Gary Habermas joins Janet Mefferd to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer – other issues)

Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life (Re: Unanswered Prayer)

Audio / podcast.

I have found that Janet Mefferd’s show does not work in Google Chrome (browser), sometimes does not work in FireFox, but DOES work in IE (Microsoft Internet Explorer browser). I loathe IE, but it’s the only browser that will play her show.

Habermas has recently written a book about faith and doubt or something, and he is interviewed by Janet Mefferd about it, as well as related questions, such as unanswered prayer, Christians who walk away from church because they have been hurt by other Christias, or they lost a loved one (to death), or they don’t feel Christianity is meeting their needs, etc.

You can listen to the interview here:
(I think this is hour 3 – there appears to be an hour 1 and hour 2):
(Fixed the link)

(Link): Podcast: Gary Habermas joins Janet to discuss dealing with doubt in the Christian life. (mentions unanswered prayer, other topics)

———————————
Related posts, this blog:

(Link): Blaming the Christian for His or Her Own Problem or Unanswered Prayer / Christian Codependency

(Link):  Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine and Interpretation (podcasts)

(Link):  How to Deal with Unanswered Prayers via Pastor Bil Cornelius 

(Link):   When All We Hear from God is Silence by Diane Markins

(Link): On Prayer and Christ’s Comment to Grant You Anything You Ask in His Name

(Link): Church Is Not Important, 51 Percent of US Adults Say

(Link): Guilt Tripping or Shaming the Hurt Sheep to Return to Church

(Link): Quitting Church – why single Christians aren’t going to church – church has failed Christian singles

(Link): Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link): Why People Don’t Go To Church (various links and testimonies March 2014)

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

(As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

Continue reading “Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists”

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

I listened to this Rosebrough critique of Osteen’s sermon:
(Link): Osteen Proves That God is NOT Speaking to Him

I sometimes agree with Pirate Radio / Fighting for the Faith host Chris Rosebrough, but this is one of those times where I’m not in total agreement.

In the Osteen sermon portions aired on Rosebrough’s show (see link above), Osteen describes how, years ago, he got an inner feeling, or message, to start preaching at his father’s church. Osteen feels that this was God speaking to him.

That Osteen preaches in a style that Rosebrough disagrees with, or that Rosebrough believes that Osteen does not rail against sin and Hell enough, is proof enough for Rosebrough that Osteen’s inner prompting was not of God but of Satan – which I first of all find to be overstating one’s case.

I do not always agree with Osteen’s preaching style or focus of his messages, but I think it’s going overboard to attribute his ministry, or all his views, to Satan.

(As a side note, does Rosebrough grasp or not that two people can be sincere Christians but still have legitimate disagreements on some matters?

Sometimes I listen to Rosebrough’s show, or read his writings, and he makes it seem as though unless you agree with him 100% of the time on 100% of topics that you are an anti-Christ, or unsaved heretic.

Nobody but nobody (including Mr. Rosebrough) has across- the- board absolutely perfect biblically- related opinions, positions, or doctrine on everything – and that does not mean that person is unsaved, a pagan, or an anti-christ.)

Getting back to Rosebrough’s insistence that Osteen heard a prompting from Satan and not God:
I can see how a man can be a false teacher without necessarily being under direct Satanic control.

Some preachers are motivated by greed, control or power, not Satanic influence. Or maybe Osteen only thought he was hearing from God but was simply mistaken. Maybe Osteen’s inner prompting was due to emotions, feelings, and not from God. But Satan?

I mean goodness, Satan? We’re really going to go there? That’s pretty drastic.

I think Rosebrough is totally wrong on gender complementarianism (ie, women should not be preachers, etc).

How charitable would it be for me to accuse Rosebrough of being under Satanic influence, since his views on gender roles is so obviously wrong and unbiblical, and he is in error on this?

Secondly, whether Osteen’s claim that God prompted him to preach or not does not really prove or disprove if such a thing – God speaking to folks outside the Bible – is possible.

I also am not seeing a connection between these points:

1. Some Christians claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to them inwardly

2. Osteen is supposedly a Satanic or false teacher who believes the Holy Spirit speaks to him inwardly

3. Ergo, claim number one is supposedly false

That’s a bit like saying,

1. Some Christians say that two plus two equals four

2. Christian church piano player Mr. Hank Smith beats puppies for fun and says that two plus two equals four

3. Ergo, point one, that two plus two equals four, is incorrect

Sorry, but I don’t see how point 2 contradicts or disproves 1.

One point does not necessarily cause or lead to another, or the guy in point 2 being a heretic or puppy beater does not necessarily negate or disprove the claims, beliefs, and experiences of people in point 1.

What if I could find a Christian preacher who agrees with Rosebrough almost 100% on doctrinal matters, who preachers in a manner that Rosebrough approves of, EXCEPT for in this one area: that the preacher in question believes that God does speak to people today outside of Scripture?

This would make Rosebrough’s argument against Osteen rather moot, it seems to me.

As the Bible says, God did in fact communicate with people outside of the written word – sometimes audibly, through jackasses (literally; see Numbers 22:30), in or through burning bushes, and via angelic messengers in the Old Testament, and God spoke to humans via angels in the New as well.

God also spoke to people in dreams and visions – on record in both Old and New Testaments. Samuel heard God’s voice; Paul and John claimed to be taken up to Heaven and heard God.

