In the first four chapters of
Romans Paul addresses man’s righteousness (a right relationship with God) or how a man is “justified” in the sight of God.The first way that he discusses is a “righteousness” that is strictly in regard to man’s “actions”—apart from “faith”.He says:
”Who (God) will render to every man according to his works:
“To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,eternal life;
“But unto them that are contentious,and do noty obey the truth,but obey unrighteousness,indignation and wrath,tribulation and anguish,upon every soull of man that doeth evil,to the Jew first,and also of the Gentile;
“But glory,honor,and peace,to every man that worketh good,to the Jew first,and also to the Gentile”(Ro.2:6-10).
He then says that the “standard” by which man will be judged is “law”.For those who have not “the law” will be judged by
”the work of the law that is written in their hearts” of which the “
conscience” bears witness (v.15).The Jew will be judged by “the law”.In both instances the “law” is in regard to the “moral” law.If the Gentile sins then he will perish.If the Jew sins then he will be judged by the law,and the law says that if he breaks even one commandment then he is guilty of breaking the whole law (v.12;Jms.2:10).So therefore,he too will perish if he sins.
Paul says that by “works” no man meets the standard of “law”:
”…for we have before proven both Jews and Gentiles,they are all under sin;As it is written,There is none righteousness,no,not one”(Ro.3:9,10).
”For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God”(Ro.3:23).
However,since the beginning of time not all men have “perished”.The Lord had been saving sinners since the beginning,but it was not until Paul was converted that it was revealed exactly how the Lord was doing this.The Lord had been imputing His own righteousness to men who “believed God”,no matter what the particular revelation from God was at the time:
”Abraham believed God,and it was counted to him for righteousness”(Ro.4:3).
Paul writes:
”But now the righteousness of God apart from law is revealed,being witnessed by the law and the prophets,even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all who believe”(Ro.3:21,22).
The Lord imputes His own righteousness unto all who believe (both Jews and Gentiles,for there is no difference),and this is apart from “law” (To the Gentile the “law that is written in his heart” and to the Jew the Ten Commandments).
Throughout time,when any man “believed God”,he was
”justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”(Ro.3:24).Before the Cross the Lord would “overlook” the sins of the believer all the while knowing that He would place their sins on the Lord Jesus at the Cross.
So we can see that Paul speaks of two ways whereby man can be justified before God.One way is by “earning” it by his “works” or “deeds”.But since the beginning of time that way has proved futile as no man has been able to meet the standard of God’s law.The other way is in reference to the “grace” of God,and since the beginning the Lord has imputed His own righteousness into the account of those who “believe”.
It is also a fact that Paul says nothing about a righteousness that involves both “faith” and “works”.And the reason that he says nothing about it is because there is no such thing.It is either by “works” or by “grace”.There is nothing in between.With that said,let us see how Jeremy attempts to prove that some men are “justified” before God by “faith” and “works”.
Jeremy takes a verse out of its context and then uses that verse to support his belief that the Jew was justified by “faith” plus “works of the law” .When the Lord Jesus was asked by the rich man what he must do to have eternal life.The Lord replied,
”If you want to enter into life,keep the commandments”(Mt.19:17).
Jeremy says::
Jesus’ response to the question is, ”Keep the commandments.” Jesus goes on to again quote the Mosaic Law. How much clearer could it be Jerry?
It is too bad that Jeremy did not quote the rest of the Lord’s discourse.After the rich man went away the Lord Jesus told His disciples that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of heaven.Then we see the following exchange:
” When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible”(Mt.19:25,26).
The Lord Jesus was saying the same thing that Paul later said—that
no man is justified by the works of the law in the sight of God:
”But that NO MAN is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith”(Gal.3:11).
”Therefore by the works of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”(Ro.3:20).
Jeremy does not understand that the words
NO MAN and
NO FLESH mean just that!He contiues to insist that some Jews were indeed justified by the works of the law before God despite the fact that Paul says that “no man” will be justified by the works of the law.Jeremy continues,saying:
If Christ did not believe in a “faith / works” program, why would He tell the lawyer and young man a lie? Was Christ attempting to intentionally deceive these men Jerry?
Paul says,
“by the law is the knowledge of sin.”The law was to “convict” the Jew of his sinfulness so that he would realize that he was in need of a Savior to save him from the penalty and defilement of his sins.Instead of just leaving the rich man should have said that he is a sinner and cannot keep the law and beg for the Lord’s mercy.The Lord Jesus explains this idea in the “parable of the Pharisee and the publican”.Here are His words in regard to the “publican”:
” And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted”(Lk.13,14).
