Visitors from around the World

Translate blog:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Announcements

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

facebook: Discerning the World

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent Comments

General Comments Section:

Click here for the General Comments Section Discerning the World - General Conversation Section

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Article Archive

Click here to find a List of all Articles List of all Articles
Click here to find a List of all Categories to search by Categories / Keywords

Website Stats

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Prof Johan Malan – A Gospel of Works – Losing your Salvation (Part 2)

Prof Johan Malan - A Gospel of Works - Losing your Salvation (Part 2)

ProfJohanMalan-AGospelofWorks - losing your salvation

Please see Prof Johan Malan – A Gospel of Works – Losing your Salvation (Part 1) here:

Recently Deborah reconciled with Prof. Johan Malan and asked forgiveness over publishing an article on his relationship with Calvinists.  See  apology here:    Prof Malan states that his theological views have not been altered, that he is still against Calvinism even though he befriends Calvinists. Right. We will let Prof Malan befriend who ever he wants.

Prof. Johan Malan has over the years publish articles pointing out the doctrinal errors of others, so we here at DTW believe he should not be upset if we take a look at his beliefs.

2) Prof Malan believes you can lose your salvation.

Hey says:  “Even Dave Hunt, who masterfully refutes Calvinism’s first four points, faltered when he got to point five by denying that Christians can act in ways which can cause their falling from grace. In his book he says he always regarded himself as a one-point Calvinist until he discovered that he has different reasons for believing in eternal security (ibid, p. 377). He explains that, according to him, eternal security lies in Christ’s atoning work on the cross and He gives eternal life to those who believe in Him. It is indeed eternal salvation imputed to us when we receive Christ, but we have it only as long as we abide in Him. Eternal life is not vested in us but in Jesus Christ, who ever calls His disciples to faithfulness. What happens if we backslide into a life of wilful sinning, no longer walking in the light and turning back to a life of unbelief? What about those who “have forsaken the right way and gone astray” (2 Pet. 2:15), having again become entangled in the pollutions of the world after their salvation? (2 Pet. 2:20). What they lose is not temporal but eternal salvation.” —http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Dave.htm

He says “It is obvious that Dave Hunt disregards the rule of free will in this context. According to the Bible Christians can indeed make wrong decisions, in some cases even towards their own ruin. Timothy was warned against this mistake and encouraged to persevere in his faith and a holy life (1 Tim. 1:19; cf. Heb. 3:6,14). Behold the lamentable condition which churches have lapsed into where members are told that they can never lose their salvation no matter what they do!”   —http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Calvinism-crit.htm

Prof Malan does not understand the the verses he has quoted, let explain why it does NOT say that you forfeit your salvation:

It is preposterous to say Dave Hunt was a one-point Calvinist just because Calvinists also believe in eternal security. In that case, you may say that Dave Hunt was a Roman Catholic because they too believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is what Dave Hunt says in his book “What Love is This”:

“Before beginning what turned into an urgent and in-depth study of Calvinism, I had thought that I was at least a one-point Calvinist. Surely my belief in eternal security, the assurance of salvation eternally in God’s presence, must be the same as Calvinism’s Perseverance of the Saints. That turned out, however, not to be the case. Why? Biblical assurance of salvation does not depend upon one’s performance but upon the gospel’s declaration that Christ died for the sins of the world and upon His promise that whosoever believes in Him receives the gift of eternal life. In contrast, the Calvinist’s assurance is in God having predestined him to eternal life as one of the elect – and his performance plays a large part in helping him to know whether or not he is among that select group.” (p377)

Johan Malan insinuates that Dave Hunt advocated licentiousness and that saints can live as they please without ever having to fear that they may lose their salvation. That is NOT what Dave Hunt taught. Malan also makes a big spiel of Hunt’s supposed denial of free-will in the context of eternal security. He argues that the Once-Ssaved-Always-Saved camp promulgates free-will in the context of salvation but denies it in the context of eternal security, meaning that the saint does not have a free-will to decide and choose whether he wants to apostatize from the faith. What does the Word of God say? The Word of God states unequivocally that a true child of God will never WANT to regret his salvation and turn his back on Jesus. “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented [regretted] of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

The lamentable condition some churches lapse into is not caused by the doctrine of ‘unconditional salvation’ and ‘eternal security’. It is caused by false teachers who twist Scripture. Paul warned Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:19 against the false teachers who made shipwreck of their own faith and that of others. To make shipwreck of the faith does not mean the loss of salvation. How do we know? Paul mentions two persons, Alexander and Hymenaeus, whom he delivered unto Satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme. They did not lose their salvation; their deliverance to Satan was remedial and not punitive. (2 Corinthians 2:5-8). The irony is that Johan Malan and those who believe a saint can lose his salvation are actually the ones making shipwreck of the faith because they are teaching others NOT to trust Jesus who promised: “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25). They are teaching saints to rely on and have faith in themselves to maintain and secure their salvation. If they truly had faith in Jesus Christ they would never have doubted His ability to keep saints secure to the very end of their lives.

In Hebrews 3:6 and 14 the “house” does not refer to the body of believers in Christ. The author (whom I believe was Paul) was thinking in terms of the Old Testament priestly duties of the High Priest and the other priests. He was, therefore, referring to the priestly duties of Christians in the house of God over which the Son (as High Priest) is faithful as Moses was faithful over the wilderness tabernacle. It does not teach the loss of a saint’s salvation but the possibility of his loss and the forfeiture of his priestly duties. The Levites by birth could, by virtue of infidelity and unfaithfulness, withdraw from their priestly duties in the tabernacle of Moses and in the same way the a true Christian by his new birth can withdraw from his priestly roll in the economy of God’s house. (1 Peter 2:9). Once again, I must reiterate that those who believe in conditional eternal security (that you can lose your salvation) are actually the ones who are withdrawing from their duties as priest and kings because they are teaching others that they cannot trust Christ for their eternal security. They may deny this, as they always do, but this is exactly what they are doing.

Losing Your Salvation, Is it Possible? Understanding Hebrews 6 (Part 1 and 2)

Losing Your Salvation

Hebrews 6 has caused much confusion among believers throughout the whole of church history, resulting in several interpretations that don’t seem to answer the pressing questions many precious children of God ask to this very day.