Where is your verse saying these things are applicable to ONLY John and Paul? Where’s your one single verse or passage?

Bearing in mind that the first Christians already had the Scriptures: they had the OLD TESTAMENT. However, the New Testament records that the Holy Spirit spoke to them inwardly.

These first Christians did not always consult the written Old Testament to figure out what God wanted them to do.

The Holy Spirit spoke to some of the earliest believers; for example,

“2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2)

And,

“4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. (Acts 13:4)”

And,

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements… (Acts 15:28)”

And,

“I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. (Acts 20:23)”

And,

“Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” (acts 21:11)”

And,

“I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit … (Romans (9:1)”

He did not have his conscience confirmed by reading the written word of God, but by God speaking to him in his conscience.

Regarding the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts Ch 5),

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

(— end quote —)

Now, how did Peter deduce that this couple had lied, if the Holy Spirit did not tell Peter in his spirit or mind about it?

There is no Old Testament passage that explicitly says, “Ananias will lie to Peter about the money.” It’s not as though Peter could consult the written word of God (for his era, the Old Testament) to figure this stuff out.

Rosebrough kept asking for an explicit passage of Scripture that says that God can or will or does speak to Christians today, outside of the Bible, or in addition to.

I want to see the opposite: where does the Bible clearly state that God never, ever will, can, or does speak to believers outside the Bible today?

As far as I can recall, there is no single passage or verse that says, “After the time of Acts (early church), God will never speak to believers outside the written word, not ever.”

Because I don’t see any such passage.

I see no indication that God limited any of this only to Peter or Old Testament believers only.

2 Tim 3.16 only supports the importance of Scripture but does not say, “And God will never speak to people outside the written word.”

Continue reading “Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit”

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)

No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (PART 1)

This will be a series of posts where my thoughts wander in and out and all over, and it rambles, but there is a point or two behind it.

Since I’ve been in a faith crisis the last couple of years, somewhere between being an agnostic and a Christian, I have noticed I don’t fit in anywhere. I reside in No Man’s Land.

(Even before then, when I was a total, committed Christian, and politically, I was, and am, right wing, I still didn’t fit in at most blogs and forums, including political ones, and including ones for right wingers!

I tend to be one of those personalities who annoys or angers everyone, even those on “my side” of an issue, except a small number of people, who are either on my side of a topic or not, who “get me” or who appreciate where I’m coming from – again, this is true for even the ones who disagree with me on whatever topic we are discussing.)

I am in this really weird place now, where I am critical of some aspects of conservative Christianity, and see where conservative Christians get some doctrines and other things wrong, but, too, I am not fully on board with militant atheism (I find the New Atheists to be arrogant, vile, hateful and rude), and I don’t even care for lukewarm atheism.

Nor am I in the camp of anything and all things liberal Christianity, except where I think they get the occasional point correct (such as their rejection of gender complementarianism).

Since drifting away from the Christian faith more the last few years, I more often began frequenting forums or blogs for and by atheists, ones by liberal Christians, ones by ex Christians, or by Christians who were abused by a former church who remain Christian but who dropped out of Church, or who now are on a crusade to expose abuse by preachers or the absurdity and harm of current evangelical gimmicks.

THE MILITANT ATHEISTS

A clarification: when I say I have been visiting atheist forums and blogs more often, I am very picky about which ones I regularly visit.

I do not like the frothing- at- the- mouth, extremely bitter, biased- against- Christians- type atheistic communities.

The bitter atheist groups sound like a bunch of irrational, hate-filled loons who reject Christianity for emotional reasons, but who lie to others and themselves and say, “Oh no, it’s purely intellectual.”

But their unrelenting, insane amount of hatred at any and all things God and Christian, is just a total turn-off to me, so I try to avoid such sites.

These angry, always-ranting atheists are really nothing more than Fundamentalist Atheists or Taliban Atheists. They are just as dogmatic about their atheism as Muslims are in their Wasabi Islam or Baptists are in their Neo Fundamentalism.

Really, those types of atheists are just as bad as the religious groups they claim they hate, but they don’t seem to spot that they are. It’s ironic – and it’s hard to stomach the day in, day out anger and hatred, so I try to avoid their sites.

HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS VS NON HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS

Also, you have to be honest with yourself, which I do not find militant atheists to be, by and large: not every single Christian is a hypocrite, jerk, idiot, dullard, or complete jackhole.

I say this as someone who is very fed up with Christianity and Christian persons myself these days.

But your average militant atheist will never admit that some Christians are in fact okay and not being hypocrites.

I have known and met a few Christians who were sincerely trying to live the Christian faith out, such as my mother, who is now deceased, and her mother before her (my grandmother).

I’ve met a few honest, sincere Christians online who do help people and show compassion to the wounded.

So it’s not fair to completely dismiss the entirety of Christians and their faith or treat them all like jerks because some are liars, mean, or abusive.

Which is not easy for me personally, because at the same time, I do keep noticing that a lot of self-professing believers do NOT live out what the Bible says.

Many self professing Christians today, for example, do not protect victims, such as young church members who have been sexually molested by preachers.

Nor do many church goers today hold accountable preachers who bilk their church goers out of millions to buy big mansions and jets.