In my very first post in this debate I pointed out that Paul uses the example of David as a man who is justified before God
apart from works—
“to him that worketh not”(Ro.3:5).
But Jeremy still refuses to reconcile his view that David was required to do “
works” in order to be saved with Paul’s words that it is the sinner who “
worketh not but believeth” who is justified before God.He has already had three opportunites to answer,but he still refuses to even attempt to reconcile his ideas with the words of Paul.Instead,he says:
Jerry, I already answered this too. Paul uses David as an example of a man under the law who God did not impute iniquity. David deserved physical and spiritual death for his sin, but God spared him.
That does not answer my question and Jeremy knows it!We are discussing how David was “justified” and not whether or not David was spared by grace or not.Paul uses David as an example someone who lived under the law and he was justified before God
apart from works—
”to him that worketh not”!:
” But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works”(Ro.4:5,6).
Jeremy says that David could not possibly be saved “without works” but Paul uses David as an example of one who
worketh not but believeth!Righteousness was imputed to David
apart from works.But since it is impossible to reconcile the idea that “
works” are required for justification with Paul’s teaching that it is he who “
worketh not” Jeremy does not even try.
In my first post I also asked,since “eternal life” is a free gift (Ro.6:23) and no one has to do “works” to receive a free gift,why would “works be required in order to receive this “free gift”?Jeremy said:
I am not saying that “works are required” to obtain that free giftThe question that will be asked I’m sure is, did the “works” in and of themselves “save” anyone. The answer is, no way… The works they did were in no way magical and did not equal salvation. The works they did were an expression of faith. It was a physical expression that God asked them to do to show that they had faith in Him.
Since Jeremy understands that “work” is not required in order to receive a free gift,he knows that he must deny that he is saying that works are required for salvation.Hence,he says,
”I am not saying that ‘works are required’ to obtain that free gift.”
Jeremy forgets that in this debate he is arguing just the opposite—that at one time works were required for salvation.In order to get around the fact that “works” were never required for the “free gift” of eternal life,he argues that the works in themselves did not save but were just a demonsration of faith.But if “works” were required in order to demonstrate faith and faith is necessary for salvation,then it is obvious to anyone who will use his brain that Jeremy is teaching that “works” are required for salvation.And not only that,he also teaches that the Jews must be “justified” by “works”.So it is beyond me how Jeremy can say that he is “not saying that ‘works are required’ in order to receive the free gift of eternal life!
Next,Jeremy asks:
A couple questions and a point here. If Jerry recognizes that Peter and Paul are preaching different messages, then what does Jerry believe the difference in their message to be? If Peter is “under the law” then why are we still discussing the issue?
When a “gospel” went to the Jews after the resurrection the “message” is the fact that the Lord Jesus is the promised Messiah,the Son of God.On the day of Pentecost Peter used the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah:
” Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”(Acts2:36).
As soon as Paul was converted he also preached the same message to the Jews:
” And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ”(Acts3,4).
Those Jews who believed this “good news” were “born of God” at the very moment they believed.They were “regenerated” or “born again” when they believed that the Lord Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God:
” Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”(1Jn.5:1).
The Jews were “born again” or “born of God” whenever they believed the “good news” that Jesus is the promised Messiah.And this new birth is not according to the “will of the flesh” and that rules out the idea that “works” were involved in the “born again” process:
” But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”(Jn.1:12,13).
The Jew was regenerated when he believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.And that was accomplished by “faith” and “faith” alone.Any “works” done after the “born again” experience did not contribute in any way to his salvation,and that is because he was already saved by the time he did any “works”.
We can see that Jeremy is very confused in regard to exactly how the Jews were being saved after the resurrection.He said:
Christ commanded Peter to continue preaching justification by faith works, even after the resurrection.
If we are to believe Jeremy then we must ignore the fact that when Paul preached to the Jews he told them that they could
not be justified by the Law of Moses:
”Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:And by Him all who believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”(Acts13:38,39).
These words mean absolutely nothing to Jeremy—
”from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses”!
No matter how much Scriptual proof is given to Jeremy that “no man” is justified by the Law he just will not believe.He just ignores the following words of Paul that can have only one meaning:
” Therefore by the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin”(Ro.3:20).
Despite these clear and explicit statements Jeremy remains under the illusion that the Apostles were preaching “justification by faith works” of the Law after the Lord’s resurrection!
In the following verse Paul again makes it plain that “
all who believe” receive the “righteousness of God apart from law”:
” But now the righteousness of God apart from law is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;Even the righteousness of God which is by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them who believe”(Ro.3:21,22).
