Ravi Zacharias on a Mormon in the White House

Internationally renowned Christian apologist and theologian Ravi Zacharias raised a bit of controversy in evangelical circles back in November of 2004 when he accepted an invitation to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, UT. He chose for his subject “The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Jesus Christ.” When asked recently if he were at all concerned about the potential for a Mormon becoming president in the person of Mitt Romney, Ravi replied:

"What we want is a politician who will understand the basic Judeo-Christian world view, and on the basis of that the moral laws of this nation are framed, and then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted: the sanctity of every individual life.

If we are looking for a minister to run this country just look back and see what havoc sometimes has happened when the church got aligned totally with the state. That’s not what we want. We want political leadership that is wise, political leadership that frames itself on the moral framework of God and recognizing that you cannot dictate political ideaology to all of humanity. That’s why Jesus refused to run for office, that was not what his mission was about. His mission was to change hearts.

But as you look back at the book of Kings and Chronicles you see one difference between every king: either they followed the Lord with their whole heart and blessing came; or they turned their backs upon God and then the entailments were there. And that’s what will happen to this country.

Would we rather have someone who is a total secularist? Is that what people are asking for? Are we looking for someone who would run this the way he would run a bishoprick or something? I think we should ask the hard questions of everybody, be it Mitt Romney or anyone else and see if the framework of the value of human life and the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian world view, (which is the only moral framework under which this country could have been framed. It was not framed under a Hindu framework. It was not framed under a Muslim framework, not framed under a Buddhist or a naturalistic framework) that we are all created equal, that liberty and justice and all of those terms that I’ve given only make sense within the Judeo-Christian world view.

Created? Equal? Naturalism does not tell us we are equal. Naturalism does not tell us we are created. Liberty? Islam does not believe in the total liberty of the individual. Equal? Hinduism believes in the caste system. The Judeo-Christian world view is the only world view that could frame this country. And so I think as we elect, we go before God and see out of the candidates who will be the best one to represent the values and at the same time be a good leader for the country whose first responsibility should be to protect its citizens.

This is a great country and the challenges we face are immense to a point where this country could be totally mangled with the onslaught of a rabid atheism ala Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Richard Dawkins, those kinds of vociferous, acerbic writers in our time who would like to strip the notion of God completely from our culture. For Sam Harris to actually say if he had a magic wand to eradicate religion or eradicate rape, he would eradicate religion tells you the kind of mindset, and his book is in the top ten bestseller list of the New York Times. There’s a rabid atheism out there and there’s a rabid Islamic extremism out there and the secularism combined with that. I’ve responded to Sam Harris in a book which will be released in the early part of next year. I’ve said to him basically his choice is not going to be between religion and secularism. His choice is going to be between Islam and Christianity. Secularism has no staying power and has proven itself in Europe today. Europe is on the decline and on the demise and it’s only a matter of time before Islam would take a foothold there unless the Christian world view reemerges."

Calvinism Series: Intro (3)

Introduction (Part 3)

The doctrinal differences that divide equally sincere and devout believers on both sides of the Calvinist controversy are substantial and serious. This series I'm doing on Calvinism should not be interpreted as a personal attack on anyone. It is only that, having delved in Calvinism myself, I've seen how the doctrines pose a distortion of Scripture (as a whole). As John MacArthur states:

"Is it inherently unkind or condemnatory to say someone else's view is errant? Not if one has biblical authority for saying so. In fact, to remain silent and allow error to go unexposed and uncorrected is an abdication of the elder's role (Titus 1:9). The apostle Paul publicly called Peter a hypocrite for compromising biblical principles (Galatians 2:11-15). To disagree with or critique someone's published views does not constitute a personal attack. If the Church cannot tolerate polemic dialogue between opposing views--especially if Christian leaders cannot be held accountable for whether their teaching is biblical--then error will have free reign."

If I am right in my assessment of Calvinism relative to the Reformed doctrines of redemption and reprobation, it is my scriptural and spiritual obligation to defend the truth of Scripture. Calvinism is a challenge to all Christians everywhere who believe God has a saving love for and saving interest in all of mankind:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
John 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
1 Timothy 2:4 "[God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

In Reformed Theology, God's redemptive love is not only minimized but also outright denied to untold millions of desperately lost souls. Within the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, the very cross of Christ is theologically robbed of all value for countless millions of people who desperately need the forgiveness and cleansing that can only come from the Savior's precious blood:
1 Peter 1:18-19 "knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Even those Calvinists who believe God loves all people have redefined that love, in their thinking and theology, to exclude any kind of saving grace for some of the people they say God loves. We can take John 3:16 and 6:40 at face value or we can allow Calvinism to devalue, in our thinking and theology, the wonderful truth contained and conveyed in this and many other precious, important, and powerful passages of Scripture. One cannot do both.