These idiots, these lemmings, actually defend their greedy pastors online, which I’ve written about here: (Link): Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why.

Then you have a conservative or evangelical culture, which claims to care deeply that people preserve sex until marriage, but if you actually find yourself 40 years of age and still single – and therefore still a virgin, such as myself – these same churches and Christians do not offer you any support.

You either go ignored, or preachers and talking heads of such groups “run down” and insult celibacy as well as older, celibate adults. Churches treat single (and especially celibate) adults as though they are flawed, lepers, weirdos, or losers.

Churches wrongly counsel abused wives to return to their spouses – this is particularly true, again, of churches or Christian groups who buy into “biblical womanhood” (aka “gender complementariansm”) or “patriarchy.”

Churches and average Christians also remain ignorant or callous about matters pertaining to mental health issues, from P.T.S.D. to depression and anxiety attacks.

Some Christians wrongly and insensitively teach that “real Christians” can never get depression or other mental health maladies.

Or, some Christians believe and teach that prayer, faith, service to the poor, or Bible reading alone can cure one of mental illness.

Still other Christians (or the same type) will shame and guilt suffering Christians for using anti-depressant medications, or for seeing secular or Christian psychiatrists and therapists (see this link for more, “Over 50 Percent of Christians Believe Prayer, Bible Reading Alone Can Cure Mental Illness (article) – In Other Words Half of Christians are Ignorant Idiots Regarding Mental Illness”).

Yet other Christians are incompetent at, or unwilling, to provide more ordinary, “every day,” run- of- the- mill comfort to other Christians who are hurting, such as a Christian who is stressed out over a job loss, someone who is in mourning for a deceased loved one, etc.

Christians are dropping the ball in numerous ways.

And this failure, this huge failure, causes life long Christians like me to look long and hard at the faith and wonder if it’s true at all.

It causes even someone such as myself to ask if the faith is true, because

  • it doesn’t appear to be working,
  • it doesn’t make a difference in people’s life who profess it,
  • most who claim to follow Christ don’t actually do what he taught,
  • and some Christians refuse to hold Christians caught in bald faced sin accountable but excuse them for the sin,

~ and it makes you wonder “what is the point, then.”

I find this discrepancy between confessed belief and actual practice shocking, because I myself sincerely tried living out the faith since childhood.

Also, my Christian mother was a role model for me, and she genuinely, consistently lived out and by biblical teachings, including getting up off her ass and actually HELPING people (giving them money if they were in a bind, cleaning their homes for them when they were sick, listening to them cry and rant about their problems for hours without judging them or interrupting them, etc).

I am not seeing most other Christians do any of this. They say they believe in those things but then they do not do them.

BLOGS AND FORUMS FOR SPIRITUALLY ABUSED OR THOSE HURT BY CHURCHES

Before I actually get into this topic (which I discuss more in Posts 2 and 3), here is some background leading up to it.

As far as the sites I have visited by liberal Christians, ex Christians, atheists, as well as sites by Christians for the spiritually abused:

By and large, these have been wonderful, supportive sites and groups to visit (the ones run by Christians for hurting Christians).

I have noticed, though, that there are problems even within these types of communities, and I don’t entirely fit in at them, either.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)”

Additional Rebuttals to CBMW Gender Complementarian Heresy and Travesty That Declares All Females Must Submit To All Males In Heaven

Additional Rebuttals to CBMW Christian Gender Complementarian Heresy and Travesty That Declares All Females Must Submit To All Males In Heaven (Part 3)

I should note that not only are Christian egalitarians recoiling in horror and disgust over CBMW’s “women shall have to submit to all men in the afterlife” editorial, but a number of gender comps have as well.

Some of the writers or contributors or moderators of some of the following blogs are gender comps:

> (Link): Headship in Heaven According to CBMW

> (Link): Eternal Patriarchy? The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says, “You Bet!”

> (Link): The Logical Fallacy of “Equal But Subordinate”

> (Link): (Forum discussion): Eternal submission of women to Men
————————————————–
Previous posts about this topic at this blog (parts 1 and 2):

Post 1. (Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven

Post 2. (Link): Gender Complementarian Christians Who Teach Gender Inequality Even in Afterlife – an UPDATE

Kinda related:
(Link): Does head mean boss when it is connected to the body?

    This is the first in a series about marriage and the connection between marriage to women’s gifts in the church.

    Some people in an effort to keep women’s ministry gifts away from the benefit of men, teach that the term husband as the “head of the wife” means that men are to have authority over women and this eliminates women as having any kind of teaching authority in the body of Christ.

    So does the term “head” mean “boss over” or “authority over” when it is connected to the term “body”?

—————————
Related posts this blog:

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Womanhood” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

Gender Complementarian Christians Who Teach Gender Inequality Even in Afterlife – an UPDATE

Gender Complementarian Christians Who Teach Gender Inequality Even in Afterlife – an UPDATE

Hat tip again to Julie Anne of the Spiritual Sounding Board who announced in a Tweet today that CBMW (which is a Christian gender complementarian group) removed a looney editorial by Walton from their site, which I wrote of in an earlier post, here:

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven

Julie Anne wrote an update about the situation recently, here (at Spiritual Sounding Board):

(Link): Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Removes Article about Complementarian Roles in New Creation Did they change their minds?

    Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood removes Article about complementarian roles in new creation

    … Let’s be clear – – pulling the article does not mean CBMW has changed their ideology.

She also provided a link to the screen shot of the CBMW page, before it was removed, and it can be viewed here:
(Link): Screen capture of Weirdo “marriage in the afterlife” CBMW Page by Walton

Someone in the thread linked to this related material, from the Strange Figures blog:
(Link): A letter to our sisters, on biblical womanhood in heavenly places

The piece starts out serious (as you can see from the excerpt below), and the author goes into satire (not excerpted here):

    I think the author, Mark David Walton, has shown us the end toward which complementarian theology is heading. While Walton’s piece is several years old, it’s still out there as a resource and other articles have expressed the same idea – the gendered headship/submission model is not temporal. It’s eternal. Get used to it, ladies.

Julie Anne also mentioned that Owen Strachan is the Executive Director of CBMW, and Rachel Held Evans recently took Strachan to the woodshed here:

(Though I do have excerpts from Walton’s the page on (Link): my previous post as well, if you’d like to read for yourself some of the nutty things Walton wrote.)
———————————-
Related posts, off site:

(Link): Complementarianism: even in its best form, it is Patriarchy

(Link): The “CAN’T” Chant of Complementarianism

(Link): Com­ple­men­tar­i­an­ism Sucks : Telling Women to Stay Quiet in the name of Jesus

(Link): Question to complementarians: What is my [single, adult woman] gender role?

I agree with point 3 on the list on this site (I do not, however, agree with the author that a literal understanding of the Bible should be rejected, or that the Bible supports homosexuality):
(Link): Reality: The Problem with Complementarianism
—————————–
Related posts:

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven (post at Spiritual Sounding Board)

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Independent Fundamentalist Baptist College Kid Friendship Permission Form – Christians lowering marriage rates due to their own stupid teachings about sex, dating, marriage, etc

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post – and rude guy banned)

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post)

The blog visitor I wrote of earlier, who was wanting to argue with me over salvation by faith alone (I support it, he does not), despite the fact I told him in several posts I would not entertain debate, came back to my blog this evening and left me two or three posts, at least one was quite snotty.

I have banned him from the blog. His original posts still stand, but I trashed the ones from this evening.

I can’t get the idiot to understand that I believe in “Faith Alone” but am still a virgin at age 40+, so obviously, his perspective that “Faith Alone” turns people into sexual sinners is a bunch of crap.

Here’s a copy of the post….

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality

A commentator at this blog left several comments under other threads (such as (Link): here and (Link): herenote: I may be deleting or heavily editing his anti faith alone posts in the future) where he seemingly feels, unless I misunderstood him, that the belief of “salvation by faith alone” leads to, or excuses sexual sin.

The Apostle Paul touched on this topic in the book of Romans:

(Link): Romans 6: 1,2:

    What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

This is the same Paul who taught that one is saved by grace through faith alone, not via works or by “right living” ((Link): Galatians 3):

    I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
    3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
    4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?
    5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?
    6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Here is a copy of my reply to the blog commentator:

    You seem to think believing in “salvation by faith alone” is what leads people (Christians specifically?) into sexual sin. I believe in salvation being by faith alone, and I am still a virgin over the age of 40, so it’s obviously not true that “faith alone-ism” necessarily leads to sexual sin.

    I find your view on this very insulting. It is usually held by Roman Catholics.

    I don’t know if you’re a Catholic or not (perhaps you are a Protestant who believes in “Conditional Security”), but I’ve had in-laws before who are Catholic who hold this same view as yours.

    One of them [a Roman Catholic] believes that ‘faith alone’ means that Baptists (of which I am one, or was one) live sleazy, sinful lives because we believe Jesus paid for all our sins [once for all].

    Meanwhile, this same Roman Catholic woman thinks that because Catholics reject that view, they are more “holy,” or live “godlier lives,” but her own sons (raised in Catholicism and anti faith alone views) were having sex outside of marriage.

    One of these sons of hers used to work in a sex toy store around X-rated material. So don’t tell me that rejecting “faith alone” means “being more godly, pure, and moral,” because it does not.

    Continue reading “Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality (re post – and rude guy banned)”

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality

Sola Fide – Salvation By Faith Alone – Does Not Necessarily Lead to Sexual Sin or Immorality

A commentator at this blog left several comments under other threads (such as (Link): here and (Link): herenote: I may be deleting or heavily editing his anti faith alone posts in the future) where he seemingly feels, unless I misunderstood him, that the belief of “salvation by faith alone” leads to, or excuses sexual sin.

The Apostle Paul touched on this topic in the book of Romans:

(Link): Romans 6: 1,2:

    What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

This is the same Paul who taught that one is saved by grace through faith alone, not via works or by “right living” ((Link): Galatians 3):

    I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
    3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
    4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?
    5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?
    6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Here is a copy of my reply to the blog commentator:

    You seem to think believing in “salvation by faith alone” is what leads people (Christians specifically?) into sexual sin. I believe in salvation being by faith alone, and I am still a virgin over the age of 40, so it’s obviously not true that “faith alone-ism” necessarily leads to sexual sin.

    I find your view on this very insulting. It is usually held by Roman Catholics.

    I don’t know if you’re a Catholic or not (perhaps you are a Protestant who believes in “Conditional Security”), but I’ve had in-laws before who are Catholic who hold this same view as yours.