  1. The most common interpretation is the very strong assertion that believers can lose their salvation, generally referred to as apostasy.  Some say it deals with persons who were ‘almost saved’ but then turned their backs on Christ. Others believe it describes a sin only possible among Jews living while the temple was still standing
  2. And yet others present it as a “hypothetical case” or illustration that could not really happen.

Hebrews was not written to prove that believers can lose their salvation but to encourage them to remain faithful to their Lord in even the most dire of circumstances, with the intent of gaining the reward/s that Christ has in stall for them if they remain faithful. To get a more intimate awareness of the heart of the book, we need to briefly look at the purpose it was written for.

Leviticus in the Old Testament and the Epistle to the Hebrews need to be studied in tandem, the reason being that Hebrews illustrates the glorious fulfilment in Christ of all the Levitical rituals and sacrifices. Throughout the Epistle a far better dispensation than the Old Testament is put forward because SOMEONE far greater and more superior than any created being in heaven and on earth has appeared, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. Indeed the keyword of the Epistle to the Hebrews is “BETTER” or “SUPERIOR”.”

On several occasions during His earthly life, Jesus said that He who is greater than the temple, He who is greater than Jonah and He who is greater than Solomon has appeared (Matthew 12:638-45). King Solomon’s splendour, majesty and glory were unsurpassed in Old Testament times. Kings and queens of all the surrounding nations honoured him for his great wisdom and majesty. A great heathen nation (the Assyrians of Nineveh) repented of their wickedness when Jonah preached to them. In both these cases Jesus is the greater One. His splendour, majesty and glory far outweighs that of king Solomon, and His preaching and teaching is far greater in power than that of Jonah.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews Jesus’ superiority to the prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua and Aaron is elaborated upon to illustrate the glory of His person and His work on earth and in heaven. Every Old Testament figure mentioned in Hebrews of whom Jesus is far greater or more superior, illustrates a certain aspect of Jesus’ accomplished work here on earth, of which we will not go into detail now.

The Epistle was written for Jewish Christians who had grown weary of the persecution and suffering they endured at the hands of the Judaizers. Judaism demanded that the Levitical rites should strictly be adhered to, especially the circumcision rite. In his Epistle to the Galatians Paul emphasizes the grave danger of preaching or advancing a different gospel or perverting the true gospel and pronounced an anathema on anyone who adulterated the true gospel. Why did Paul react so strongly to these Judaizers who were upsetting the faith of the Galatians? The answer lies in the fact that they were maligning or ridiculing the cross of Christ which is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18). In doing this they were denying God’s power working through the cross of Jesus, and simultaneously presenting something else (in this case circumcision) in the place of the cross. They were not only ridiculing the cross but also confusing the way of salvation so that many people were in danger, not of losing their salvation, but of wandering off or falling by the wayside by forsaking their public confession of Christ.

These false apostles deserved to come under God’s eternal judgment. They were enemies of the cross and constantly sought to entice the Jewish Christians into returning to their old faith of Judaism. We must always remember that Paul was very severe in his pronouncements against the leaders (especially pastors of congregations) who preached another or a different gospel. But he had compassion and pity for the sheep who where being misled by their pastors. In Hebrews this compassion becomes evident. Some of the Jewish Christians were beginning to get so confused through the teaching of false prophets and apostles that they began to think that they had lost everything (their altar rites, priestly rites etc.) when they abandoned their old faith and started to follow Christ.

These Jewish Christians began to underestimate their Christian privileges in Christ; they were getting too absorbed with their sufferings (feeling sorry for themselves) and they began to backslide into their old ways of religious worship. Hebrews, as we shall see, offers a cure for any kind of backsliding. In fact, the cure or right treatment for faintheartedness and backsliding is a correct understanding of the glory and work of Jesus Christ. Many Christians fall back into their old lifestyles because they do not understand the glory and the work of Jesus Christ. That includes the work He accomplished on earth (the cross) and also His work now in heaven on behalf of all true believers.

Let us now look at the way the writer starts to deal with these despondent and despairing Christians who believe that losing your salvation after being saved is biblical.

  1. First he fills their minds with the glory of the Person, and the grandeur of the work of the Lord Jesus.
  2. Next he shows that, instead of losing ‘all’, they had gained ‘all’ (please note ‘We have,’ in the following verses.

WE HAVE A GREAT HIGH PRIEST (Hebrews 4: 14)
In this verse we are not only given the assurance that we have a High Priest, but it also tells us what our High Priest has accomplished when He ascended and passed through the heavens.

WE HAVE THIS HOPE (Hebrews 6: 19)
The hope that is spoken of in the above verse is not this worldly kind of hope. This hope is not uncertain. It is CERTAIN, it is not something which has no foundation. It is founded on the promise and oath of God. (Hebrews 6:18). When someone makes an oath, he swears by someone greater than himself that he would undertake to do the thing he has promised one hundred percent (Hebrews 6:16-18). An example is when a person swears an oath by the name of his sovereign king or queen. The name of his king or queen becomes the guarantee that he would keep his promise one hundred percent. A truly obedient and subservient citizen will never dishonour his king or queen by not keeping his promise. The dignity of the name of his king or queen will be at stake should he fail to keep his promise. That was the basis on which Moses pleaded with God not to destroy His people when they made and worshipped a golden calf. In Exodus 32 verses 12 and 13 Moses says, “If You destroy your people, the Egyptians will ridicule and make a mockery of Your Holy Name. They will say that you were unable to bring them into the Promised Land and instead slew them in the desert. Your Holy name will be at risk if You do not keep your promise You made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” In Genesis 22:16 we see that God swore by Himself, since He had no greater by whom to swear. God cannot swear by someone greater than Himself because there is no one greater than He. He is the sovereign, eternal and majestic God Who is above and greater than anyone or anything. It is in His Name, the One Who cannot lie, that we have received the promise (hope) with an oath.