So much of the energy expended by Calvinists, energy that could and should be spent winning the lost to the Savior, is spent trying to win non-Calvinist Christians into the Reformed faith. National organizations and nationally-syndicated radio programs have been established to aggressively challenge the views of any Christian or Christian church that does not agree with the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, no matter what their commitment to the essentials of the historic and orthodox Christian faith is. Some Calvinists see themselves as Calvinists fighting for the hearts and minds of the greater Evangelical Christian community. The saved trying to save the saved instead of the lost? They desire to liberate non-Calvinist Christians from a Reformed-free faith. They actually view and treat many of the most dearly held convictions of non-Calvinist Evangelicals as symptomatic of a spiritual and theological disease, of which Reformed Theology is supposedly the cure.

Why doe Calvinists want non-Calvinists to become Calvinists? One reason is that Calvinism is by nature evangelistically sterile. Thus, for Calvinist churches to grow, they need to bring non-Calvinists into the Reformed faith. Calvinism as a system of theology is not all that encouraging to evangelism and Calvinists are typically not all that interested in winning the lost to Christ.

Many leading advocates for the Calvinist cause are convinced that only Calvinists believe in and embrace the doctrines of grace. It cannot be reasonably denied that Calvinists hold to a distinctive definition of grace. Whether or not they are right in the way they define grace is an altogether different matter. Loraine Boettner boasts:

"The doctrine that men are saved only through the unmerited love and grace of God finds its full and honest expression only in the doctrines of Calvinism."

Does this mean that non-Reformed Christians embrace only a partial and dishonest doctrine of salvation? Such claims call for a critical examination and evaluation of Calvinism in light of Scripture. If you're a Calvinist, can you objectively listen to the scripturally based arguments and evidence against Reformed theology? If you can, I believe it likely that you will discover that Calvinism is in serious conflict with the truth of God's Word on a number of important matters related to the great and gracious saving work of God.

Calvinism series: Intro (2)

For the sake of simplicity, I will henceforth title the "why i'm not a calvinist anymore" series the "calvinism series" and will number the parts with the (#).

Introduction (Part 2)

Despite formal denials from some Calvinists and documents such as The Westminster Confession of Faith, John Calvin and the system of theology he championed does, "...assert that God is, in himself, the cause and author of sin..." (taken from a partial quote by John Milton). According to Calvin, it is all happening according to the perfect plan and purpose of God. Everything is as it should be. All Evangelicals would agree that God is ultimately going to have His Way. Of that, there should be no doubt. But, can we trace moral evil back to God in the same we can good things? As far as Calvin was concerned, even the first sin and its terrible consequences were orchestrated by God.

Calvin:
"God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it...some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death."

The key to understanding Calvin is not only in the words "predestined to" but in the words "created for."

Calvin:
"God...arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death..."

Only if you understand and agree with these statements of John Calvin can it be correctly said that you are a true Calvinist, because all 5 points of Calvinist doctrine inevitably stem from this idea (unconditional election). You do not have to agree with everything that Calvin said or taught to be a Calvinist, but in order to be a true Calvinist, you do have to understand and agree with the central tenets and doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed faith.

Calvinist scholar John Feinberg:
"Sometimes it would be easier not to be a Calvinist...Calvinists hold views that appear at the very least counterintuitive. This is especially so with respect to Calvinist accounts of God's sovereign control in relation to human freedom and moral responsibility for evil. If Calvinists are right about divine sovereignty, there seems to be little room for human freedom. If freedom goes, so does human responsibility for sin. If Calvinists are right, it appears that God decides that there will be sin and evil in our world, maybe even brings it about that there is such evil, and yet, He is not morally responsible for any of it. We are. If this is Calvinism's God, Calvinism seems not only intellectually but also religiously bankrupt. Who would worship this God?"

Despite what Feinburg concedes, he still believes that Calvinism is the "portrayal of God" found in Scripture. How this can be, if what he says about Calvinism is true, is difficult for me to fathom.

Feinburg:
"Unfortunately, some Calvinists, because of their understanding of God's sovereignty, have denied that humans are free. YEt some of those Calvinists maintain that we are morally responsible for our sin, while God, who decreed our sin, is not morally accountable. When asked how this can be true, they respond that it is a paradox..."