    One of them [a Roman Catholic] believes that ‘faith alone’ means that Baptists (of which I am one, or was one) live sleazy, sinful lives because we believe Jesus paid for all our sins [once for all].

    Meanwhile, this same Roman Catholic woman thinks that because Catholics reject that view, they are more “holy,” or live “godlier lives,” but her own sons (raised in Catholicism and anti faith alone views) were having sex outside of marriage.

    One of these sons of hers used to work in a sex toy store around X-rated material. So don’t tell me that rejecting “faith alone” means “being more godly, pure, and moral,” because it does not.

    Not only do I not believe in a works-based salvation (the book of James is discussing how one’s works can demonstrate to others that one is saved, it is not saying works with faith are necessary for salvation), I do not believe in Conditional Security (that one’s salvation can be lost), either.

    I am OSAS (Once saved, always saved), which is not the same thing as Calvinism’s Perseverence of the Saints (which is basically a works based system, where one has to do good works to prove one is of the elect, or, one has to maintain one’s own salvation via right living/ good works).

The guy leaving these comments also actually believes this (direct quote):

    So evil will be wiped out when all the faith alonists are annihilated in hell per Psalm 37:20…

Uh-huh. I don’t think so. He’s confusing Soteriology with sanctifiction. The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith alone, but that sanctification is a work of the indwelling Holy Spirit over a believer’s life time.

Anyway, the irony:
This blog visitor is claiming faith aloners engage in sexual sin like nobody’s business and here I am a faith aloner who is a virgin over the age of 40.

I have known “Conditional Security” advocates (they are anti faith aloners; they believe in salvation by works, good deeds, being pure) who live sexually immoral life styles.

I have not seen this guy do it, but there are some Christians who like to argue that pre-marital sex is a grounds for being sent to Hell -which is technically true, I guess, but any sin can send a person to Hell.

While I am disgusted at how utterly lax most Christians are about sexual sin these days, I do not believe the Bible teaches fornication is the “unpardonable” sin.

Ergo, I think it incorrect to use the verse (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) “and fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom” chestnut as some kind of proof a fornicator (who accepts Christ as Savior) cannot make it into Heaven. I have seen a few sexual purity advocates use that verse in that way.

There is this weird Bible verse (from 1 Tim),

    But women will be saved through childbearing– if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Some weird Christians try to twist that to mean a woman has to get preggers and pop out a kid to be saved. You have to be careful how you use Bible verses.

Obviously 1 Tim is not teaching women must get preggo, since that would violate other Bible verses that say….
-sex is for marriage only;
-marriage is a personal choice, not a commandment

There are married Christian couples who have medical issues who cannot conceive. I seriously doubt God is sending them to Hell for being unable to pop out a baby.

In the same way, I think the verse about “fornicators not inheriting” is sometimes misused as well.
———————–
Related posts this blog:

(Link): ‘Relevant’ Christian Magazine Ultimately Dismissive of Virginity – Also Maintain A Few Falsehoods

(Link): No, Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity

(Link): Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – Easy Forgivism

(Link): Sometimes Shame Guilt and Hurt Feelings Over Sexual Sins Is a Good Thing – but – Emergents, Liberals Who Are Into Virgin and Celibate Shaming

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): Why So Much Fornication (sex outside of marriage) – Because Christians Have No Expectation of Sexual Purity

(Link): Christian Double Standards on Celibacy – Hetero Singles Must Abstain from Sex but Not Homosexual Singles

The Gospel Doesn’t Deliver People From Depression – brief critique of Chris Rosebrough’s comments / Chuck Collins blog

The Gospel Doesn’t Deliver People From Depression – brief critique of Chris Rosebrough’s comments / Chuck Collins blog

I imagine I don’t get many regular visitors to this blog, but for anyone who visits regularly, I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record. I do tend to repeat myself. This will be another one of those occasions, I’m afraid.

I used to have depression. I was diagnosed with depression by a psychiatrist at a young age. I was not freed of it until a year or so ago.

Yes, Christians get depression.

“Being saved,” and being a devout, daily- Bible- reading- Christian who loves Jesus, does not keep a person immune from psychological or mental problems any more than it does physical issues, such as heart disease, diabetes, poor eye sight, or in-grown toe nails.

Despite the fact I accepted Christ as my Savior before I turned ten years of age and took the faith seriously, read my Bible, prayed to the Lord for a healing, etc and so forth, I still had depression.

I was listening to this Pirate Radio (aka “Fighting for the Faith”) radio show by Chris Rosebrough today (by the way, I happen to like the guy, though I do not always agree with him about everything):

(Link): Joel Osteen: Be Positive or Be Quiet

Before Chris R. discusses the Osteen sermon, he quotes from some guy’s blog over at the Gospel Coalition ((Link): There Are Only Two Kinds Of Sermons).

The guy Chris R. quotes, Collins, talks about how there are only two kinds of sermons: ones about the Gospel, ones about self-help.

Chris R. agrees with guest blogger, Collins, that it’s the Gospel that delivers people from depression, not sermons such as “a ten series sermon on how to cope with depression.”

Here’s a quote from the Collins blog that Chris R. agrees with:

When you get to church to find out that the preacher is in the third of a 10-sermon series on “10 steps to cure depression” get up and run out of there as fast as your depressed legs can take you.

