Any teaching that states that a born again believer could lose his/her salvation if they do not continue until the end, is a heresy.
It is a heresy because effectively that person has to depend upon their own works and efforts to retain their salvation, rather than just simply trusting in the Saviour for that prize.
In fact, the reason this blog focuses so much on the evils of ecumenism is because vast areas of the "so called" evangelical/protestant church are embracing and/or joining forces with the work based religion of Rome (Vatican religion).
Apart from ecumenism, there are those (within the evangelical church) who are being misguided, who follow arminianism. Arminianism was an offshoot from Rome (around the time of the reformation) and contains a lot of catholic teaching. No wonder really, because it has (at its essence, like catholic dogma) a dependence on works to maintain salvation.
This article now focuses on why that teaching is heretical.
The teaching of arminianism, is that it is possible for a believer to become saved and then later unsaved if they do not continue in the faith (including works evident of salvation) until the end. I will now show that this is a seriously false teaching and extremely dangerous to the spiritual health of believers and to their relationship with the Lord.
There are those within the Christian community who state that the teaching of eternal security is not a teaching to be divided over, as it is a non vital doctrine, which does not affect our salvation. Is that true? I would beg to differ.
Effectively, if you believe
that you can lose your salvation (which was a free gift "not of works") then this means that after receiving the gift freely, you could end up losing it, if you do not continue with works. How could it be a free gift if you could lose it?
In fact, although you receive it as a gift, you would end up paying for it in instalments for the rest of your life. Friends, that is NOT how free gifts operate. If you believe that, then effectively you are depending upon works to ultimately save you and not on the eternally based free gift that cannot be taken from you once received.
The apostle Paul did not think that this teaching was insignificant regarding salvation and did not mix his words over such heretical teaching. Let us read what he said about it:
Galatians 2:6-9
'I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.'
Wow, Paul didn't just say "accursed" once. That means he was making a VERY serious point. That was in chapter 2. He then digressed for a while before continuing explaining what that heresy (false teaching) was.
We continue it in chapter 3 verse 1 to 14 (note: it is worth reading the rest of chapter 3 and 4 because Paul says so much about this matter throughout).
'O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'
The key words are in bold. I know that it talks about the works of the law. You may say that that is different. Is it? What Paul is showing us is that it is foolish to do ANYTHING in the strength of the flesh. Effectively Paul is saying: "having begun in the spirit are you now trying to be justified by self effort and/or external works, to save you?".
For an in depth look at why receiving the free gift of salvation lasts throughout eternity - not being determined on self effort, please click here for the article "Why True Believers Are Eternally Secure In Their Salvation"
Those who preach the arminian heresy are affecting the minds, practices and spiritual well being of those who they influence. This is because it will inevitably create guilt feelings that they are not doing enough and panic that maybe they are not really saved.
I will end this discussion by highlighting encouraging words:
Philippians 1:6
"being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ",
Philippians 2:12-13
"work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure"
The above words do not say "work for your salvation". It says "work out" which has an entirely different meaning and implies an unfolding process of your salvation.
The key words PROVING this, continue on in that passage "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure". He is empowering you within, by motivating you in your WILL and in your ACTIONS. It is nothing to do with self effort at all, but a complete dependence on Him.
For an article related to this subject please click here for "We Are No Longer Under Law But Under Grace! What Does That Really Mean?"
Posts
25 comments:
As far as I can tell, the main verses used by Arminians and the false cults is in James, where James states that faith without works is dead. So what was James telling us. I found another excellent article which rightly states:
"James was warning of the wrong kind of faith -- that is mere intellectual assent or belief in facts. Even if these facts are true, this type of faith can not save.
Paul's concern is over a different error. Faith with the wrong object. Paul was addressing those who were trusting in their own works or obedience rather than trusting Christ alone for salvation.
This kind of faith -- faith in works -- does produce a changed life. Like the Pharisees, people who believe that works are necessary for salvation are zealous to perform these works.
But neither faith in facts nor faith in works saves.
For both Paul and James, true salvation is found in believing, trusting, and having faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross alone for salvation.