Since these verses demonstrate beyond any doubt that
all of those who “believe” receive this “righteousness of God
apart from law” there can be no question whatsoever as to whether or not “works of law” are required for salvation.But despite this fact Jeremy insists that only “some” of those who believe receive this righteousness of God apart from the law!
However,these words have no meaning whatsoever for Jeremy.
Let us exaimine more of Jeremy’s “ideas” in regard to what was being preached to the Jews after the resurrection.
First he seems to think that the preaching of the death,burial and resurrection was only for the Body of Christ.He says:
God, when dealing with Israel, asked man to show faith in a physical way. Now, God asks us (the body of Christ) to show our faith by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Jeremy is under the illusion that Peter did not preach any message other than “fear God and do works of righteousness”:
Peter was preaching the only message he knew. "Fear God and do works of righteousness to be accepted by God."
He seems to think Peter did not preach a “faith only” meassage to Cornelius and his household:
Jerry hopes that Peter will preach a wonderful message of "faith alone" to these Gentile belivers.
However,even a cursory reading of the Acts record reveals that when Peter went to Cornelius he preached the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus:
” And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; Whom they slew and hanged on a tree:Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly”(Acts10:39,40).
And notice that Peter also says that “whosoever
believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”:
” To him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”(Acts10:43).
And while Peter was saying those words the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and all those in his household!They were saved without doing any works.Peter was not preaching a message demanding “works of righteousness” for salvation.He said that those who “believe” will receive the remission of sin—“faith only”.
The Acts narrative is so plain and easy to understand,but Jeremy seems incapable of understanding these simple things.
Next,according to Jeremy’s ideas,the Jewish believers had no eternal security.However,John tells them:
”And this is the record,that God hath given to us eternal life,and this life is in His Son”(1Jn.5:11).
The word “eternal” is translated from the Greek word “
aionios”,which means
”without end,never to cease,everlasting”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).
So John says that they already possess a life in Jesus Christ that is without end.But Jeremy attampts to add “conditions” to this “unconditional” statement.Typical!If there were “conditions” John would say,”You
will have eternal life if you do this or don’t do that.But he does not,but instead tells them that they already possess eternal life.
When the rich man asked the Lord Jesus how he could “have eternal life”(Mt.19:16),he was not asking how he could have an “agelong” life,but instead the question was in regard to a life “without end”.So why should we expect that the use of the phrase “eternal life” as used by the rich man does not mean the same thing when John uses it at 1John 5:11?
But Jeremy knows that his ideas are exposed as being in error if the same meaning is put on the same phrase at 1Jn.5:11 as it is at Matthew 19:16.But there can be no misunderstanding of what the Lord Jesus says about those who have been given eternal life:
”And I give unto them eternal life,and they shall never perish;neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.My Father,who gave them to Me…”(Jn.10:28,29).
Here Jeremy is forced to violate a principle of sound Bibical exegesis when he adds “conditions” to the Lord’s “unconditional” statement.Jeremy just cannot deal with the Scriptures
as they are written or else he must admit that his ideas are wrong.Also, the Lord Jesus said that those who He has given eternal life were given to Him by the Father:
”And this is the Father’s will Who hath sent Me,that of ALL that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,but should raise them up again at the last day”(Jn.6:39).
Jeremy knows that this verse is devestaing to his teaching,so he says that the Lord
did not do the will of the Father because Judas was lost!He says:
Judas is another example of one who “possessed eternal life,” fell away, and went to hell. The Father gave Judas to Christ, and Judas was lost…
Despite the fact that the Lord Jesus said that He came to do the Father’s will and the Father’s will is that He should lose “none” of those who were given to Him by the Father,Jeremy says that “the Father gave Judas to Christ,but Judas was lost!”
But now Jeremy denies that he ever said that the Lord Jesus did not do the will of the Father.Jeremy is so confused that he cannot remember what he said from one moment to another.I asked him?:
Do you really believe that the Lord Jesus came to do the will of the Father but that He failed?
Jeremy answered,saying:
No. When did I ever say this?
Jeremy is so confused that he does not understand the implications of the things he says.
Despite all of Jeremy’s protests to the contrary,there can be no doubt that the Jewish believers did in fact possess “eternal security”.The Jewish believers were told that they already possess a life in the Son that will not end.The Lord Jesus said that those who have been given eternal life shall not perish and that He will lose none of those who were given to Him by the Father.Jude thells them that they are “preserved” in Jesus Christ:
”…to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ”(Jude1).
Peter tells them that they are “kept” by the power of God:
”Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”(1Pet.1:5).