It’s self-help, not the gospel.

Chalk it up to a well meaning preacher who hasn’t yet realized that our real hope is in God, in the sufficiency of his work on the cross and in the salvation that is not found in get-better sermons.

(— end quote —)

While I agree that sermons alone can’t or won’t heal someone of depression, NEITHER WILL THE GOSPEL, contra Chris R and Collins.

I wrote a similar post to this one several months ago, so I will direct you there – preacher Bayless Conley made similar claims about depression, and I wrote about that here:

(Link): Bayless Conley and Depression – Sorry, dude, but depression can’t be cured by will power & sometimes not even by faith

“The Gospel” doesn’t heal depression any more than it does asthma, diabetes, headaches, cancer, or broken arms.

Continue reading “The Gospel Doesn’t Deliver People From Depression – brief critique of Chris Rosebrough’s comments / Chuck Collins blog”

Preacher Greg Laurie on Celibacy: the Good and the Bad

Preacher Greg Laurie on Celibacy: the Good and the Bad

I watched part of Greg Laurie’s show last night. In the midst of giving a sermon on the End Times and the 144,000 evangelical Jews of that time period, Laurie paused to say something like,

“I shouldn’t have to say this, but unfortunately in this day and age, you have to: Sex outside of marriage is wrong. You should have sex within marriage, married to someone of the opposite gender.”

Laurie said now- a- days, a lot of people want to rationalize their fornication (sex outside or marriage – he also mentioned adultery), and basically said the Bible is clear on the issue. Laurie says it doesn’t matter if you love the person, or if the sex is between two consenting people and all the other usual excuses people use to justify their fornication (or adultery), it still remains a sin.

I applaud him for that. Good job.

However, where I depart from Laurie on this matter was when he a moment later quoted the part about “fornicators and adulterers [etc] not being permitted into the kingdom of God.” Bear in mind he seems to mostly be directing this message at a Christian audience (ie, people who have already accepted Christ as savior).

If you are a Christian and commit fornication, tell a lie, or commit some other sin, God can and will forgive you, if you ask Him to. Your name does not get removed from the Lamb’s Book of Life. I don’t think it’s biblical or appropriate to tell Christians that their salvation will be forfeit if they fornicate.

Perhaps Laurie is a proponent of the false teaching of “Conditional Security,” which is a works-based form of salvation (Christ grants you a possibility, and gets your foot in the door of salvation, but you have to be good to maintain your salvation – your salvation ultimately depends on you, your works, your goodness, and your effort).

So brownie points to Laurie for clearly stating that sex outside of marriage is a sin, but a big demerit for suggesting sexual sin causes saved people to go to Hell.

Bizarro Video By Bizarro Bearded Guy Giving Mostly Bad Advice to Christian Singles

Let’s hear it for insomnia! Here’s another 2:00 AM post.

Bizarro Video By Bizarro Bearded Guy Giving Mostly Bad Advice to Christian Singles

WTH is this?-

Video: (Link): Christian singles, beware of divorce and remarriage adultery

On the plus side, he did offer the standard advice that Christian singles need to look for more in a mate than lots of money or good looks, but that was one of the few sensible things he said in the video.

Granted, I’m not totally awake as I’m watching this video, but the guy in the video spends the first 2 minutes apparently saying if you’re a Christian but you marry a Non-Christian, you will go to Hell- from sheer fact of marrying an unbeliever.

This host guy in the video must be reading a different Bible from me, but then, I think this is the same kook that has the ‘evangelicaloutreach’ site that teaches the heresy known as “Conditional Security.”

He’s been on the web for years, sending out lots of e-mails and letters to preachers who teach OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) telling them they are going to Hell, and anyone who believe in OSAS is going to Hell. It’s his hobby horse.

He says that having sex outside of marriage can “lead you on the road to Hell” or it will put you in Hell. I don’t see that teaching in the Bible. There is some line in the Bible about “adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God” etc, but I take it that it does not apply to those who accepted Christ.

If anything, and as I have written before on this blog, God seems to ignore or even bless Christians who have sex outside of marriage, not condemn them for it, which makes me wonder why God bothers to say he’s against fornication in the Bible.

Video Host Guy (aka Weird Beard Dude) says not to marry Christians who don’t believe correct doctrine – this includes Christians who believe in Eternal Security. Hmm. I have always believed in Eternal Security (or, more accurately OSAS, Once Saved Always Saved). (Video Host Guy believes in the false teaching of “Conditional Security.”)

This guy is a wacko, and has too many rules about whom to marry.
Continue reading “Bizarro Video By Bizarro Bearded Guy Giving Mostly Bad Advice to Christian Singles”

The Wartburg Watch Blog – YEC, Calvinists, Gender Roles etc

(Please click the “more” link to read the entire post)

I found a blog called “The Wartburg Watch” about a year ago while doing a web search on some topic or another, and then forgot about it, until I found it again about a week ago.

Here is the link to the Wartburg Watch blog:

The Wartburg Watch

In this post, I discuss (sometimes only very briefly), Reformed Theology (Calvinism), gender roles (complementarianism), Young Earth Creationism, Christian speaker Beth Moore, New Evangelicalism (i.e., how important is “secondary doctrine”), spiritual abuse in churches, and other subjects, and how they are addressed at the WW blog.