God made doubly sure that we do not flinch or waver in our hope by two unchangeable things [His promise and His oath], in which it is impossible for God ever to prove false or deceive us, we who have fled [to Him] for refuge might have mighty indwelling strength and strong encouragement to grasp and hold fast the hope appointed for us and set before us (Hebrews 6:18). As if this double assurance is not enough, God confirms His promise and oath by anchoring our hope in our High Priest, Jesus Christ Who is seated in the Holiest of Holies in heaven (Hebrews 6:19). Whenever a large ship moors in a harbour, the captain orders the anchor to be let down so as to prevent the strongest winds from sweeping the ship into the sea. This is the message that verse 19 of chapter 6 wants to convey to us. Our hope is not anchored in the world where every gust of wind (persecution, suffering, hardship, doctrinal errors etc.) can sweep us away into despondency, faintheartedness or unbelief. Our hope is anchored in the most secure, most powerful, most magnanimous (noble), most wonderful, most lofty place in the entire universe, i.e. the Holiest of Holies in heaven where our High Priest is seated at the right hand of God.

WE HAVE A BETTER AND LASTING POSSESSION IN HEAVEN (Hebrews 10: 4)
Someone once said that God allows persecution with the purpose of enlarging your bank account in heaven. This seems to be a good observation, especially when Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:11, 12 is taken into account, “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things against you falsely on My account. Be glad and supremely joyful, for your reward in heaven is great (strong and intense) . . .”

As was said earlier, the Jewish Christians endured persecution at the hands of the Judaizers and some of them lost their possessions through plundering and confiscations. Instead of sympathizing with them, as we all tend to do, the writer encourages them with a burst of joyful exhortation, “you have a better and lasting possession in heaven.” Take careful note that he does not say “you shall have”; He says “you (already) have at this very moment a better and lasting possession in heaven. This reminds me of Peter’s words in 1 Peter 1:4 – 6. Where are our hearts? Are they set upon things here on earth and our belongings, or are they set upon things in heaven? As long as our hearts are set upon earthly possessions, we will never be able to endure persecution. Only when our eyes are fixed on our High Priest where we have a better and lasting possession in heaven, will we be able to endure trials, persecutions and sufferings with exceeding gladness.

WE HAVE AN ALTAR (Hebrews 13: 10)
”We have an altar” refers to our Lord Jesus Christ Who now serves our spiritual interests and needs in the Holiest of Holies in heaven. As we have seen in Leviticus, the Tabernacle with all its furniture and utensils (the Ark of the covenant, the Mercy seat, the Altar of Incense, the Candlestick, the Table of Showbread, the Bronze Laver and the Altar of Burnt Offerings) were only shadows of things to come (Colossians 2:17). As shadows they pointed to Jesus Christ in Whom all the Levitical rites and sacrifices were fulfilled. When Jesus cried out “it is finished” on the cross of Calvary, He simultaneously fulfilled every law concerning the rites and sacrifices pertaining to the Tabernacle and the Temple in the Old Testament, and paid the debt for our sins in full. Therefore it is no longer necessary to adhere to the Levitical rites of the Old Covenant. Nonetheless their were many Jews in those days, as there are today, who are still devoted to rules of diet and ritualistic meals as verse 9 of chapter 13 clearly indicates. These legalistic practices have no spiritual value at all and they do not profit those who observe them. In fact, these persons who cling to the shadows have no right to eat the life-giving spiritual food that Christ Jesus alone can administer.

This is the altar of which is spoken in verse 10 that all true believers have access to. Let me try to explain it to you in simpler words. It would be rather foolish to talk with the shadow of a person on a bright sunny day. Imagine keeping your eyes fixed on the shadow of a man; what do you see? Of course! You only see a dark form of a figure. However when you turn your eyes upward and away from the shadow of the man and focus them on the man himself, everything of that man including his facial features becomes clear. So it is with the Tabernacle rites. As soon as you realize that they are merely shadows of Jesus Christ’s Person and work and you begin to turn your eyes away from the shadows and fix them on Him, you begin to benefit from everything He had accomplished for you on Calvary. The writer warns the Jewish Christians to beware of false teachers whose intent it was to force them back into the shadows of things (to return to their old ways of worship).

WE HAVE NO PERMANENT CITY (Hebrews 11:10)
In this particular case, persecution reminded the Jewish Christians who suffered for their faith in Jesus that their sojourn (life) here on earth was merely a temporary one. Christians often become comfortable with the world when they forget that they have no permanent dwelling here on earth. We are merely strangers in a hostile world who are passing through, not to indulge ourselves in the pleasures and dainties of the world but to be light bearers of our Great Light, Jesus Christ. Many children of God have grown so accustomed to the world and everything it has to offer that they have lost sight of the city which is to come. Persecution is often the only cure for such worldly-mindedness and complacency. The other side of the coin is that one can become so absorbed with your own suffering and persecution that we begin to lose sight of our eternal dwelling in heaven. Some of the Jewish Christians seem to have failed to resist the temptation of returning to their former Judaist faith. The Jewish Christians began to feel so sorry for themselves that the writer deemed it necessary to remind them that they had not yet resisted or withstood sin and sinners (false brethren) to the point of pouring out their own blood (Hebrews 12:4). He explains in verses 2 and 3 of chapter 12 that Jesus Christ Himself is their supreme example of suffering. He did not cringe from His sufferings on the cross. No! He had His eyes fixed on the things beyond the cross and suffering. He endured the cross, despising and ignoring the shame, for the joy that was set before Him. Like Jesus, we too have an ecstatic joy that is set before us. This joy will be realized in full when we enter the permanent city which is to come.

In this part I tried to turn the searchlight on the question why Hebrews was written to the persecuted Jewish Christians. It is evident that it was written to encourage them to remain faithful with the intent of gaining the prize that was set before them; not to grow weary and as a result fall by the wayside. Indeed, they were encouraged to copy the Author and Finisher of their faith, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 12: 2) In the next part I aim to concentrate more on Hebrews 6, the chapter that causes so much confusion among our brethren.