But despite all of this evidence Jeremy says that they have no eternal security.In order to get around these verses he just adds “conditions” to “unconditional” statements.I could do the same thing in regard to the verse Jeremy uses over and over to prove the “eternal security” of those in the Body of Christ:
” And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption”(Eph.4:30).
This is clearly an “unconditional” statement,but I will use Jeremy’s method and add “conditions” to this statement.I would say,”Just a few verses later Paul starts to tell them what “conditions” are necessary to “remain” sealed so that they can have an inheritance in the Kingdom of God”:
” For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God”(Eph.5:5).
I would say,”See,Paul warns them that those of them who are ‘disobedient’ will receive the wrath of God”:
” Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience”(Eph.5:6).
And then I would say,”Paul warns them not to become “partakers” with “the sons of disobedience”,which necessarily implies that they can indeed become “sons of disobedience” and therefore they can receive the wrath of God”:
” Be not ye therefore partakers with them”(Eph.5:7).
How would Jeremy answer this?I would think that he would answer in the same manner in which I answered.He would say that you cannot “add” conditions to an “unconditional” statement.However,when I say the exact same thing to Jeremy it falls on deaf ears.Of course in order to cling to his false beliefs Jeremy has no other choice but to add “conditions” to “unconditional statements”.
I also asked Jeremy the following question:
Do you really believe that Abraham was first justified by "faith" alone but later he was saved by "faith plus works" and then later it was once again by "faith" alone and then later it was by "faith plus works"?
Again,he denies ever teaching such a thing.He says:
I never said that. I would however say that Abram / Abraham’s salvation was conditional.
Jeremy said that Abraham was justified by “faith plus works” when he was circumcised and he said that Abraham was justified by “works plus faith” when he offered up Isaac.
So if that is true (which it is not) then we see that initially Abraham was justified by “
faith alone”(Gen.16:6) and then later by “
faith plus works” when he was circumcsed (Gen.17:11) and then by “
faith alone” when he believed the promise that the promised seed would come through Sarah (Gen.17:17;Ro.4:19-22) and then once again by “
faith plus works when Abraham offered up Isaac (Jms.2:21).
So if we believe Jeremy’s ideas we must throw away our reason and believe that at first Abraham was justified by faith alone,and then later it was by faith plus works and then later by faith alone and then finally by faith plus works!And Jeremy is so confused that he does not even understand the implications of his teaching!
Jeremy contnues to teach that those under the law must establish their own righteousness despite the fact that Paul says that the Jews who attempted to do such a thing were acting in “ignorance”:
” For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God”(Ro.10:3).
Paul says that the Jews who attempted to establish their own righteousness by “works” are in “ignorance” of God’s righteousness but Jeremy teaches that the Jew did in fact have to establish their own righteousness before God by “works”.
Now to Jeremy’s questions.
1. Jerry, is the context of James 1:25-2:26 referring to the mosaic Law?
It is hard for me to believe that the “perfect law of liberty" is in reference to the Law.Peter calls the Law a “yoke”:
” Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?(Acts15:10).
And so does Paul:
” Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”(Gal.5:1).
Jeremy must think that the “yoke of bondage” is the same thing as “the perfect law of liberty”!
James is saying that the “perfect law of liberty” (grace through faith) enables us to fulfill the “royal law” (the Law—“thou shalt love thy neighhbor as thyself”;Jms.2:3):
”Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law”(Ro.3:31).
James is saying that if they treat a rich man with respect but a poor one with disrespect then they “are become judges with evil thoughts” (2:4) because they have “respect of persons” (or are playing favrites).He says that if they do that then they they are committing sin (v.2:9) and therefore they are not fulfilling the “Royal law” and are instead “transgressors”.So he says to do as one under the “perfect law of liberty” and they will fulfill the law.
But Jeremy overthrows his “reason” and asserts that the “yoke of bondage” is the same thing as the “perfect law of liberty”.We can see that Jeremy will say anything,no matter how ridiculous,in order to attempt to prove that the Jews were saved by “faith” plus “works”.
2. Jerry, why did the sect of the Pharisees who believed argue that the Gentiles who were turning to God needed to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law?
First of all,their argument was not in the will of God.James made it perfectly clar that they had no authority from the Apostles to do such a thing (Acts15:24).But despite this fact Jeremy attempts to use these “unauthorized” arguments of the Pharisees in order to prove that the Jews were “justified before God” by “works” despite the fact that Paul says that
no man is justified before God by the “works” of the Law (Gal.3:11;Ro.3:20).Jeremy remains under the illusion that “some men” were justified by the law even though Paul says that “no man” is justified before God by the “works” of the law.