Areas of Agreement

I do agree with many of the positions taken on the blog by Dee and Deb, who started the blog.

I agree with them on many of the topics they post about, such as authoritarianism and Neo-Calvinism are problematic in Christianity; that the very un-loving tone Christians take towards others can at times cause other Christians to walk away from the Christian faith; and that patriarchy and gender complementarianism are unbiblical and sexist teachings that are doing damage to many women and to the doctrine of the Trinity.

I also agree, to a point, with the blog owners that some Christians wrongly make issues that most would consider secondary into primary- level concerns, which can lead to needless divisions among Christians. (On the other hand, I sometimes get a little bit nervous by Christians who start saying love always trumps doctrine).

The blog owners are also very concerned about spiritual abuse in churches and how to prevent or rectify it, and they are also rightly concerned with the sexual abuse of children by pastors and priests.

So on those fronts, I do recommend their blog.

Areas of Disagreement

I do however, have one or two concerns or disagreements with the ladies behind that blog.

Deb and Dee seem concerned that Christians should be respectful and loving towards other Christians, even when disagreeing on secondary issues – which is a fine and laudable goal.

Young Earth Creationism

However, I don’t see them fully demonstrating that philosophy in regards to secondary issues such as YEC (Young Earth Creationism).

Repeatedly at their blog, I see much disdain for YEC. And I don’t pick up that the disdain is due to their assertion that some YECs are trying to push its relevance.

They claim that some YEC advocates conflate YEC with salvation or the Gospel itself, which I have not seen (though I am not denying that some YECs may do this, but I don’t think it’s as rampant as they make it appear – I have never personally seen or read of an occasion of a YEC saying “Agreement with YEC = necessary for salvation”).

About the only name I have seen them cite as far as YECs, especially famous YECs, who elevate YEC to salvation-level proportions is Ken Ham. (Ham’s site, Answers Outreach)

I’ve read Ham’s material before and have seen him interviewed on TV shows about his views on evolution and creation.

I have personally not seen Ham equate YEC to the Gospel itself.

I have only seen Ham make an argument along the lines that questioning YEC (which usually involves denying a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or allowing a secular / naturalistic-materialistic worldview to color one’s reading of the Bible, including the book of Genesis) can lead people (young people in particular, who are immersed with secular views on evolution during school and college) to question other portions of the Bible.

That is, rejecting a literal, six- day creation interpretation in turn can, or may, ultimately lead them to question if the Gospel is true and accurate, or cause them to wonder if other aspects of the Bible are true.

I think Ham actually has a decent and legitimate point there, and I don’t see that as necessarily “equating YEC to the Gospel,” or to making a belief in it a requirement for salvation.

In one thread on one blog page at Wartburg Watch, one of the blog owners seemed to ridicule or mock YEC Christians who believe that dinosaurs may have existed at the time of Noah and that dinosaurs were led on to Noah’s Ark, or that this could have been a possibility.

This is not the specific thread I am thinking of, but is close to it in content and tone:

The Fred Principle Fundamental Evangelicals Rejecting Reason (Wartburg Watch blog post)

As a YEC, I and other YECs do not “reject science,” we do not “reject reason,” and we are not “anti science,” as we are so often depicted as (including in the Wartburg Watch post above, sadly).

Most of us YECs merely disagree with other people over scientific topics, or how to approach scientific topics.

Disagreeing with someone else on the topic of evolution or the age of the earth does not mean we YECs are “anti science” or “anti reason.” To keep saying we YECs are “anti science” is a strawman and is mischaracterizing our views and beliefs.

In the discussion on YEC, one comment from the Wartburg Watch says (which is again at this blog page):

“No matter what the anointed would have us believe, the age of the earth, complementarianism, the size of our church, and the governing structure of the church are not primary issues. Folks, we have been given a brain. We need to use it.”

I do not believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old or that God used evolution to create and change life forms.

From this blog person’s comments at Wartburg Watch, one would assume that those who do not agree that the earth is millions/billions of years old have not been given brains or do not use their brains. I’m unsure if the bloggers mean that, or if it was an unfortunate choice of words.

(I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some Christian Old Earth advocates and believers of theistic evolution who make the age of the earth or evolution a primary issue, who tell YECs they are unsaved and going to hell.)

This comment is from a blog owner of Wartburg Watch (at the same page)…

“So what was his [the YEC person] solution [when confronted with material that disagreed with YEC views]? He refused to read anything more because it challenged him to the core. He said he would choose to believe Young Earth in spite of the evidence because ‘he couldn’t take it.'”

…Was somewhat uncharitable. Not all YECs are “afraid” to look at the opposition’s view points nor do all YEC advocates recoil in horror, in disbelief, or go into denial after having read work critical of YEC views.

I have read arguments for both sides of the evolution and age of Earth debates in the past, and I remain a YEC.

I was subjected to years of secular macro-evolution education in public schools and a bit in college and was told as a student that the earth is millions and millions of years old, but I still remain unconvinced for old-earth or macro evolution beliefs.

I have listened to Christian scientific personality Hugh Ross, who believes in theistic evolution (or some variety of it) and in an old earth, many times on Christian shows over the past fifteen years, arguing in favor of an old earth view (Hugh Ross’ site, Reasons To Believe).