—————-

Losing Your Salvation, Is it Possible? Understanding Hebrews 6 (Part 2)

The main purpose of the epistle to the Hebrews was to encourage the Jewish Christians to press on to perfection by remaining faithful to the Lord without having to return to the “shadows” contained in the Levitical laws. Under duress of the false apostles who enticed them to rely on external rites, such as circumcision, the Jewish Christians began to believe they needed to do those things to retain God’s favor and mercies, much like today’s believers who assert that steadfast perseverance is needed to retain one’s salvation and if they fail that the loss of salvation is imminent. Unfortunately, the notion that perseverance secures a believer’s salvation turns the spiritual eyes inward to “self” and a reliance on human effort to retain and maintain salvation instead of on Christ Jesus Who is the Author (Source) and Finisher of our faith. Those who do not believe in eternal security accuse those who do believe in it of “cheap grace.” This is what

Dave Hunt says of their accusation:

Those who believe in “falling away” accuse those who believe in “eternal security” of promoting “cheap grace.” The latter in itself is an unbiblical expression. To call it “cheap” is really a denial of grace, since it implies that too small a price has been paid. Grace, however, must be absolutely free and without any price at all on man’s part ; while on God’s part the price He paid was infinite. Thus for man to think that his works can play any part in either earning or keeping his salvation is what cheapens grace, devaluing this infinite gift to the level of human effort.

To speak of “falling from grace” involves the same error. Since our works had nothing to do with meriting grace in the first place, there is nothing we could do that would cause us to no longer merit it and thus “fall” from it. Works determine reward or punishment—not one’s salvation, which comes by God’s grace. The crux of the problem is a confusion about grace and works.

In the Greek, Christ’s cry from the cross, “It is finished!” is an accounting term, meaning that the debt had been paid in full. Justice had been satisfied by full payment of its penalty, and thus God could “be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom:3:26). On that basis, God offers pardon and eternal life as a free gift. He cannot force it upon anyone or it would not be a gift. Nor would it be just to pardon a person who rejects the righteous basis for pardon and offers a hopelessly inadequate payment instead—or offers his works even as “partial payment.” (Read the full article here).

Salvation is not the subject of Hebrews 6 but repentance. We have grown accustomed to associate the word “repentance” only with salvation without taking into account that it also has much to do with sanctification (“growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” as Peter 3: 18 says). In this regard “repentance” involves the believer’s attitude to God’s Word and his/her response to it in obedience or disobedience. In fact, it is Hebrews that makes it very clear the God’s Word is sharper than “a two-edged Sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4: 12). Here it is made quite clear that the Word pierces (penetrates) the mind (or conscience) to impress on a wayward sheep the incumbency to repent and the imperativeness to discern between the carnal and the spiritual so as to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh (the dividing asunder of soul and spirit).

It is in this sense that the author of Hebrews wants to convey the truth that it is impossible to bring to repentance those who have been enlightened by His Word and who have consciously tasted the heavenly gift of salvation and have become sharers of the Holy Spirit (in other words, genuinely saved saints of God), and have felt how good the Word of God is and the mighty powers of the age and world to come if they deviate from their faith and turn away from their allegiance to Christ.

In other words the Word of God (Sword of the Spirit) cannot bring God’s children to repentance (changing their fixed mind sets) if they do not respond in obedience to the penetration of the Spirit’s two-edged sword. To get a better understanding of the meaning of the phrase “renewing them to repentance” we need to turn to Galatians 3: 3, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh. Have ye suffered so many things in vain?”

As long as believers rely on the flesh or their own efforts to be made perfect (reach the runner’s finishing line and win the prize); if they remain adamant and persist in reaching the goal in their own efforts, even the Word of God cannot bring them to repentance (change their minds for the better). It does not mean that they cannot repent of their sin of obstinacy. It simply means that the Word cannot bring them to repentance as long as they rely on their own fleshly efforts to reach the goal of their salvation.

Apostasy (falling away) and losing your salvation

Note very carefully that verse 6 in this chapter does not say, “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance” and therefore they have lost their faith (salvation). It says “if they fall away” which simply means “if they deviate from the faith.” Faith in Christ is to trust Him completely for and with everything in our lives. I’m sure we all agree with that! Yet, even the slightest deviation from this faith into a faith in one’s own efforts (even to the extent of persevering to the end so as to retain one’s salvation) cannot please God. Wierbse says:-

“Fall away” is not the Gk. word apostasia , from which we get the English word “apostasy.” It is “parapipto,” which means “to fall beside, to turn aside, to wander.” It is similar to the word for “trespass,” as found in Gal. 6:1 (“if a man be overtaken in a fault [trespass]”). So, v. 6 describes believers who have experienced the spiritual blessings of God but who fall by the side or trespass because of unbelief. Having done this, they are in danger of divine chastening (see Heb. 12:5:13 ) and of becoming castaways ( 1 Cor. 9:24”27 ), which results in loss of reward and divine disapproval, but not loss of salvation. The phrase “seeing they crucify” (v. 6 ) should be translated “while they are crucifying.” In other words, Heb. 6:4:6 does not teach that sinning saints cannot be brought to repentance, but that they cannot be brought to repentance while they continue to sin and put Christ to shame.

Consider carefully that not the field but the fruit in verse 7 is burnt. God is glorified when we bear much fruit unto His glory and honour, and this can only come about if we abide in Christ (His death and resurrection life), for He Himself said, “without me you can do nothing.” (John 15: 1 and further) Any kind of self-effort, even unto the maintenance of our salvation, are but the fruit of the flesh (thorns and thistles) and will be burnt in the end by God who is a consuming fire (1 Corinthians 3: 10-15). “But if any person’s work (even his own perseverance activated by the flesh) is burned up [under the test], he will suffer the loss (of it all, losing his reward), though he himself will be saved, but only as [one who has passed] through fire.”

Does the security of our eternal salvation give us a license to sin? God forbid! As Paul said, “What shall we say [to all this].” Are we to remain in sin in order that God’s grace may multiply and overflow? Certainly not? How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? (Romans 6: 1-2).

What lies at the root of the fruit of conditional salvation (security)? ie. losing your salvation

There is only one thing that drives those who believe that saints can lose their salvation – DISTRUST

  • They distrust Christ Jesus who said: “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” (John 10:28)
  • They also distrust his empathic promise: “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. (John 10:29)
    Here we see that the believer and his salvation is securely fixed in the hands of both the Father and the Son.
  • They distrust his words in 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.”
  • They distrust his promise in Hebrews 12: 2: “Looking unto Jesus the author and FINISHER OF OUR FAITH; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2)
  • They distrust his words in 2 Corinthians 7:10: “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.”