3. Jerry, why is “will be supplied” in the future tense?… Notice Jerry, if the elect of the circumcision are diligent to “make (their) call and election sure” they will never stumble
Peter is telling them to examine themselves so that they will have confidence about their standing with God.Their Godly behavior is evidence that they have indeed been “elected” of God and do in fact possess a true “faith” that bringeth salvation.This is the same thing that Paul tells believers:
” Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates.But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates”(2Cor.13:5-7).
The word “stumble” or “fall” is not in reference to “salvation”,but instead is in reference to falling from their own “steadfastness”(see 2Pet.3:17).
Jerry, if the circumcision believers “possess” eternal life, why do they need to make their calling and election sure?
For the same reason that Paul tells those in the Body to “examine themselves” so that they will know that they do indeed have a true “faith” that saves.
Peter is saying that if they remain steadfast and continue to live holy lives then the entrance which they receive into the Kingdom will be an “abundant” one.The ultimate reward of a growing,Christ-honoring life is a “crown of glory” (1Pet.5:4) that will be given at the appearing of the Lord Jesus.
The Jewish believers have been told that when the Lord appears that they will be like the Lord Jesus:
”…we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”(1Jn.3:2).
This has to be in reference to the rapture,and that is because only those who will be raptured are told that those who are alive at His “appearing” will be changed so that they have glorious bodies like His glorious body (Phil.3:21).If believers do not keep themselves holy then at His coming they will be “ashamed” because their entrance into the Kingdom will not be “abundant”(1Jn.2:28).
So Peter is not saying that they will not have an “entrance” into the Kingdom but instead is saying that if they remain steadfast and keep themselves holy then an “abundant” entrance will be supplied for them.
This particular discussions is in regard to Jeremy’s misreading of the following verse:
” Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls”(1Pet.1:9).
And I have already demonstrated,this verse is better translated in the following way:
”Receiving the result of your faith, the salvation of your souls”(1Pet.1:9;HNV).
I also pointed out the the word “receiving” is in the “present” tense and not the “future” tense.But Jeremy had nothing to say about that.Here is what Sir Robert Anderson has to say about this verse:
”But the Christian’s faith rests upon the living Lord,in whom we are bidden to rejoice,receiving now ‘the end of our faith,even the salvation of our souls’ “(Anderson,”Redemption Truths”,p.144).
4. Jerry, why do circumcision believer need to “keep on confessing” their sins?
To remain in “fellowship” with the Lord.I answered you previously by pointing out that we too should judge ourselves so that we will not be judged by the Lord:
"For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world"(1Cor.11:31,32).
Jeremy,who considers himself a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, would be well served to consider the words of Sir Robert Andeson,the father of Mid-Acts dispensationalism,in regard to this subject:
”For the believer who sins against God to dismiss the matter by ‘the blood cleanseth’,is the levity and daring of antinomianism.For such the word is,’If we confess our sins’: no flippant acknowledgement with the lip,but a solemn and real dealing with God;and thus he obtains again and again a renewal of the benefits of the death of Christ. '‘He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”(Anderson,”The Gospel and Its Minisry”,p.177).
There is a lesson that can be learned in regard to the time when the Lord Jesus washed the feet of Peter.Peter said,”Lord,not my feet only,but also my hands and my head”.To which the Lord Jesus said,”He that is washed needeth not except to wash his feet,but is entirely clean"(Jn.13:10).
The ”New Scofield Study Bible” says this about these words of the Lord:
”The underlying imagery is of an oriental returning from the public baths to his house.His feet would acquire defilement and require cleansing,but not his body.So the believer is cleansed as before the law from all sin ‘once for all’ (Heb.10:1-12),but needs throughout his earthly life to bring his daily sins to the Father in confession,so that he may abide in unbroken fellowship with the Father and the Son (1 Jn.1:1-10).The blood of Christ answers forever to all the law could say as to the believer’s guilt,but he needs constant cleansing from the defilement of sin.”(Note at John 13:10).
5. Could Noah have refused to build the ark, been killed in the flood, and still been saved?
As I already said,the Scriptures make it plain that the elders received a “good report” by “faith” and by “faith alone”:
”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.For by it the elders obtained a good report"(Heb.11:1,2).
The words cannot be any plainer.But Jeremy uses the following verse which thinks that the “good report” was a result of “faith” plus “works”:
Jeremy quotes the following verse in order to show that Abraham was justified before God by “faith” plus “works:
Hebrews 11
7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
It was Noah’s “faith” that resulted in his preparing the ark.As anyone can see,the “righteousness” which is spoken of is “the righteousness according to faith and not a righteousness according to “faith and works”.