This type of faith, true faith, will result in two things: eternal life and a desire to do good works."
As James stated "even the devil believes". That is clearly referring to intellectual belief in the facts but does not result in entrusting one's life to Jesus alone for salvation.
Believing in Jesus intellectually is no good unless you believe and ask Him to save you from your sins, which is obviously accompanied with repentance, ie a saving faith in Jesus.
Clearly that is why the enemy's faith can never be any good because it is not mixed with a dependence upon the saving power of Jesus to save.
Once you have been born again, the Holy Spirit will inspire you to do good works from within, in HIS strength, not of yourselves.
I will be praying for you brother Chingford. I have been blessed by God with the discernment that he has giving you concerning end times events.
You have departed from the truth concerning this part of doctrine which is the salvation. The adversary has gain territory in your life by deceiving you with "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) heretical and demoniacal doctrine. We are indeed saved by grace thru faith and not by works, furthermore we need to persevere until the end to receive our reward and that is to enter heaven.
One thing you can be sure brother Chingford, you will persevere on this doctrine and one day you will reap it's fruits. I hope and pray to God that one day you get to know the real truth concerning this matter.
Luis Castillo
luisrcastillo7@aol.com
Hi Luis
Those who have put their trust in Jesus for their eternal salvation have become children of God "a new creation" born into God's eternal kingdom. They can NEVER then become unborn.
Those who are born again have received the Holy Spirit. They WILL persevere to the end because it is HE who keeps us.
If we sin, the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, inspiring us to repent. We are being changed from one degree of glory to another into the image of Christ. It is NOT OUR WORK but the work of the Holy Spirit within us.
Therefore, we no longer need to be concerned whether we will "make it" by self effort because "He who began a good work in us will bring it to completion UNTIL the day of Christ (ie until the very end).
May I ask you if you have the assurance that you will persevere and enter heaven and why? What must YOU do to ensure you are ultimately saved?
Before you answer, consider does it depend upon your own self effort, works or ......?
Why did Paul ask " Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?"?
and in Philippians 3:3 "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh"
Paul was stating that believers STILL have no confidence in self effort.
By the way, just in case you have assumed I am a calvinist because of my OSAS teaching, I now put that record straight.
I am opposed to Calvinism doctrine for a lot of reasons. See my two articles on that subject for those reasons:
http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/new-calvinism-explaining-and-exposing.html
and:
http://watchmanforjesus.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/calvinist-teachersfollowers-reformed.html
Just because I believe in OSAS does not make me a calvinist. I believe in OSAS BECAUSE the bible overwhelmingly (from Genesis to Revelation) teaches it. It is possibly the only thing I do agree with calvinists about.
Hi,
This comment is addressed to John Chingford.
John, the Bible implies the loss of salvation.
Hebrews 6:4-6 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away,[a] to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
2 Peter 2:20-22 New King James Version (NKJV)
20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,”[a] and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.”
Blessings
Hi Robert
I will address 2 Peter 2: 20-22 first.
The context is discussing false prophets/false teachers. The indication here is that they were never truly born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. It is clear that they had selfish ulterior motives for their actions/faith. They are those who Jesus referred to when He said in Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ "
Jesus said He never knew them, i.e. they were never born again.
I am also reminded of Matthew 12:43-45:
“When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”
This resembles the people mentioned in 2 Peter 2. They took on the pure faith externally but not internally. The faith enabled them to somewhat change their lives for the good, for a while, but because they were never filled with the Holy Spirit and never born again, they became vulnerable to evil spirits, turned away from the right way and became worse than they were at the beginning.
Cont .....
Regarding Hebrews 6: 4-6:
Again you need to look at the context and understand what the purpose of the whole book of Hebrews was. You cannot take isolated verses out of context without measuring it against everything else.
The author of Hebrews was showing how Jesus fulfilled in every way the law and the prophets of the old testament. The book was showing how Jesus was the Messiah, is God and is the only way for our sins to be forgiven and that there is no further need for the sacrificial system to forgive sins as Jesus made a way for all of us into the presence of God through prayer without a human mediator and that His sacrifice has eternal benefits with no further requirement for sins to be forgiven as the death and resurrection of Jesus paid for sins once and for all time.