The tragedy is that they are not even ashamed of their distrust of Him and to distrust Him is to displease Him

“But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him [out]” (Hebrews 11:6)

More...

26 comments to Prof Johan Malan – A Gospel of Works – Losing your Salvation (Part 2)

  • Aaron

    Calvinism and arminianism are both false gospels, and they’re actually the same. Arminianism says that your lack of good works or too many bad works, cause you to lose salvation. Calvinism says that lack of good works or too many bad works, cause you to prove that you never had salvation.

    The focus of both is YOUR WORKS. The two are identical. If a person ends up in hell due to failure of their works, then what difference does it make which of these labels they attach to themselves?

    But avoiding hell is only by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16), without works (Romans 4:5). Thus, calvinism and arminianism are both wrong.

  • Irma

    Hi Debs, wonderful to read about the reconciliation. I respect you for what you have done. >8 )

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Aaron

    That is why we here at DTW get so hot under the collar when we are called Arminian by dem Calvinists because we are not.

    Arminianism actually formed the Methodist church through John Wesley as he carried Jacob Arminius theology into the future and today the Methodist church are actually Arminians amongst a few others who believe in this doctrine.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dear Irma

    Thank you :)

  • Sharon

    Amen Deb-ster
    I am no friend of Calvinism and I am NOT Arminian. NO WAY!

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Aaron

    That is why we here at DTW get so hot under the collar when we are called Arminian by dem Calvinists because we are not.

    Arminianism actually formed the Methodist church through John Wesley as he carried Jacob Arminius theology into the future and today the Methodist church are actually Arminians amongst a few others who believe in this doctrine.

  • Aaron wrote:

    Calvinism and arminianism are both false gospels, and they’re actually the same. Arminianism says that your lack of good works or too many bad works, cause you to lose salvation.

    I am interested to know from whence you got your information. Would you mind giving us any source/s that Arminius believed a saint can lose his sallvation?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Arminianism is based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as the Remonstrants. It is known as a soteriological sect of Protestant Christianity.[1] Dutch Arminianism was originally articulated in the Remonstrance (1610), a theological statement signed by 45 ministers and submitted to the States-General of the Netherlands. The Synod of Dort (1618–19) was called by the States General to consider the Five Articles of Remonstrance. They asserted that:
    1 election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
    2 the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, is efficacious only for the man of faith;
    3 unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
    4 grace is resistible; and
    5 believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

    Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch pastor and theologian in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was taught by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s hand-picked successor, but after examination of the Scriptures, he rejected his teacher’s theology that it is God who unconditionally elects some for salvation. Instead Arminius proposed that the election of God was of believers, thereby making it conditional on faith. Arminius’s views were challenged by the Dutch Calvinists, especially Franciscus Gomarus, but Arminius died before a national synod could occur.[citation needed]
    Arminius’s followers, not wanting to adopt their leader’s name, called themselves the Remonstrants. When Arminius died before he could satisfy Holland’s State General’s request for a 14-page paper outlining his views, the Remonstrants replied in his stead crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

  • Redeemed

    Aaron is both correct and incorrect. Arminianism does not believe in a works salvation, but they believe that one can lose their faith and the natural progression for this would be cease to do good and even do bad.

    Arminius did by his own words believe in the “Conditional Preservation of the Saints” or “Conditional Security”.

    For Arminius the believer’s security is conditional—”provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves.” This complements what Arminius says elsewhere in his writings: “God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ.”[19] In another place he writes: “[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation.”[20]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Redeemed

    But believing that you can lose your salvation is a works based salvation because you no longer put your faith in Jesus to keep you, you are now working to keep your salvation by not sinning and this places the person under bondage.

  • Redeemed

    What I meant is that they believe that we are saved by faith and not works with which we would agree. In fact, there is certain common ground with Arminians as opposed to no common ground whatsoever with Calvinism.

    As far as security of the believer however, they maintain that because one is saved by faith which is a case of free will, that the possibility exists that one can lose their faith through free will.

    As I said, in their way of thinking, the natural progression and result of losing one’s faith is the lack of good works and turning away. We would instead say it is a backslidden condition and that God will discipline and chasten His own. After conversion, free will still exists of course, but not to the point of reversing our born-again state.

    Therein lies the reason we do not hold to Arminianism. ARMINIANS CARRY FREE WILL TO THE EXTREME and discount the fact that when one is converted, born again, that one is a new creation, an irreversible event occurs.

    They do not understand that the Lord Jesus Christ keeps us secure, we do not. It is an accomplished fact that cannot be reversed or undone by our free will. We don’t have the power to undo what God has done!

  • As far as I know Arminius did not believe that a saint can lose his salvation. Dave Hunt writes in “What Love is This.”

    Arminius was wrongfully charged with nearly every false doctrine ever invented, from Socinianism (denial of predestination, of the true nature of the Atonement and of the Trinity) to Pelagianism (the denial that Adam’s sin affected his posterity, an undue emphasis upon free will, salvation by grace plus works, and the possibility of sinless perfection). Those false accusations are repeated today, often unjustly, against anyone who does not agree with Calvinism. So strong was Calvinism in certain parts of Europe in Arminius’s day that to disagree with it was tantamount to a denial of the gospel and even of God’s entire Word – indeed, to the endangerment of one’s life. Arminius had to bear the special onus that came upon any Protestant of his day in Holland who dared to take a second look at Calvinism from the Scriptures, a load of guilt still placed upon non-Calvinists today. He was accused of having secret leanings toward Roman Catholicism in spite of his open denunciation of Catholic sacraments and of the papacy as the kingdom of Antichrist. Indeed, upon visiting Rome to see the Vatican for himself, Arminius reported that he saw “`the mystery of iniquity’ in a more foul, ugly, and destestable form than his imagination could ever have conceived.” 1 While some of those who have called themselves Arminians have been guilty of all manner of heresy, having “adopted views … quite contrary” to what he taught, 2 it is quite a shock to discover that James Arminius was actually biblical in his beliefs and far more Christlike in his life than was Calvin. Vance writes that “Arminius was just as orthodox on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith as any Calvinist, ancient or modern.” (Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Vance Publications, Pensacola FL, rev. ed., 1999), 126.)

