Sir, From your latest blog entry: "We are not saved by holiness
(legalism) but salvation is evidenced by it, just as the tree is evidenced by
its fruit. A real Christian (Christ-one) is Christ-like."
The above statement is a heresy and
a blasphemy. Born Again Sons of God are Holy and they are made Holy by the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is the free undeserved gift of Salvation.
There is certainly no legalism in being made Holy. Once
made Holy by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are Holy and cannot be made
any more Holy.
Our critic here comes on
the scene as a bit of a gunslinger, which is well and good but only if
the circumstances merit it. The only problem which I can see with the
quoted statement is that the critic has equated the bracketed word (legalism) with the word (and concept of) holiness. This was not the intention of the writer, but rather that anyone trusting in their holiness
to save them is guilty of legalism. Perhaps if I had've stated it
clearer, our gun slinging critic might've had reason to point his
weapon elsewhere. It is suggested by the context where the preceeding
sentence reads: "If there is no holiness, then no matter what we did some years ago or thought we did will get us into Heaven." Lest
some one come along and accuse us of preaching salvation by faith in
our holiness i.e. I must be saved because I pray, read the Bible etc.,
I put in the disclaimer that we are not saved by such holiness (or, as
I will correct it) not saved by trusting in such holiness,
but rather that holiness is an evidence of true, saving faith. I
don't know how many people have accessed this article, but this is the
first objection to this particular line. I would imagine that most have
managed to see the connection for themselves.
"Therefore instead of "Once
saved…always saved" it might be better if we closed up a rather smug loophole
which self deceived professors have exploited and believe instead: "If
saved…always saved.""
It might be better if this
individual put a sock in it, for there is no smugness in being Born Again and
Sons of God are not smug - period. The Father calls [John 6:44] and we humbly
answer without question, we don't have a say in the matter. No one 'accepts'
Jesus Christ and no one 'finds' Jesus Christ. Those who are chosen are chosen -
we are predestined and that's that. It is very likely that those who think they
have 'found' Jesus Christ are the ones who are going to be smug.
If our critic could manage to correctly state what was actually
written, I would probably be charitable enough to overlook his
rudeness. The sentence he quotes doesn't say that those born again and
Sons of God are smug. It refers to self deceived professors. Period. I cannot agree with his view that "those who are chosen are chosen - we are predestinated and that's that." I agree 100% with the doctrine of unconditional election, and so I find no fault with the first part of his statement, but to say "that's that" is very poor application indeed. It certainly is not Bible faith that urges men to seek the Lord
while He is to be found (Isaiah 55:6) or uses the parables
of finding the treasure in the field or the pearl of great
price (Matthew 13:44-45) The Bible puts different emphasis on
different matters at different times. Most people, but obviously not
our critic, generally accept this.
This maintains the truth of the eternal security of the people of God
while leaving room for that vital examination which is urged upon us by the
Apostle Paul himself (2 Corinthians 13:5). Obviously no one is
urging an excessive introspection which (having got us to take our eyes of
Christ) would plunge us all into despair. But it is profitable to take time to
weigh ourselves in the balances of Scriptures and see if we are really
manifesting those evidences of the new birth.
Here his gross error continues with the misuse of 2 Cor 13:5. We are to
examine ourselves to make sure we are not believing in a non-gospel. To make
sure we are not believing in vain as are most of those in mainstream
'Christianity'. "Try yourselves; pierce your hearts; bore yourselves throughout; try
yourselves by what I have written, and see whether ye retain the true faith of
the Gospel." (Adam Clarkes' Commentary)
If this is a "gross error"
as I am charged, then it must be charged against a whole company of
others, including Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Charles Spurgeon, Albert
Barnes, Charles Hodge, John McArthur and doubtless a whole host more. I
accept that this doesn't necessarily make my interpretation right, but
it must be confessed that I stand in good company. I see no reason to
retract my interpretation.
The problems arise for mainstream 'Christianity' when they Baptise people
who say they have 'found' and/or 'accepted' Jesus Christ. When all the while
it's got nothing to do with them at all. This beggars the question: are these
people really Christians? I'll leave you to answer that one.
Our critic declines to answer his
own question as to whether those people who employ a certain
terminology are really Christians. If we were to read every last
interpretation to the words which people say, then either none of us
would open our mouths or we would speak as if we were reading a legal
document. Most of us just tend to get on with it. In the case of any professing Christian, I will look for the evidences of faith rather than make men offenders for a word.
A final point, if we are deciding whether or not we are 'accepting' Jesus
Christ, this is like the vase saying to potter "OK Potter I'm very happy to
accept the fact that you are are my creator" - utter nonsense!! Charles Crosby
There is no doubt
that some things can be worded better than they are. "Accepting Christ"
is not a term I use, preferring instead the Scriptural term of
"Receiving Christ" (John 1:12) It is my experience that most people
mean this when they use the term "accepting Christ". I have never yet
detected the idea that they are merely saying to the Potter, "OK Potter I'm very happy to
accept the fact that you are are my creator" Usually, they elaborate further and often use more scriptural language.
So that's it. The reader can judge
for himself the validity of my original article, the validity of the
critic's remarks and my reply to them. Apart from closing up a possible loophole, which I think was more perceived than real, I will leave the article as it stands.
THE END
There was a follow up from the critic yet again, kindly forwarded to me by the
blogger. My final email on this subject reproduced below:
Hi
The critic has more time on his hands than
I have. I've no desire to pursue the matter any further with him and I'll not
bother even reproducing the email below on our site. He reminds me of the old
joke about the man who was being shown around heaven. He saw different groups
there, all easily discernible by their different traits. For example, when he
saw an especially exuberant crowd there, his enquiry "Who are they?" was met
with the answer: "They're the Pentecostals who have been born again" etc., They
came to a brick wall and they heard loud laughing behind it. "Who are they ?"
asked the newcomer? He received the answer: "The Hyper Calvinists" [or any
other similar crowd or individuals] - they think they're the only ones here."
No doubt, he'll probably ransack his
thesaurus for fresh words of condemnation, but if so, I must reply and say: "I
am doing a good work and I cannot come down."
Thanks for your note and for reproducing
the original article on your blog. There is no reason to change it or than the
minor adjustment already made.
Colin Maxwell