I am not fond of Sharon, whom I consider an example of the worst reactions of Israel and the kind of strong arm that people turn to in desperate times when they value security most of all. It was his cocky visit to temple mount that got the ball rolling. He is still the butcher of Lebanon to Palestinians. Nonetheless, he can make peace. Arafat’s ineffectiveness is the problem. There is no moral equivalency between terrorism and legitimate defense. I agree wholeheartedly. If Arafat would have taken Barak’s offer at the end of the Clinton years and moved forward with it, things wouldn’t be perfect but they would be different. Until Arafat is out of the picture, I am pessimistic. He gives the extremists reasons to do the worst and he gives no one a reason to hope for something better.

By the way. Please don’t mention the Andy Griffith thing again, ever! Thank you!

I heard all the noise from the street and decided to stay home until things cooled off here. Caught a glance of a discussion regarding homosexuality and seminaries and wanted to share something interesting happening in our school right now. An 8th grade student has been placed on homebound instruction here because of alleged death threats due to his being openly gay. In my ten years here at the school this is the first time a student has taken being gay as a badge of honor and is daring anyone to say something. Our students have done nothing to our knowledge to hurt this kid and have shown incredible tolerance. Interestingly I would call their reactions almost indifferent which I find amusing. How will it set with the gay community seeking greater and greater political clout knowing that most mainstream youth could’nt seem to care less. Anyway, our principal, a Godly and talented woman, has been informed that the school is being sued and she herself may be liable for comments she made to a gay advocacy group who met with her. She made some crazy comment about homosexuality being morally wrong, sinful and physically and emotionally abusive. She did, however, say that she and our school would not tolerate any student being harrassed but from all indications this did not happen. Now it gets interesting. Our principal contacted a lawyer friend of hers and was informed that laws in Kentucky do not protect gays per say. And that all the smoke they have been blowing cannot stand up in any Kentucky courts. I’m not sure if this is the case or not, but it fascinates me to think that all the threats of lawsuits are perhaps impossible to carry out. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me. Good to be back.

Michael, do you own any firearms? If you do, I think cleaning them while said boyfriend is at the house might convince him that mistreating your daughter is not in his best interests. I think it would be even better if you could get one of those .50 caliber models that Bart mentioned long ago. Also, mentioning that the rifle is for “family protection” might help.

Well, I go home to Arkansas for the weekend and come back to find that there were tornados and high winds in the area. Ichthus campers had to be evacuated to local churches on Saturday night. I guess God isn’t too happy with the altar calls, either. ;-) Looks like I missed a lot of good weekend blogging. I don’t think I’ll catch up this week, though. Too many papers. Y’all might want to keep this poor student in your prayers.

Seeker’s based church: I have a gentleman in my bible study that goes to a seeker’s church. His claim is the Saturday and Wednesday night services are much deeper theologically. My problem with the church deals with a friend (of sorts) that has been going there for two years and has no intent on becomming a Christian. She says she goes there because the church is open and tolerant. Considering that the Truth is offensive to those unwilling to accept it, I have a problem with a church that can have an unbeliever sit for 2 years and never preach a message that is offensive. I wonder if the message that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation has ever been taught in the Sunday morning worship. That’s pretty offensive to a universalist, isn’t it.

I see two types of churches growing today: entertaining churches (or non-offensive) and very biblically based churches. One is grown by worldly means (which is where much of the Seeker’s growth comes from), and the other by godly. Guess which one is more likely to win souls for Christ. As far as the argument “look how many people are attending,” the counterargument is “but how many are repenting and converting?” If the answer is “very few,” then, using their own logic, you can show the failure of the church.

Carnal Christian teaching: I have seen a certain amount of this in the “once saved, always saved,” Baptist doctrine, but more in the congregation than the teaching. I also see the “God’s grace is large enough for …” doctrine, where grace becomes a coverall for those not willing to repent. It becomes justification for wrong thinking and bad actions. The topic where this got me a bit distressed this weekend was euthansia. The person mentioning grace was talking about the grace God extends to those who decide to euthanize someone in a terminal condition.

My feeling of grace is one cannot understand it at all unless he realizes he is a pitiful, evil creature, left to his own desires. I also think one has to truly reflect on Jesus’ sacrifice to understand that grace is not cheap. It cost God a lot to give us the gift of his grace. When you look at these two items, it becomes hard to say “I am going to do it anyway, because God’s grace …” Paul would have never said “I die daily” if he treated grace as such an inexpensive commodity. To continue to use grace as an excuse, once you really reflect on the price, is to treat God as a servant, rather than a master.

On the middle east: I heard a person talking about how this was a war and innocent people die. He was reflecting on how both sides lost people this weekend. I jumped into the conversation and asked if he had even noticed that the Israelis killed this weekend were in their own homes and were all women and children, while the Palestinians killed were men carrying rifles? Yes, there are horrible things happening on both sides, and innocent people do get killed on both sides, but you cannot see what is happening as the same. The Palestinians are targeting civilians and occasionally killing a soldier, while the Israelis are doing the opposite. I will accept the argument that the Palestinians are fighting for their own land, but don’t try to tell me that the Palestinians and Israelis are using identical tactics: the record shows something different. Okay, rant off.