    Arminius himself said of the foul accusation that he believed in the loss of salvation:

    “At no period have I asserted `that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.”‘” (Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 1:741.))

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thomas said:

    Arminius himself said of the foul accusation that he believed in the loss of salvation:
    “At no period have I asserted `that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.”‘” (Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 1:741.))

    Maybe someone should put that into wikipedia..

    So it was not Jacob Arminius who set up the 5 points to counter Calvinism Tulip it was ‘the Remonstants’; “When Arminius died before he could satisfy Holland’s State General’s request for a 14-page paper outlining his views, the Remonstrants replied in his stead crafting the Five articles of Remonstrance.” It was them that stated: 5 believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

  • Redeemed

    Jacob Arminius, in his own writings seemed to cause confusion on the issue of holiness and the possiblity of falling away from the faith. No wonder his followers took some latitude on relating his views. Arminius was an admirer and follower of St. Augustine. That alone speaks volumes and is a red flag waving.

    It is interesting to read “Getting Acquainted with Jacob Arminius” by John Knox.

    Here is one excerpt which should salt one’s oats to dig deeper:

    SECTION VII – “THE PERFECTION OF BELIEVERS IN THIS LIFE”

    In this chapter, he brings up the fact that he has been accused of Pelagianism because of his speculation that a believer can live a sinless life. “It is reported, that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the Pelagians.” However, the error of his attackers is that they are failing to acknowledge the caveat he includes in his understanding of perfection. With his understanding that nothing happens without the direction of God, Arminius states, “it is possible for the regenerate in the life perfectly to keep God’s precepts.” He then goes on to show how he is only promoting ideas similar to that of St. Augustine.

    He continues, “Though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that ‘they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it.'” As with earlier chapters, Arminius makes sure to keep the grace of God as the crucial element in his doctrine. Arminius goes on to defend himself by remarking that he never asserted that a person can live free from sin, BUT HE NEVER DENIED IT EITHER.

    He appeals to the great church father, Augustine, whose own statements suggested the possibility of perfection. Furthermore, he points to the absurdity of his opponents accusing him of being a Pelagian when his ideas merely mirror those of Augustine, “. . . one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine.” Beyond this, Arminius proclaims, “I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, ‘Without me ye can do nothing:’ (John 15:5)” Arminius wants no misunderstanding of his condemnation of Pelagius and his promotion of the authority of Scripture.

    Arminius ends this chapter lamenting the misrepresentation of him by his critics. He assures his audience that what information is being spread about him by men like Gomarus is based only on rumor. He then informs his listeners/readers that he is going to “disclose the real state of the whole matter,” which he does in the next chapter.

    http://www.fwponline.cc/v30n1/getting-acquainted_j-knox.html

    Arminianism has spawned the holiness movement such as Wesleyan Methodist and other legalistic movements which are detrimental to spiritual health. Dr. Ironside has written on this about his experiences with striving for holiness and working himself right into a nervous breakdown.

    If you look at Arminian websites you will find references to John Wesley and refutation of eternal security.

    It may be a mistake to do so, but perhaps Arminius could be compared to John Calvin in an ironic sort of way. Calvin took a huge leap forward but didn’t finish the job which resulted in false doctrine. But at least with Arminus one can say he stood strong against the main deadly tenets of Calvinism. His flaw seems to be to not be clear on eternal security of the believer or come to terms with it himself, leaving open a door to false teaching.

    Again, as I said, Arminianism carries free will to the EXTREME discounting the ability of Christ to keep His own for fear of the believer abusing the grace of God. Any believer that does so will give an account and come under the chastening of the Lord, but he/she will not lose their salvation.

  • Redeemed wrote:

    Jacob Arminius, in his own writings seemed to cause confusion on the issue of holiness and the possiblity of falling away from the faith. No wonder his followers took some latitude on relating his views. Arminius was an admirer and follower of St. Augustine. That alone speaks volumes and is a red flag waving.

    Well actually Arminius rejected everything Augustine taught and believed. This, again, is what Dave Hunt says of Arminius in his book “What Love is This?”

    Arminius recognized and rejected the false doctrines of Augustine for what they were. In contrast to Augustine, Arminius also rejected the Apocrypha and authority of tradition. He believed in the eternal Sonship of Christ, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (9) that Christ came to this earth as a man, (10) that He was Jehovah of the Old Testament (11) who died for our sins, paying the full penalty by His one sacrifice of Himself on the cross, (12) that He was buried, rose again and ascended to heaven, (13) that man is hopelessly lost and bound by sin and that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. ‘(14)
    Arminius was evangelical in the gospel he preached. Salvation was entirely through Christ as a work of grace which God alone could do in the heart. He categorically denied the false charges made against him of Pelagianism and Socinianism. (15) He also, with these words, defended himself against the false charge that he taught the doctrine of falling away: “At no period have I asserted `that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation.”‘

    It is astonishing with what disapproval Arminius is denounced today by Calvinists, while Augustine is praised. J.1. Packer quotes with approval “Robert Traill, the Scottish Puritan, [who] wrote in 1692, `The principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind, which is enmity both to the law of God, and to the gospel of Christ, and, next to the dead sea of Popery (into which also this stream runs), have, since Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the Church of Christ, and it is like will be till his second coming.’ “(17) Sheldon, however, says, “The doctrinal system of Arminius, who is confessed on all hands to have been a man of most exemplary spirit and life, was the Calvinistic system with no further modification than necessarily resulted from rejecting the tenet of absolute predestination.” (18) A leading Arminian of the nineteenth century summarized his understanding of that doctrine:
    Arminianism teaches that God in Jesus Christ made provision fully for the salvation of all those who, by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, accept the terms [of the gospel], and all who do thus accept are eternally saved. All who rebel against God, and refuse to accept of Jesus on the terms of proffered mercy, sink under Divine wrath and are eternally lost. (10)

    Someone among the researches is lying. Take your pick.