The book also argued that those who were adding works to their salvation were missing out on the benefits of grace. In fact, those who have never come to Jesus trusting in Him for their eternal salvation - without works, are not saved. It goes on to say that those hebrews who had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but did not believe that His sacrifice was sufficient to save them and therefore were returning to the old sacrificial system, had fallen away. These were actually never born again, because they only believed in Jesus superficially as the messiah, but not as their personal Saviour.
Effectively, they were crucifying Jesus time and time again whenever an animal was sacrificed for their sins. It was a blasphemy and rejection of Jesus's all encompassing sacrifice. These people had joined in with the true born again messianic believers and enjoyed times of worship etc and seen the blessings, but never applied it to themselves.
Then there are others who may have come to the place where they repented of their sins, presented themselves to the Lord and even accepted Jesus as their one and only Saviour, but have then been led away by these Judaisers to adding other things to their salvation - Jesus plus. The author to the Hebrews was saying if these later on come to their senses and realise that keeping the Torah is not a requirement for salvation, then they cannot come to that same place of repentance and be born again, as before. It is impossible because they are already born again, when they first repented and received Jesus as their saviour. It would make no sense because to do so, would be to efectively crucify Jesus again for their forgiveness. Once born into God's kingdom you cannot become unborn, so therefore do not need to become born again again.
This is the crux of what the author was saying.
Actually, the same things are true today in many messianic fellowships, which are still absorbed in trying to please the Lord through keeping many parts of the Torah. Many of these are ecumenical with unsaved catholics joining them.
Mr Chingford, are you saying that it was possible then for those who kept the Old Testament sacrificial system (obviously before the temple was destroyed) could be saved from their sins and therefore eternal damnation without Jesus's crucifixion? Or did His death on the cross only save those in the church?
James.
Sorry James, but I don't understand what you are asking.
There is no salvation from sins or free entrance to Heaven without the death and resurrection of Jesus, who took the punishment of our sins upon Himself, faced the penalty which was death and then rose victoriously to show that the debt had been paid in full and that death has been conquered for us all.
As the scriptures teach, "there is no other name given amongst men by which we can be saved" and Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one can come to the Father except through me" and "I am the door".
The way to salvation is available to ANYBODY who puts their faith in Jesus alone for their salvation - not for the church collectively but for all the individual whosoever's whether they go to church or not.
Of course, it is beneficial for a born again believer to meet with other believers in fellowship in order to grow spiritually through prayer, worship and study.
Those who died prior to the crucifixion of Jesus are judged on their faith in Yahweh and His promised Messiah (not works of the law, which was given to reveal how sinful the heart of man is) and faith in the ultimate blood of Christ for forgiveness (the blood of animals was just a temporary measure pointing forward to Jesus). These things are indicated throughout Hebrews chapter 11.
Thanks John,
That clears things up a lot.
So when the rapture happens all the Old Testament saints such as Abraham, Samuel, David and many others including all those recorded in Hebrews 11, that you mention, are all part of the true Church (saved alone by the blood of Christ), and therefore will be raptured at the same time?
James.
Hi James
The Bible makes a distinction between the church and the saints/elect or in other words between born again believers in Christ and Old Testament saints.
It is true that all born again believers are also known as saints and elect in the letters of Paul, but when Jesus uses those terms in His parables and teachings, He is talking to Jewish apostles and referring to Israel and to the Jewish saints during the tribulation period.
The church age started once Jesus rose from the dead and ends at the pretrib rapture.
Those in Hebrews 11 are the saints not the church. Even John the Baptist was considered as part of the pre church age and one of the OT saints. John 3:29-30:
"He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."
The bride of Christ are only those who become born again believers during the church age (as described above). Ephesians 3:9-11 describes that only this age can be described as the church age and Ephesians 5:25-32 describes the church as the bride of Christ.
The bride of Christ (the church) are those who will be raptured before the Tribulation - those alive and those who died as born again Christians. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Revelation 19:7-10
The guests and friends of the bridegroom are the Old Testaments saints which include those in the New Testament who died before the crucifixion such as John the Baptist. At the present, I am unsure where the 5 wise virgins fit in, but those truly born again saints who survive the tribulation and are accepted at the Second Coming will be resurrected at the end or towards the end of the marriage supper.