Ross seems like a very nice man (and very intelligent, too – though he can, in my view, get a bit prickly or condescending at times when debating YECs), and I have no doubt he believes in Jesus as much as I do, but I disagree with him on these particular issues.

I did not find the “old earth” arguments, or arguments in favor of evolution, by Ross or by other Christians, journals, blogs, or TV shows I’ve read or watched compelling, nor was I convinced by secular sources who argue for old earth and for Darwinism.

I am college-educated and made mostly straight A’s while in college, so I am not a hick or a dummy. I made a “B” in a math class (college algebra), a “B” in one science class, and a “C” in one science lab course – everything else, I got an “A” (including one or two other college- level science courses).

I have read material that questions and criticizes the YEC and Intelligent Design view, both by Christians (who believe in theistic evolution and an old age of the earth view) and by atheists – and I am still a YEC.

There seems to be a belief held (and it is condescending), by Old Age proponents, that if only a YEC is confronted with criticisms of YECism by old-earth proponents, we will abandon our views of YEC, because, by golly, Fact, Science!, and Truth are so obviously on the side of the intelligent, educated, old-earth proponents…

And that further, it seems there is also a belief, or attitude, that simple-minded, doofus, red-neck, inbred, wrongly- paranoid- of- liberal- tinged public school system education Young Earth Creationists (who also watch NASCAR, marry their first cousins, have only one tooth, and keep broken washing machines on their front lawns, next to the pink, plastic flamingos) simply cannot challenge or refute anti-YEC teachings, or we are so weak minded, we will faint upon hearing them.

If the situation about the origins of life, creation of the earth and of mankind were as simple as all that, there would not be an old-earth / young-earth / evolution debate at all; all Christians would have converted to old-earth / theistic evolution perspectives many years ago. Obviously both sides have excellent points, intelligent people, and facts to back up their positions.

Dee and Deb of the Wartburg Watch blog may not be questioning the salvation of a Christian who believes dinosaurs co-existed with Noah, but in my view, it is no less alienating, or uncharitable to imply people who do believe that way are rubes, out- of- touch, un-scientific, anti reason, ignorant, or that all YECs everywhere equate YEC to the Gospel – and I do pick up that tone in some of the posts at the WW blog on this issue. I find that baffling, since both ladies usually seem very sensitive to other people’s feelings and concerns.

I am a YEC myself. I do not believe a person has to be YEC or agree with it to “be saved.” (Click the “more” link below to read the remainder of this post…)

Continue reading “The Wartburg Watch Blog – YEC, Calvinists, Gender Roles etc”

Book Review of Not A Fan a book by Kyle Idleman

PDF Format:
(Link): Book Review of “Not A Fan” by Kyle Idleman (review by J. O. Hosler)

The book reviewer believes that Idleman’s book contains a  Lordship Salvation slant; Lordship salvation teaching seems to distort the gospel of Grace the Bible teaches.

I really wish there was an HTML version of the review available; the review is only available in PDF format.

I have seen Idleman on a television series of the same name (“Not A Fan”), which airs on network TBN at times, and while I do believe the man is sincere, I am sometimes a little put off by his emphasis upon works or performance.

Life is difficult enough as it is without a preacher trying to tell me I’m not doing enough for Christ, I’m failing at my faith walk, or implying I’m selfish if I’m not giving up every single material possession I own to work in a homeless shelter 24 hours a day seven days a week or to go serve as a missionary in the deepest jungles of Africa.

There are different, and equally valid ways, of serving the Lord, and not all of them have to involve missionary work in Africa or working in a soup kitchen.
—————————-
Related post, this blog:

(Link):  Radical for Jesus a New Kind of Legalism?

(Link): Radical Christianity – New Trend That Guilt Trips American Christians For Living Average Lives

(Link): To Get Any Attention or Support from a Church These Days you Have To Be A Stripper, Prostitute, or Orphan

John Hagee Believes in, Teaches Conditional Security (which is a false teaching)

Based on a November 29th, 2011 broadcast of a John Hagee show I watched, I take it that Hagee believes in Conditional Security, though he did not use the term “Conditional Security.”

I do not recall his exact words, but he said something to the effect that “once saved, always saved” is not true.

He quoted a few verses from Galatians and a part of Revelation to “prove” that a Christian can lose his or her salvation, or that a Christian has to continue to be good or to do good works to retain one’s salvation.

He made some remarks about how a Christian cannot expect to live any old way he wants to and expect to be saved.

CS (Conditional Security) is a false teaching, since it is a works-based salvation. Hagee, and those like him, believe that the atoning work and blood of Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation, but that it is up to one’s own effort and goodness to “remain saved.”

Here are links to pages by other people about these issues:

OSAS, The Whole Story

ETERNAL SECURITY (Once Saved, Always Saved)?

Eternal Security: How a Saved Person Can Never Be Lost Again

Security of the Believer: Once Saved Always Saved?

Why A Truly Born Again Christian CANNOT Be Lost

Soteriology: The Security of Our Salvation

The Eternal Security of the Believer:
Will God Fulfill His Promises? — Part 1

ONCE SAVED – ALWAYS SAVED? Our Topic is ETERNAL SECURITY:
Can One Be GENUINELY ‘Born Again’ Yet Finally Not Inherit Eternal Life?