    9 Jacobus Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols (Baker Book House, 1986), 2:115-18, 138, 141-43, 145, etc.
    10 Op. cit., 2:379.
    11 Op. cit., 2:141.
    12 Op. cit., 2:443
    13 Op. cit., 2:387-88.
    14 Op. cit., 2:157, 256; 1:659-60.
    15 Op. cit., 1:102.

    17 J.I. Packer, “Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification” (www.the-highway.com/ Justification Packer.html).
    18 Henry C. Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine (Harper and Bros., 2nd ed. 1895), 2:34-35.
    19 George L. Curtiss, Arminianism in History (Cranston and Curts, 1894), 10.

  • Redeemed wrote:

    With his understanding that nothing happens without the direction of God, Arminius states, “it is possible for the regenerate in the life perfectly to keep God’s precepts.” He then goes on to show how he is only promoting ideas similar to that of St. Augustine.

    This is what Arminius believed:

    Augustine says, “four questions may claim our attention on this topic. The first is, was there ever yet a man without sin, one who from the beginning of life to its termination never committed sin? The second, has there ever been, is there now, or can there possibly be, an individual who does not sin, that is, who has attained to such a state of perfection in this life as not to commit sin, but perfectly to fulfill the law of God? The third, is it possible for a man in this life to exist without sin? The fourth, if it be possible for a man to be without sin, why has such an individual never yet been found?” St. Augustine says, that such a person as is described in the first question never yet lived, or will hereafter be brought into existence, with the exception of Jesus Christ. He does not think, that any man has attained to such perfection in this life as is portrayed in the second question. With regard to the third, he thinks it possible for a man to be without sin, by means of the grace of Christ and free-will. In answer to the fourth, man does not do what it is possible for him by the grace of Christ to perform, either because that which is good escapes his observation, or because in it he places no part of his delight.” From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that “it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin.”

    Beside this, the same Christian father says, “let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other.” The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this—”that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still “greater facility by means of the grace of Christ.” I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. (The Works of James Arminius, James Arminius, Vol 1, VII, 178)

    I think we should study Armminius to find out what he really believed and not rely on others who wrote about him. Dave Hunt quoted mainly from this work of which Arminius was the author.

  • Redeemed

    Have you researched the work I referenced by John Knox? What I quoted is from an Armininian site.

    As much as I respect Dave Hunt and his valuable work “What Love Is This?” and his courageous stand against Calvinism, he is not without flaw. And neither was Jacob Arminius. This does not take away from the good that they did. But we have to face facts.

    Somehow through Arminius’ influence the holiness movement got started and it stems from the issue of eternal security of the believer, that a believer can lose their salvation by walking away.

    Thomas, may I direct your attention to this work by Jacob Arminius at

    entitled “Arminius on the Perfection of Believers in This Life” where he refers to his affinity to the teachings of St. Augustine. This from the horse’s mouth, not quoted from another source.

    The intent is not to disrespect Arminius, but to examine the facts.

  • Redeemed wrote:

    As much as I respect Dave Hunt and his valuable work “What Love Is This?” and his courageous stand against Calvinism, he is not without flaw.

    Why would you deem the direct quotes Dave Hunt uses in his book as flaws? I have already quoted to you what Arminmius said about Augustine and Pelagius on the topic of sinless perfection trough the grace of God.

    Beside this, the same Christian father says, “let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other.” The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this—”that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still “greater facility by means of the grace of Christ.” I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. (The Works of James Arminius, James Arminius, Vol 1, VII, 178)

    .

  • Redeemed

    And Brother Thomas, I have quoted from the works of Jacob Arminius in his own words. How can you discount that my friend? No one is accusing JA of Pelagism.

    We are getting a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to know JA’s stance on perfection in the life of the believer, don’t you? That is the Achilles’ Heel of Arminianism is it not?.

  • Redeemed

    Also, Thomas, I did not say the quotes were a flaw, I said brother Dave was not without flaws as are all of us, including Jacob Arminius. JA seems to say one thing one time and then another thing another time.

    We know Satan is the author of confusion. By flip-flopping on this issue confusion has obviously ensued, resulting in error. Only God knows the true intent of JA’s heart and mind when he arrived at his final moment on this earth. But in any case there was confusion which allowed those who followed to pick up the ball of their choosing and run with it.

  • I really think you are misreading Arminius when he wrote: “Beside this, the same Christian father says, ‘let Pelagius confess, that it is possible for man to be without sin, in no other way than by the grace of Christ, and we will be at peace with each other.'” The opinion of Pelagius appeared to St. Augustine to be this—”that man could fulfill the law of God by his own proffer strength and ability; but with still “greater facility by means of the grace of Christ.” I have already most abundantly stated the great distance at which I stand from such a sentiment; in addition to which I now declare, that I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ. (The Works of James Arminius, James Arminius, Vol 1, VII, 178).

    He is not giving any credit to Augustine. What he said is this: “Besides this, the same Christian father (Augustine) says ‘If only Pelagius would agree that we are capable of living sinless lives through the empowering grace of Christ, we could be friends.'” And then he proceeds to elaborate on this by saying: “Augustine did not agree with Pelagius’s notion that we can live sinless lives through our own voluntary resources but that we can accomplish this through the grace of Christ.” And then he denounces both as being wrong. “I account this sentiment of Pelagius to be heretical, and diametrically opposed to these words of Christ, “Without me ye can do nothing:” (John xv. 5.) It is likewise very destructive, and inflicts a most grievous wound on the glory of Christ.”

    He did not only refute Pelagius but Augustine as well. In no way did he suggest that we are able to live sinless lives through the enabling grace of Christ Jesus when he quoted John 15:5. He merely reiterated what Paul said in Romans 7: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death [that holds me in bondage to sin]? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” (Romans 7:24-25). Paul, like Arminius, is not saying that we may achieve perfection to the extent that we may achieve sinlessness. He is saying that we can always live in victory over our sinful nature. Why would Jesus command us to be perfect in moral character even as our Father who is in heaven, when it cannot be done? (Matthew 5:48)

  • Redeemed

    Thomas, you are not even looking at the evidence that I have given in

    I did not include quotes as the website says one must have permission. JA speaks FAVORABLY of St. Augustine and he is noncommittal, thereby leaving a vacuum in which leaven of false teaching can grow and has grown.