The guests and friends will join the wedding celebrations of the bride (Church) soon after the rapture. Revelation 19:9 describes those who are called/invited to attend the marriage supper (not the bride, who is already there).
The supper lasts 7 days (a week). The bible says that Jacob served one extra week for his bride Rachel, but we know that it was 7 years. So that indicates that the marriage supper will last 7 years.
This link is a good explanation of these events:
marriage supper of the Lamb
However, I disagree with what is said in the last paragraph of that link, as per what has been written above.
Hi James
It has just sunk in what you was asking in part of your first comment.
I will answer it by saying that the Old Testament sacrificial system would have been useless if Jesus was never sacrificed on the cross.
Without the eternally effective sacrifice of Jesus for our sins (affecting past, present and future) the OT sacrifices/practices would have lost their power in forgiving sins and been a waste of time. It was all geared as a temporary measure UNTIL the perfect sacrifice was made and fulfilled everything for all time.
John,
Just reading your comment again, you said "the Church age started once Jesus rose from the dead", yet I read elsewhere it started at Pentecost, some say with Paul, and others teach, (which makes the best sense in Matthew 16.18)before His crucifixion. At least they are His very words?
James.
Thank you John for that link, but I am still very unclear somewhat.
The marriage supper, does it start seven years before the Second Coming, or AT the Second Coming?
The link you provided describes the OT saints as "others" (waifs and strays?), a description that seems to me to be so very unfitting to the great saints of the OT-Abraham (the father of our faith) David, Elijah etc.
Also, the writer of that piece called the basis of what he was teaching an "implication"?
It does seem very strange that the OT saints (recorded in Scripture) have no part in the rapture, yet the NT saints go before them? They must surely be resurrected/raptured at the same time?
In your reply you said that the OT saints are saved by the same blood of Christ, that they have a common salvation? So why is their resurrection later than the NT believers?
How can there be more than one first resurrection?
James.
Hi James
In Matthew 16, Jesus was referring to Himself when He said upon THIS rock I will build my church.
Peter, in Greek, is "petros" (masculine - a piece of a rock, a stone, a pebble); but the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 is "petra" (feminine-mass rock).
Thus, in modern English, Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, a stone, and upon this massive rock I will build My church and the gates of Hell shall not stand against it."
Peter just confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. It was upon this truthful confession that Jesus planned to build his church. I Cor.10:4 tells us that Christ is that "rock" (petra, massive rock). I Cor.3:11 says: "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
The church could not be built until the ROCK had done everything first to set it up, i.e. His sacrificial death for our sins, the resurrection and the giving of the Holy Spirit just 50 days later.
Therefore, it is probably more accurate to say that the church (BRIDE OF CHRIST) began on the day of Pentecost and ends with the rapture.
The church was not built upon Peter, nor his confession, but upon Jesus. Peter was called a small stone because of his confession, but it wasn't until Pentecost that the church was empowered in boldness to proclaim this confession outside their little group.
The proof that the church did not begin until after the resurrection was (as I showed earlier) that John the Baptist referred to himself as a friend of the groom, not the bride. Only the church (as I showed) is referred to as "the bride" of Christ.
Therefore, all those before the crucifixion were considered as guests at the wedding of the bride. In fact, in OT times Israel were known as the wife of Yahweh - albeit were later separated because of their adulteries with other gods, but those of Israel who look unto Jesus just before the Second Coming will be re-united to Yahweh through Jesus.
All those OT and Jewish Tribulation saints belong to God as His wife. They are NOT the bride of Christ. Therefore, as the wife of Yahweh they are guests of the Son (groom).
cont ....
It is unfair to liken the guests as waif and strays. They certainly ARE NOT and much more than that.
It may seem unfair to our finite minds that only the bride experience the rapture, but God's ways are far higher then ours:
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts" Isaiah 55:9
For example, Jesus gave a parable regarding those who got the same wage whether they worked for just one hour or worked the whole day. To our minds that doesn't sound fair, but God knows best and has His reasons.