Are these conflicts in Calvinism really only a "paradox" or are they hopeless contradictions? Is Calvinism compatible with Scripture? While it is not possible for a theological system to be self-contradictory AND true, it is possible for it to be internally consistent and NOT true or not true to Scripture. As will be proven in later parts of this series, Calvinism is both contradictory AND unscriptural.

I use the terms Calvinism and the Reformed faith interchangeably because, for all practical purposes, they are one and the same label.

Paul Enns:
"To speak of Calvinism is to speak of the Reformed faith. The term Reformed is today basically synonymous with Calvinism and distinguishes the Calvinist churches..."

The promotion of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination is promotion of the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation. To say that many Calvinists are extremely zealous in their committment to win non-Calvinists over to the Reformed version of the Christian faith is definitely an understatement (as to why Calvinists ARE zealous in this regard will be discussed more fully in the next part of this series). Believing they are doing all non-Calvinists a favor by winning them over to Calvinism, many Calvinists have become proselytizers for the Reformed faith.

There is a widespread view among Calvinists that all non-Calvinist Evangelicals are Arminian in their theological convictions. I admit that I'm neither a Calvinist NOR an Armenian, thus I should not be labeled as being such...but I will touch on this issue a little later.

Calvinism amounts to Theistic Fatalism. A Theistic Fatalist believes that a personal God unconditionally determines where individuals go when they die, that is, whether they go to heaven or hell.

Wayne Grudem:
"By fatalism is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore, it is futile to try and influence the outcome of events or the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort or making any significant choices, because these will not make any difference anyway."

The truth is, some Calvinists do not want non-Calvinists to know the full implications of Calvinism until after they have become committed Calvinists.

Lorraine Boettner explains one of the reasons behind the reluctance of some Calvinists to initially lay it all out on the table early on:
"In preaching to...those who are just beginning the Christian life...At that early stage little need be said about the deeper truths which relate to God's part. As in the study of Mathematics we do not begin with algebra and calculus but with the simple problems of arithmetic..."

The "deeper truths" to which Boettner refers to here are the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism. Some Calvinists are not only less than totally up-front, but they are not even being altogether honest with the non-Calvinists they are targeting. In the promotion of doctrines, what is held back or not expressed can be very misleading. Many Calvinists, when promoting Reformed Theology to a potential convert to Calvinism, typically limit the discussion to those features that SEEM positive to the uninitiated. However, it is what they DO NOT tell you that you really need to know in order to make a truly informed decision.

Calvinism undermines the scriptural doctrine of salvation:
1 Timothy 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:8-9 "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Isaiah 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other."
and ect...

Again, I will get into more scriptural detail in later parts.

Reformed Theology represents a serious threat to at least some of the people for whom that salvation was provided by Christ's death on the cross:
1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."
1 Timothy 2:5-6 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"
Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone."

The salvation that is provided is also the salvation that is offered to them in a truly scriptural proclamation of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures."

Why I'm Not a Calvinist Anymore (intro)

Okay, so I'm setting out on starting a series on why I'm not Calvinist anymore. I adhered to Calvinist doctrine for about a year. No it was not hearing a speaker, not it was not attending a different church, no it was not being swayed by someone's argument which caused me to denounce those doctrines. What changed my views on it was actually just reading God's Word in my own personal devotional time. As I would read it, I would read it through the lens of the 5 points of Calvinism...but I couldn't help it when I would come across certain verses and passages of the Bible which would completely refute several or all of the 5 points. The more I studied Scripture, the more Scripture I came across that completely contradicted Calvinism. I couldn't ignore it any longer. I set out to do deeper research into the matter and what I came across stemmed the tide of my Calvinist beliefs.

The first few parts of this series is really going to be just an introduction and a brief overview of what will be discussed. Then I will go through each of the 5 points of Calvinism, explain each point briefly, and then introduce Scripture which contradicts each point. Now I'm not out to divide the body of Christ. I truly believe that those who adhere to Calvinism (Reformed theology) are true, God fearing, Christ following believers..and I love them dearly as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord. The only difference is I do not agree with the theology and doctrine that Calvinism as a system of belief poses and how the majority of those who adhere to Calvinism treat the lost and non-Calvinist believers.

The only thing I ask of you is, if you are of Reformed theological belief, that you read the subsequent articles with unbias...just purely studying the passages of Scripture and examine them in light of what Calvinist doctrine teaches, and what the Scriptures are teaching over all.

Throughout this series I will be drawing heavily upon my own research and experiences and upon the research and statements of George Bryson (who has a way of wording things much more eloquently than I can). If any of you want references, ask for them...other than that I'm not going to bother with citations because I find them tedious.