I guess I need to be more clear. Jerry, how do you respond to Hebrews 11:7 which clearly shows Noah built the ark (a physical act) by faith, for the saving of his household?
By faith he built the ark and saved those in his household “physically”.It seems as if Jeremy is arguing that his household was saved “eternally” because Noah built the ark!Surely Jeremy knows better than that!
Why does the author of Hebrews contrast Noah’s faith work with the condemnation of the world if it referring to “physical” things only?
He contrasts Noah’s “faith” with the non-faith of those who the Lord described as “corrupt”.Those who are “corrupt” had no faith unlike Noah.And Jeremy must not be aware that “condemnation” can indeed refer to “physical” things.And the corrupt people of the earth were indeed “condemned” when they were drowned in the flood.
So depite that the Scriptures state plainly that it was by “faith” whereby Noah received a good report Jeremy wants to add the word “works”!:
” And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise”(Heb.11:39).
Jeremy proves over and over that he just cannot distinguish “faith” from the “obedience of faith”.When he sees the word “faith” in regard to Jewish believers he thinks that the word means both “faith” and “obedience of faith”.
6. Did the man in Numbers 15, who was cut off completely, his sin upon him, go to hell?
Jeremy just cannot believe that verses which speak of a “physical” death are not in reference to a “spirtual” death. If we examine the teaching of Paul in regard to the Christians who sin presumptuously we can see that the Lord might put them to death "physically" but they will remain saved nonetheless.Here are his words in regard to the Christian who was living with his father's wife:
" To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"(1Cor.5:5).
The Lord will chasten his "sons" (those "born of God"),but he will not send his sons to hell.There were some in the church at Cornith who were participating in the Lord's supper in an "unworthy" fashion.Paul says that for this reason many of them are "sick" and some have been put to death.These Christians lost their "physical" life when they were chastened by the Lord,but they remained saved eternally nonetheless:
" For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world"(1Cor.11:30-32).
These Christian's who are put to death "physically" but they do not lose their "eternal salvation".But Jeremy thinks that the "physical" death under the Law is in reference to a "spiritual" death that lasts forever.As I have already demonstrated,those who lived under the Law and "believed" were eternally secure:
"For the LORD loveth justice, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever"(Ps.37:28).
There is another “principle” of the Lord of which Jeremy seems unaware.And that is the fact that in regard to “eternal salvation” the Lord treats all men in the same way.He does not play favorites:
”For there is no respect of persons with God”(Ro.2:11).
If a Gentile Christian can lose their “physical” life and still be saved,then so will the Jewish believer.And if “no works” are required of Gentile believers in regard to “eternal salvation”,then that same truth also applies to the Jewish Christians.
7. What the heck is going on in Hebrew 10:26-29?
Of course when I provided Scriptual passages from the epistle to the Hebrews that demonstrate conclusively that these Hebrew Christians possessed eternal security.However, Jeremy ignored them.
” Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”(Heb.9:12).
The author also says that these Hebrew believers are “sanctified” by the death of the Lord Jesus,and then says that those who are being sanctified are “perfected forever”:
” For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”(Heb.10:14).
But these words mean nothing to Jeremy and because of that he has no answer as to their meaning.Instead,he attempts to prove that they are not “perfected forever” and that they have not received “eternal redemption”.He cannot understand that the words later in chapter 10 are only in regard to “temporal” punishment.The writer of this epistle speaks of “judging His people”(Heb.10:30).In saying this,the author quoted twice from Deuteronomy (32:35-36),a chapter which shows the Lord’s people suffering His retributive judgments (Deut.32:19-27).The words “fierry indignation” cause many to think of hell,but there is nothing in the text to suggest this.God’s anger against against His failing people in the OT is often likened to the burning of fire (Isa.9:18-19;10:17).
So Jeremy ignores the words that demonstrate conclusively that these Hebrew Christians have been eternally redeemed and perfected forever and then attempts to prove that they have not been eternally redeemed and have not been perfected forever.
8. Jerry, do you stand by your interpretation of Ezekiel 18?
I have already proven that a “physical” death in regard to the people of the Lord does not equate “eternal” death (1Cor.5:5;11:30) but of course Jeremy just ignores these Scriptual passages.
9. Did the men in John 8, who believed in Christ lose their eternal life?
Jeremy thinks that those who the Lord said had the father as their father really believed in their heart in the Lord Jesus:
These believers have fallen away faster than they believed. They possessed eternal life, and have lost it.