We should never apply our own reasoning of righteousness or the plan of God. Our understanding of the ways of God must be determined by what HE says in His Word. God's Word says that there will be a first resurrection and that it takes place at the end of the tribulation.
The question is whether the guests join the marriage supper at that time as part of that resurrection or whether that resurrection is only for the tribulation martyrs. Might the wedding guests join the bride in the rapture at the same time?
I have taken time to re-examine that question.
Rev 20:4-5 says "And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgement was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection"
Who was included in this first resurrection? It is clear that the tribulation saints were included, but it also mentions thrones. Who are on the thrones? Could it be OT saints or referring to those of the raptured believers who were the greatest servants matthew 20:23?
These thrones are probably referring to the 24 elders which are thought to represent the 12 tribes and 12 apostles. Therefore, I concede that it is probable that OT saints who died in faith effectively looking unto Jesus may possibly be included in the dead in Christ who are raptured, but will still attend the marriage as guests, not the bride.
This specifically makes sense when we discover from Jewish wedding traditions from bible times that the entire wedding party join the wedding, followed by 7 days (equated in bible prophecy as 7 years i.e same period of time as tribulation period) of the marriage supper. If the first resurrection takes place after this time then it cannot contain the guests who are already celebrating the wedding.
The wedding ceremony takes place sometime after the rapture, followed by 7 days (7 years) of the marriage supper. and possibly continues on into the beginning of the thousand years reign of Christ. At present, I still need further study to understand the exact timing.
By the way, the first resurrection of post trib saints may not be the same in essence as the rapture. Those who died in Christ and OT saints are not bodily resurrected (as such) but their souls will receive suddenly transformed glorified bodies. 1 Cor 15:51-52, much like the body of Jesus (after His resurrection) that was no longer limited by time and space and could walk through walls. These will be caught up to Heaven at the rapture to meet the bridegroom and take their place at the wedding of Christ and His bride as the bride and guests.
There is a school of thought that the first resurrection, referred to in Revelation 20:4-6 could be a combination of the 2 events encapsulating the pretrib rapture event with the dead in Christ resurrected, transformed and raptured and now seated on thrones and the second one for the tribulation saints at the Second Coming. Together, these have experienced the power of the first resurrection and will reign with Christ for a thousand years.
This link explains it quite well:
click here
John,
I do thank you for the obvious time and effort that you are putting into this, I appreciate it greatly.
But I still cannot see clearly, what you are saying.
This latest link you have given me has only added to the confusion.
The writer of this piece calls the second resurrection the "rapture". This certainly agrees with post tribulationalism,
which seems to make most sense?
I quote his very words-"The second resurrection-the general harvest or resurrection-occurs, as Paul said, when Christ comes for His Church at the time of what is called the rapture (the catching away)..."
But does not Revelation 20.5 describe the Second Coming? (Or the first resurrection?). You have already previously said that the Second Coming is an event that happens AFTER (a gap of 7+years) the rapture? This seems all very bizarre to me; it would seem to me to make much more Biblical sense to put the rapture and the Second Coming together as one and the same event?
The Bible teaches us that the Second Resurrection is when the unrighteous, that is the unbelievers/unrepentant etc, are resurrected? Revelation 20.5-6 makes this very clear, I think?
So, to agree with that article, would be tantamount to saying that those whom the Lord resurrected at His first coming, would be the unrighteous dead?
How can this be so?
This latest article from "Compelling Truth" says that the "resurrection of the just" will happen in "three stages", but this is nothing other than baseless theory, is it not? The writer uses no Bible verses to support his theory: not unlike the "implications" or typologies alluded to by the previous link you provided.
I have been a believer for some years now, but I don't believe that the Bible teaches more than two resurrections, not unless we disregard the plain teaching of Revelation 20?
James.
Hi James
Rather than make this discussion more confusing, I have deleted my last comment and replaced it with this comment. I have not posted your very last one (which would no longer make sense and is mostly a repeat of what you already asked).