    I have taken the limited time I have to look into this and it seems that it has fallen on deaf ears and misunderstood at every turn. I CLEARLY stated that I was not inferring in ANY way that JA was Pelagious. But you keep beating that dead horse.

    My concern is about his stance on holiness in the believer’s life and if one can walk or fall away.

    I am out of time and I hope that someone else can pick up on this as I cannot devote any more effort to it. I am somewhat perplexed that you deflect all the evidence that I have given.

    [EDITED by DTW: Please see comment: http://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/07/22/prof-johan-malan-a-gospel-of-works-losing-your-salvation-part/#comment-252531%5D

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    I’m just diffusing a ‘situation’ here by deleting 2 comments that I believe should not have been said :) ok?

    Redeemed, you confused the situation by bringing Dave Hunt into the equation from the beginning instead of looking at Dave Hunt’s books that he QUOTED FROM.

    And I agree with Thomas, Arminius did not appear to speak two different messages, he spoke one message the other message were the lies from his detractors that he constantly had to defend.

    Redeemed, looking at that link you provided that you can quote from Arminius says, “From this quotation it is apparent, that St. Augustine, one of the most strenuous adversaries of the Pelagian doctrine, retained this sentiment, that “it is possible for a man to live in this world without sin.” this is a blatant refutation of St Augustine.

    If you read that link properly you will see that Jacob is against Pelagius and Augustine. So I am not sure what you were reading when you opened that link :P

    I was really under the impression until now that Jacob A was a bad guy, but I have seriously changed my mind. However that does not make me an Arminian, it just means that Arminianism was not started by Jacob Arminius but by those Remonstrants.

  • Redeemed wrote:

    Thomas, you are not even looking at the evidence that I have given in

    I did not include quotes as the website says one must have permission. JA speaks FAVORABLY of St. Augustine and he is noncommittal, thereby leaving a vacuum in which leaven of false teaching can grow and has grown.

    I quoted to you Arminius’ exact same words from his book, the very same that appear in the link you provided and you say I never looked at the evidence you gave?

    Beside those doctrines on which I have treated, there is now much discussion among us respecting the perfection of believers, or regenerated persons, in this life; and it is reported,that I entertain sentiments on this subject, which are very improper, and nearly allied to those of the Pelagians, viz: “that it is possible for the regenerate in this life perfectly to keep God’s precepts.” To this I reply, though these might have been my sentiments yet I ought not on this account to be considered a Pelagian, either partly or entirely, provided I had only added that “they could do this by the grace of Christ, and by no means without it.” But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided. For I have contented myself with those sentiments which St. Augustine has expressed on this subject, whose words have frequently quoted in the University, and have usually subjoined, that I had no addition to make to them.

    There are some things Benny Hinn teaches to which I can and do say “Amen.” For instance, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Does that make me a noncommittal admirer of Benny Hinn? Perish the thought. Arminius seems to be saying that he cannot fault Augustine on his view that a saint can keep God’s precepts perfectly provided, he said, “they could do this by the grace of Christ.” Note carefully, he never said they could do it and neither did he say they cannot do it. If it were possible, he said, if would only be possible through the grace of Christ. His emphasis is on the grace of Christ. “He always left it as a matter which has still to be decided.” Let us quickly scan through some difficult passages in Scripture.

    The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.”(Luk 6:40)

    “Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” (2 Corinthians 13:11)

    “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Eph 4:13).

    “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.” (Php 3:12)[Here Paul says that although perfection is not attainable this side of the grave, the saint should not shy from striving unto it].

    “That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Ti 3:17)

    Arminius’ neutrality in the matter of perfection in this life seems to be on track with Paul’s own thoughts when he said: “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” (Rom 7:17) Is Paul saying “It is no longer I who sin but this thing called the sin principle dwelling in me”? Was Paul making a distinction between his newly created essence in his innermost being that cannot sin (“it is no more I that do it”) and the old creation dwelling in his mortal body (“but sin [singular] that dwelleth in me”). I must admit, I don’t know and like Arminius only say: “But while I never asserted, that a believer could perfectly keep the precepts of Christ in this life, I never denied it, but always left it as a matter which has still to be decided.”

  • Aaron

    Redeemed wrote: “Aaron is both correct and incorrect. Arminianism does not believe in a works salvation, but they believe that one can lose their faith and the natural progression for this would be cease to do good and even do bad.”

    Believing you can lose salvation, is works for salvation. So you are incorrect. Losing salvation is indeed a false gospel of works, and anyone that says you can lose salvation, is teaching works for salvation.

    As for the rest of the discussion that is going back and forth, I don’t particularly care what Jacob Arminius said. When I referred to “arminians”, I was referring to the modern-day understanding of what people mean when they use that term. Jacob is dead so I’m not particularly interested in any defense of him.

  • Redeemed

    Aaron, one CAN be saved by the Gospel of Arminianism. They do NOT say that you have to do works to be saved. They do not teach Lordship Salvation if I understand it correctly.

    One who receives Christ and is converted does not possibly understand the rest of what they teach. You are confusing the basis for original conversion with the standard for maintaining the faith.

    One CAN be saved if a Gospel by faith not works is preached by a group that does not hold to eternal security.

    You are mixing apples and oranges and throwing the baby out with the bath.

    I see your point that they believe that one has to do works to maintain salvation, but that is an entirely separate issue.

    I agree that the discussion on the beliefs of Jacob Arminius is beside the point. Whoever made it what it is today doesn’t matter – it is what it is and that is the crux of the issue. We know that whoever was at fault they are a tool of Satan, the one who is behind all false teaching.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Redeemed

    The entire point of this article is this: that they believe that one has to do works to maintain salvation. We are NOT talking about having to do works to get saved. So please just stop bringing up this issue.

    Aaron is correct.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

Prof Johan Malan - A Gospel of Works - Losing your Salvation (Part 2)

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments‘ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!