We are supposed to believe that at one moment that they believed in their heart that the Lord Jesus was their promised Messiah but in an instant they were seeking to kill Him and the words of the Lord had no place in them (Jn.8:37).Jeremy has lost touch with reality if he can believe such nonsense.
We can see that those who truly believed in their hearts will never come into eternal condemnation:
”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"(Jn.3:16).
Jeremy thinks that they believed in their hearts but despite that they will perish.
10. Jerry, could Abraham have refused God’s everlasting covenant of circumcision, been cut off, and still been saved?
Abraham was saved by “faith” and “faith alone”.Upon belief he became a “saint” of the Lord.And this is what the Lord says about His OT “saints”:
”The Lord loveth justice,and forsaketh not His saints;they are preserved forever”(Ps.37:28).
Of course Jeremy just ignores this verse and continues to insist that the “saints” of the Lord are not preserved forever and the Lord will indeed forsake His saints.
11. Jerry, did the children of Israel need to keep the Mosaic Law in order to be righteous?
If they kept the law then they established their “own righteousness” (not to be confused with the “righteousbness of God apart from the law” that comes upon all who believe—Ro.3:21,22).Isaiah describes our “own righteousness” as nothing but “filthy rags”.Jeremy seems to think that a righteousness that is compared to “filthy rags” can save a man in the eyes of God!
12. Jerry, how did circumcision believers “know that they knew” Christ?
These Jewish Christians were told that if they know the Lord in a personal way,then they are given a simple test:We know that we know Him because we keep His commandments.
The word “know” (ginosko) in this instance means ”to become acquainted with…1 Jn.ii.3”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).This personal acquaintence can only come from being in “fellowship” with Him.If we are in fellowship with the Lord and “walking in the Spirit” then,as Paul says,”the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,who walk not after the flesh,but after the Spirit”(Ro.8:4).
If we are walking in the Spirit then we are keeping His commandments so therefore by our behavior we know that we are “in Him”.Paul also tells the believe to “prove themselves” by “examining themselves” so that they too will know whether or not they are “in the faith”:
”Examine yourselves,whether you are in the faith;prove yourselves”(2Cor.13:5).
13. Jerry, why did Peter preach “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him," to the Gentiles? Why did Peter say it was unlawful for him to be there?
Here Peter is not saying that our own “righteousness” is necessary for salvation (because “our own righteousness” is compared to “filthy rags”--Isa.64:6),but instead he is “describing” those in other nations who are accepted by the Lord.It is their “fear of the Lord” (or have a respect of the Lord) which is the reason why they are accepted of Him.This “fear” or “respect” of God combined with their “conscience”(the law that is written in their hearts”—Ro.2:15) leads them to lead “righteous” lives but this personal righteousness in no way makes them acceptable to Him.As I said,the words of Peter are merely a “description” of those who are found acceptable by Him.The following words of the Lord Jesus is also a “description” of those who will be saved:
”And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”(Mt.19:29).
Here the Lord is merely “describing” some who will inherit everlasting life.He surely is not saying that a “condition” or “requirement” for eternal life is that one must forsake his family.And Peter is not saying that a requirement of being accepted by Him is one’s “own righteousness”.Peter is merely describing those in other lands who find acceptance in the eyes of the Lord.After all,we know that Cornelius and his household were not saved because of their “own righteousness” but because they heard the “good news” and believed (Acts11:14;15:7).
14. Why would Christ be deceptive and tell the lawyer and young ruler to “keep the law” if Christ did in fact not mean just that?
As I explained earlier,instead of just leaving the rich man should have said that he is a sinner and cannot keep the law and beg for the Lord’s mercy.The Lord Jesus explains this idea in the parable of “the Pharisee and the publican”.Here are his words in regard to the “publican”:
” And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted”(Lk.13,14).
But Jeremy has no understanding of this and continues to teach that the Jew could be justified in the eyes of the Lord even though Paul says that no man shall be justified by the works of the law.
15. Does 2 Peter 2:20,21 refer to men who knew Christ, fell away, and went to hell?
The following words are used by many who deny that the Christian possesses eternal security:
” For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them”(2Pet.2:21).
This is not speaking of turning from the “gospel” but instead it is in reference to the commandments in regard to the “moral” law and personal righteousness—“collectively,of the whole body of moral precepts of Christianity:2Pet.2:21”(“Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon”).