As I stated, do not trust in what makes sense to your finite mind. Only God knows the answer and it is revealed in scripture. I have a number of other articles which go through the scriptures proving that the scriptures reveal a pretrib rapture.
Trust what God says rather than what makes sense to your imperfect mind.
Regarding the article. I knew you would ask about the second resurrection because of the final paragraph. I must admit the final paragraph looks confusing without reading the rest.
The writer of that article was not contradicting Revelations 20 which clearly speaks of just 2 resurrections for believers and unbelievers – one taking place before the thousand years and one taking place afterwards.
This is that last paragraph:
“There will be two types of resurrection – one for believers and one for unbelievers – with the resurrection of the just involving three separate resurrections. The resurrection of the just comes first followed by the resurrection of the unjust”
Please read the article carefully, again and you will see that he/she was discussing another aspect altogether.
He/she clearly confirms two resurrections, but summarises that the first is made up of 3 parts as a fulfilment of the Jewish Harvests:
of “first fruits”, “general harvest” and “gleanings”
'As to the resurrection of the just, scripture indicates that it will occur in three stages and mirror how harvests were conducted in Old Testament times. During those days, there would be a harvest of the first fruits, followed by the general harvest, and then a last harvest of what was called the “gleanings."’
1. The first fruits refers to the resurrection of Jesus: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” 1 Corinthians 15:20.
2. The general harvest happens at the rapture which includes those who have died in Christ and those who are still alive at that point. As I stated, in my last comment, I concede that the OT saints of Hebrews 11 are probably included in this rapture as the guests who attend the wedding of Christ and His bride.
3. The gleanings refers to what is left after the great harvest and refers to those who receive Christ and die during the tribulation. They will be the final part of that first resurrection.
Hence will be the completion of the entire first resurrection harvest.
Hi James
You sent me another comment (unpublished) in which you are asking me the same questions regarding clarifying my position on the 2 resurrections and who will be at the marriage supper.
Please read again that last list of 3 (on my last comment above) regarding first fruits, general harvest and gleanings which explain that there are 3 stages of the first resurrection.
You are stating that these 3 stages are not scriptural, but I had (at least) given the scriptures which confirm the first stage which is the first fruits resurrection. Surely you cannot deny that the resurrection of Jesus was the first of the resurrections and took place before ours? That is surely not under dispute?
Here are some more scriptures from Leviticus 23 regarding the three stages of the first resurrection
1. First fruits: Leviticus 23:9-10 “When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest.” This was fulfilled by Jesus as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:20
2. General harvest: Leviticus 23:22a “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap”
3. Gleanings: Leviticus 23:22b “you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger”
In 1 Corinthians 15:20 we are told that the resurrection of Jesus was a fulfilment of the first fruits of those risen from the dead. This means that after the first fruits there will be others risen from the dead. Leviticus 23 (amongst other things) is discussing the resurrection of the dead. That is clear from 1 Cor 15:20 (Jesus) and subsequent verses throughout 1 Cor 15.
So therefore the first fruits is a start of the resurrection season started with Jesus and followed up by the general harvest and then the gleanings.
Cont .....
The general harvest and gleanings in Leviticus 23 are referring to resurrections. Notice that verse 22 starts by using the words “when you REAP”. The NT refers to the rapture as “reaping” or a gathering together. This tells us that the general harvest will be a gathering together (rapture) at the same time of this resurrection.
The gleanings will happen AFTER the general harvest has finished and Revelation 20 tells us who it is referring to and when.
Regarding the marriage supper, I also clearly explained that in number 2 of that previous list of 3:
“I concede that the OT saints of Hebrews 11 are probably included in this rapture as the guests who attend the wedding of Christ and His bride.”
The wedding includes the marriage supper. The ceremony takes place first, followed by 7 days of the marriage supper. Those included are the bride of Christ and the wedding guests.
The bride are those who have followed Christ directly from the birth of the church (on the day of Pentecost) until the pretrib rapture. The guests are those who are included in Hebrews 11 and those who died before the resurrection such as John the Baptist. The reasons for this distinction have already been explained on an earlier comment, as per here.