Introduction

While Calvinists are prone to accent the less negative features of Calvinism, even the best of what Calvin taught about salvation logically leads to the worst of what Calvinism teaches. While Calvinists prefer to talk about election, they know that the other side of unconditional election is a very troubling and unscriptural doctrine of unconditional reprobation. As contemporary advocate of Calvinism, James White says:

"God elects a specific people unto Himself without reference to anything they do. This means the basis of God's choice of the elect is solely within Himself: His grace, His mercy, His will. It is not man's actions, works, or even foreseen faith, that "draws" God's choice. God's election is unconditional and final."

The doctrinal distinctive of Reformed Theology cannot be reconciled with what we know about God from His Holy Word. Scripture has taught me to believe that God is absolutely just. could and would such a God allow a man to be born who has no possibility to be saved? Would the God of Scripture have me tantalize unsavable men with the offer of salvation? Would the God of all hope punish a man for all eternity for rejecting the offer of salvation, if that man was decreed by God to reject that salvation in the first place?

The God introduced to us by Calvin seems to be far removed and very different from the God who said, "...and whoever wishes, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). Would I not be lying to a "non-elect" man if I offered him eternal life based on what Christ did for him on the cross? For if Calvinism is true, Christ did nothing of redemptive value for the non-elect. Why are we, then, commanded to preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15)? If Calvinism is true, and I affirm to a man that Jesus loves him and died on the cross to redeem him from his sins, I may be offering nothing more than a false hope. Can I, with a clear conscience, really do this in the name of the God of all Truth, knowing full well that it may not be true for this particular man? Perhaps this explains why evangelism is so neglected in much of the Reformed community.

Assuming Calvinism is true, if I urge men to receive Jesus as their Lord that they might be saved, would this not be nothing more than a cruel tease for many of those to whom I speak (Acts 2:36-39 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.")? Why would the God of all Truth, who speaks so sternly against lying, send His servants out to promote such a lie? IF God has no saving concern for many (perhaps even most), why should I? Why would God call upon a man to make a choice as to which God he would serve as He did with Joshua (Josh. 24:15)? If it is impossible for men to choose because they have been pre-ordained by God to be saved or lost, is it not rather cruel and deceitful to hold out the offer of the gospel to them if it is impossible for them to accept it? Conversely, if a man is ordained by God to be saved, with no real responsibility on his part, then why spend time and resources seeking to bring the gospel to the world? If they have been irrevocably chosen to be saved, then they cannot possibly be lost; therefore, where is the incentive to take the gospel to them?

If I follow the referenced position of James White, I would have to accept that a man's "faith" in Jesus Christ has nothing to do with getting saved. In stark contrast, when Jesus was asked, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" our Lord responded, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:28-29). When the Philippian jailor asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas responded, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..."(Acts 16:30-31).

According to Calvinism, it is futile to try to convert the lost who are not predestined to be saved. Perhaps this explains why so many Calvinists are spending so much time and energy trying to win the already saved to Calvinism! Calvinist theology, if fully understood, destroys the gospel to every creature.

Some verses i ran across and some rants

I would like to share some verses and passages that stood out to me this morning while perusing the Bible:

Malachi 2:13-17
And this is the second thing you do:
You cover the altar of the LORD with tears,
With weeping and crying;
So He does not regard the offering anymore,
Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 “ For the LORD God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the LORD of hosts.

“ Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.”
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words;
Yet you say,

“ In what way have we wearied Him?”
In that you say,

“ Everyone who does evil
Is good in the sight of the LORD,
And He delights in them,”
Or, “Where is the God of justice?”

God takes divorce very seriously...in this society where the divorce rate among Christians is equal to that of non believers, people would do well to heed what the Lord says He feels toward divorce.


1 Peter 3:7-9
7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. 8To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; 9not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

Men, you better be careful to treat your wives rightly, or else your prayers will be hindered. When we get into tiffs with other believers (especially over doctrinal issues), instead of insulting them back when they insult us, we are to share words of blessing to them instead.


1 Timothy 1:5-7
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

For some reason, i equate this verse with people who spend all their time arguing with others over doctrine or minor things like what Bible translation one reads, so much so that there is no instruction in love...only quarreling, dissension, and insults over minor, non-soteriological doctrinal lines. I've been in some knock-down drag out conversations with other believers over such minor Biblical doctrines and details, that I realized how much all parties involved really missed the big picture. Sometimes we can be so microscopic about certain doctrines we adhere to, that we miss the fact that although another fellow believer might not adhere to that exact doctrine (again, I'm not talking about the major doctrines dealing with salvation and who God is, those, in my opinion, fall under the command to combat false teachings) we do, they're still our brother/sister in Christ. Or we may be so adamant about swaying other believers to adhere to our own doctrinal views, that we ignore those sins in our lives that are hindering our relationship with the Lord.