These verses are speaking of some Christians who were born again and they are described as “those who are just escaping from those who live in error” (v.18) and as having escaped the pollutions of the world (v.20).However,some false teachers had”promised them liberty” (v.19) and allured them through the lusts of their flesh into believing a false teaching in regard to “morals”.This false teaching is probably the same thing that Paul refers to at Romans 3:8—that the Christians were falsely accused of teaching,”Let us do evil that good may come.”This was a false teaching that said that the more we sin then the more that grace will abound,and was based on a false interpretation of the words at Romans 6:1—”shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”
So the people who had escaped moral pollution by the knowledge of the gospel as well as the moral teachings that urge the Christian to keep himself “holy” had been deceived into believing that they should continue to sin so that grace would abound even more.They returned to their old way of life (v.22).They are worse off now and it would have been better if they had never even heard the moral commandments at first because now they have no excuse for their behavior.
Now that I have fully answered every single question that Jeremy sks,I will ask him to fully answer mine.
1.) You say that there are “some” believers who cannot be saved unless they do works,but Paul speaks of a “righteousness of God apart from the Law which comes upon ALL who believe.Why should we believe you instead of Paul?
2.) Paul says that NO MAN is justified by the works of the Lord in the eyes of the Lord (Gal.3:11;Ro.3:20) but you say that some men are.Why should we believe you instead of Paul?
3.) Will you finally attempt to reconcile your idea that David could not be saved without works while Paul uses David as an example of a man is is justified before God “apart from works”—to him that worketh not!(Ro.4:5,6).
4.) Since “eternal life” is a “free gift” why do you say that the Jew must be “justified by works” and prove his faith by “works” in order to receive the gift of eternal life?
5.) Since we can see that the Jews who believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah were “born again” or “born of God” why do you continue to insist that this “born again” experience is not in regard to “eternal salvation” but instead these “born again” people must continue to do “works” throughout their lives before they can be saved?
6.)You say that the Jew must establish their own righteousness in order to be saved,but Paul says that the Jews who tried to do this were “ignorant” of God’s righteousness.Why should we believe you instead of Paul?
7.)Do you still believe that after the resurrection that Peter was preaching nothing other than “fear God and worketh righteousness” despite the fact that we can see him preaching the death and resurrection of Christ and saying that “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”(Acts10:43).
8.)You say that the works of the law can justify the Jew in the sight of God,but Paul says that “all who believe are justified by all things,from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”(Acts13:39).Why should we believe you instead of Paul?
9.) When the rich man asked the Lord what he must do to “have eternal life” he was clearly speaking about something more than a “agelong” life.In fact,he was speaking about a life that is “without end”.That being the case,why should we believe you when you imply that when John uses those same words (eternal life) that he is not also speaking about a life in Jesus Christ that is “without end”?
10.) I showed you how simple it is to change the plain meaning of the Scriptures by adding “conditions” to “unconditional” statements as you did in regard to 1Jn.5:11.Please tell me how you would answer the “conditions” that I added to the “unconditional” statement in regard to the “sealing” of the Holy Spirt (Eph.4:30).
11.) The Lord Jesus said that the will of the Father was that none of those who were given to Him by the Father would become lost.But you said that Judas was given to the Lord Jesus and he became lost.Therefore,you are teaching that the Lord Jesus did not do the will of the Father.Why should we believe that?
12.) Why do you still continue to teach that the OT “saints” did not enjoy eternal security despite the fact that the Scripture reveal that the OT “saints” of the Lord are “preserved forever” and the Lord will not “forsake” them (Ps.37:28)?
13.)Do you deny that your ideas in regard to the “justification” of Abraham leads to the conclusion that initially Abraham was justified by “faith alone” and then later by “faith plus works” and then later is was back to “faith alone” and then finally he was justified by “faith plus works”?
14.) Are you serious when you say that “the law”,which Paul calls a “yoke of bondage”,is in reference to “the perfect law of liberty”?
15.)In view of the verses I gave that demonstrates that “physical” death does not always equate to “spiritual” death for the people of the Lord (1Cor.5:5;11:30),are you still willing to argue that a “physical” death is always in regard to a “spritual” death?
In conclusion,I would like to thank Jeremy for agreeing to debate these issues.And I also commend him for teaching that all men who live in the presemnt dispensation are saved by faith alone and are eternally secure.But I also beg him to let Scripture be his guide and realize that “works” can never justify anyone before God in any dispensation:
”For by grace are ye saved through faith;and it is not of yourselves,it is the gift of God—Not of works,lest any man should boast”(Eph.2:8,9).
”To the praise of the glory of His grace,through which He hath made us accepted in the Beloved”(Eph.1:6).
In His service,--Jerry