Regarding scriptural references to Jewish weddings, there are many in the whole bible OT and NT. I don’t have time right now to get sidetracked into that discussion as it is an entire subject of its own. Suffice it to say, there are many indications throughout the bible regarding the Jewish wedding for example the betrothal period of those such as Isaac, Jacob, Ruth, Wedding at Cana, parables. Then there is John 14 and the scriptures I have already given.
Do a study on it, using good google word search terms which will lead you to bible passages.
May I advise that you will not be confused if you avoid speed reading and read everything carefully without just reading bits and pieces and therefore not missing the large chunks that DO give answers to your questions.
Hi James (and everybody else)
I have deleted and reposted all the above comments dated 21st December 2014 (after I made appropriate edits). This was done to remove conflicting views previously made by me. I needed to do that as (in the course of study) I realised there were areas I was in error.
All the revised comments start from this link here
John,
You say: "I now concede that the OT saints of Hebrews 11 are probably included in this rapture as the guests who attend the wedding of Christ and His bride."
So you are saying that they get raptured at the Second Coming, or thereabouts? This being the case, I hope those who partake in the marriage supper seven years or so earlier will leave them some decent scraps?
James
James
It looks to me that you are deliberately trying to twist what I am saying and are not actually willing to learn at all.
If you please read carefully what I am saying, you will see that I AM NOT saying those things.
I have stated clearly that I have come to the conclusion that the OT saints (including those who died before the crucifixion) as guests, will ALSO be raptured alongside the bride (those who died or are still alive as born again Christians in the church age) at the SAME time BEFORE the tribulation and will all of them take part in the wedding ceremony of the bride and the lamb and the marriage supper.
I have not published the rest of your comment because it goes off at the same type of tangent twisting everything I said.
Unless you can show evidence that you are actually CAREFULLY reading my comments and replying fairly, without deliberately trying to trip me up, then I see little point in continuing this conversation.
Hi John,
I feel you have expressed God's agape love wonderfully in your article.
The bible many times describes men as evil and of a sinful nature, I am reminded of the story where Jesus saves the adulterous woman from stoning...even now I've just noticed it was through Jesus she was spared :)...and how does Jesus save her? By saying...He who is without sin can cast the first stone. And was there even one contender?
If we could gain our salvation by works than Jesus death and sacrifice was in vain.
I thank God everyday for his unshaking unfailing love. I thank him because quite frankly there is no way I could save myself for my flesh is weak, no matter how hard I try it is in vain. Yet, the more I get to know God and his love, the more I feel myself being conformed to his way of thinking. My soul is saved, but my mind is on a continual renewal journey which the holy spirit is leading me on.
Keep up the good work. I pray God will use and bless you mightily and bring your good works into fruition, for you are revealing to the world God's Agape love.
God Bless
Sam
Hi John! You have gone over and above to help James answer his question. It is a long and hard question but you did a supurb job! Now he is just getting sarcastic that he doesn't understand the answer which doesn't help anyone and I'm pretty sure unless James has trouble with reading I don't think he is trying to understand it. I just wanted to comment on the unscriptual message from Jacob Prasch on salvation. I have been listening to him lately, watching his messages etc. Last night I was completely taken aback on how he was acting on a discussion involving other pastors/teachers. He was acting like he was bored when others were talking, didn't smile once(now I know why), and answering very harshly and correcting other pastors. Well at this point I reasoned that in all his intelligence those questions were probably elementary to him. When I was listening to him another pastor from Calvery Chuch tonight I couldn't believe my ears when he said he agreed witH Calvinism and Westley about losing your salvation. I asked myself why an intelligent man like himself would believe that. He went right on with it and thats when I knew I could no longer learn from him with his teaching. Then I saw your blog and agreed with you totally 100%. We both know there is tons of scripture to support our beliefs so we don't have to dicuss it. He is not a joyful happy Christian and now I know why. I will pray for for the Lord to rebuke him just like I would want Him to do for me if I was teaching in error. Its just all the baby Christians out there that suffer and leave the faith for false teachings and these men have got to be held accountable. If theres anything I can do certainly email me and God Bless you for doing just that! You Rock! Bridget Joyce
Post a Comment