I think many times believers create walls around themselves and only fellowship with those other believers who think the exact way they do on all doctrines, that they isolate and alienate others who may have different views of the same doctrine, but are, regardless, true believers and followers of Jesus Christ. This doesn't even stay in the realm of doctrine...Christians create walls around their cliques in regards to if someone dresses "nicely" in church or if they dress casually, those who have a glass of wine over dinner and those who choose to abstain from all alcohol, whether one favors a particular English translation of the Bible over another, or we even judge a believer only according to what church they go to. Sadly, these types of petty issues are creating such deep dividing lines among the body of Christ, that we spend more time fighting other believers over these minor things than we do going out and preaching the Word to the lost...or encouraging other discouraged believers in the Lord to continue running the race (we choose to tear them down instead if they don't believe in say "once saved always saved")....or even loving each other in the church as the Lord commands us so often in His Word. I've seen Calvinists fight non-Calvinists to the point of pure hate speech pouring out of their mouths toward those believers who didn't adhere to the full TULIP. I've seen Baptists fight non-denominational Christians over the issue of whether the gifts of the Spirit are still applicable to today so much so that both parties are telling each other they're not truly believers...these accusations being based just on that one issue!

You see what i mean by getting so passionate over minor doctrinal issues and other issues that we become "microscopic" in our dealings with the body of Christ? Here are our neighbors and even our own family members possibly on their way to hell, and all we believers can do is fight amongst ourselves. Sometimes we miss the big picture. Does God care whether we go to church in dress shoes or sandals? Or does He care more that we carry out the Great Commission. Does God care more if we believe in limited or unlimited atonement? Or is He more concerned that we develop His love and passion for the lost and those who're truly in need of Him.


2 Timothy 2:19, 22-26
19Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness." 22Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

Those who claim to be Christians, are to abstain from sinfulness...we are not to act as the world does, as unbelievers do. We are sanctified, set apart in Christ, thus we need to act that way. Let's stick with the Truths that are spelled out in God's Word instead of speculating on those things which are not in God's Word and without which we cannot possibly know. When we run across opposition, we are to be kind (not argumentative), patient, and gentle realizing that it is the Lord who grants repentance not any amount of cajoling and debate on our part.


Titus 1:15-16
To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Those who profess to know God will think, speak, and act in godly manners. If someone professes to know God and yet thinks, speaks, and acts like those who do not know God, then they do not truly know God (by their deeds they deny Him). This passage calls such people disobedient and worthless. Truly by someone's fruit, people can know if they truly know and love God as they claim. Are we consistently bearing good fruit, or are we consistently bearing bad fruit?


Titus 3:3-7; 10-11
For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.

We are not saved by any "good" deeds we do, but only by God's mercy. He regenerates and renews us through the Holy Spirit (which dwells within every true believer). The indwelling Holy Spirit can only be attained through belief in Jesus Christ. Because of the blood of Jesus and His gift to us of the Holy Spirit, we have the hope of eternal life. Those in the church who set out to create factions (cliques, rifts) among believers, are said to be living in sin. If after being warned, these people continue in their dissentious ways, they are to be kicked out of the fellowship of believers. It says here such people are condemned (again this is reminding me of people who create cliques and rifts in the body of Christ according to their own doctrines and/or beliefs that are not touched on in the Bible [i.e. what Bible version is the true Word of God, whether or not people should "dress up" to go to church..so on and so forth]). If these personal beliefs/convictions ARE touched on in the Bible, such dissentious people claim one must adhere to their personal convictions or else they are unsaved (even though God Himself doesn't put those particular distinctions on the sheep or goats in His Word). I guess you could call that legalism, but to an extreme.


1 Peter 1:14-17
As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;16because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth

If we consider ourselves to be children of God, we are not to live according to the sinful nature, but we are to be holy (set apart from the world) in ALL our behavior. Why? Because if we claim to be children of a holy God, then we should be holy if only for the fact that God is holy. If we claim God as our Father, we need to be like our Father. We are to treat the Lord with reverence and awe as He rightly deserves...and as such we wouldn't be so quick to sin if we respect and reverence the One we claim to follow as One who is deserving of holy lifestyles and behavior on our part.