“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:5)

In the previous chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle Paul established the truth that all humans are totally lost sinners, unable to do any work of righteousness that would make them acceptable before God. The Apostle established that man naturally does not even want or seek God. If a man at least seeks the true God or wants to obey Him, he will be a believer, a godly man. Note that many people may seek what they imagine to be God and not the true God (as Romans 1:18-32 explains), but this doesn’t mean that they seek God; on the contrary, this means that they refuse the true God and they want their own gods. Thus in Romans 4:5 Paul says that it is not a godly man that God justifies (because in that case no human would be justified, because no one is godly by nature), but He justifies the UNgodly by faith. So He doesn’t justify a man who is a believer naturally (for no one seeks God or is a true believer naturally), but He justifies the unbeliever ungodly man by faith. Here you notice of course that the faith of which the Apostle is talking is not something that a human may have naturally in himself, because we have seen that no one has it naturally, and that all humans are ungodly by nature. It is clear that the faith of which the Apostle is talking is something supernatural that God creates in man. Indeed, in another place in the same Epistle the Apostle explained that there is a special calling, a special drawing that precedes justification and that causes a man to be justified:

“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)

This effectual calling, seen from the human side of the matter, is genuine saving faith. As soon as God creates this faith in the ungodly, he is justified before God by that faith. Actually, faith becomes a living faith as it receives Christ’s Righteousness counted for us or as ours through that faith. Without that Righteousness of Christ we cannot have a living faith, and we are ungodly. Did you notice that what matters in faith is the Object of faith (Christ and His Righteousness) which justifies the ungodly, and not faith itself (as if faith were a merit in man)? When the Apostle says that the faith of the ungodly is counted for righteousness, he actually means that what justifies the ungodly is Christ’s Righteousness on which ALONE the ungodly puts his faith or trust, and not a merit in the ungodly called faith, because the ungodly has no such merit in himself upon which he can put his trust in order to be justified. The ungodly cannot have faith in his faith in order to be justified; if he does, then he is not justified, and his faith is a false faith. The ungodly should have faith in Christ Alone. We understand this from the context of Romans 4:5, from the whole Epistle to the Romans, from the whole New Testament, and from the whole Bible. This doctrine is clear in God’s Word.

So man by nature is fallen in sin, dead in sin and totally separated from God, and he cannot have a good meritorious faith whereby he would be able to be justified before God; he is UNgodly. If he had this kind of meritorious faith, he would not be called ungodly, and he would not need the Righteousness of Christ to be counted for him by a faith supernaturally born in him by the work of the Spirit by that same Righteousness of Christ. The same moment God changes the will to receive Christ, at that very moment and by that very work of the Spirit by His Word man is born again and is justified without having any righteousness in himself, not even faith. We have seen that real saving faith is that work of God by which He justifies the ungodly. Thus God justifies not a believer by faith, but an ungodly by that faith which he creates in him by Christ. It is all of His Grace alone.

Thus man cannot boast by anything in himself, not even by the fact that he believed, because faith was not the product of his fallen nature called flesh, but the work of God Alone. None of us deserved God’s Grace by his faith, but God gave us His Grace in Jesus Christ freely as He created faith in us, i.e. as Christ entered into our hearts after His kind Spirit sovereignly convinced our wills by His sweet Word to open the door for the Beloved. And now also, after we believed, our faith grows by God’s Grace alone, as we receive grace upon grace from the fullness of Christ (see John 1:16), and not by any carnal effort from our old nature. Now also we cannot boast in anything but the cross; nothing in us! The fruits of righteousness, the life of sanctification, are wholly the fruit of the Spirit in and through us. We in ourselves are poor spiritually (see Matthew 5:3), before and after Salvation, and nothing good dwells in us, that is in our flesh (see Romans 7:18).

All this is very important, as this is the difference between real faith and false faith. The false believer has faith in his faith, while the true believer has faith in Christ Alone and relies on Christ’s Righteousness alone and on nothing in himself.

___

Stephen continues:

This discussion of Lucifer’s existence brings up another point of reason. The LDS belief of having an eternal “soul” or psyche, the intelligence Joseph Smith taught was not created, is the only logical explanation who we are, as far as our personality and character are concerned.

We have seen how the soul of man was created from nothing on the sixth day of creation. This has been explained, and we have seen how Stephen contradicts the Scripture.

Stephen continues:

If God had created our mind—as well as Satan’s mind, then we, and this would include Satan, could blame God for our failure, that He created flawed intelligence.

Where is the relevance, may I ask?… What does intelligence have to do with sin and rebellion?? Adam did not fail, but he rebelled against God by his free will. Adam had a perfect intelligence, and by “perfect” we don’t mean “unable to rebel against God”, but we mean “sinless”. As soon as he chose to rebel, his intelligence became imperfect and he became sinful. So what does this have to do with creation?? God created Adam free, with a free will to choose for himself, and he chose to rebel. Satan also freely chose to rebel. Mormons need to understand that Adam’s choice was not a mental act, but a moral act. Stephen has made this same error when he talked about Adam’s supposed “innocence” that we refuted in the following article: Did Adam have to choose between two sins?

Stephen continues:

We would have reason to say at the Day of Judgment, “You made me this way. It’s not my fault.”

God did not make us sinners. Read Genesis 1 and see how, after finishing His creation, God said that it was VERY good. We rebelled against Him, and THAT was sin.

Stephen continues:

But since our intelligence existed in the eternities before God provided a spiritual body to house it, He is not responsible for the choices we make in mortality or those we made in premortality.

We did not exist in pre-existence, because in pre-existence we had no existence…

Plus, if we made bad choices before existence, then that imaginary god has made us flawed. It was in that case that we could accuse that imaginary god, because we had no choice for our intelligence choosing wrong before existence.

And note how Stephen’s doctrine clearly denies that there was a creation and that God created everything. According to his doctrine, many beings just existed with God all the time, and thus the following passages have no real meaning for Mormons: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3); “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:16).

Mormons also, just like atheists, deny the creation, and they need to read the following article: In the beginning God created…

Stephen said:

In spite of our personal failure, He has provided a way to satisfy Justice vicariously, through His Mercy, through His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

You have surely noticed that Stephen has not yet explained to us what is Salvation and why God needed to satisfy Justice, and what Justice he is talking about…

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 34 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all things to God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Often people ask about “gray areas” which, they say, are not mentioned in the Bible. They think that they may do whatever they want in these areas, because they think their decisions in those areas will not affect their morality or their spirituality and their relationship with God. But are there really “gray areas” in the Christian’s life where our decisions to one direction or another are not so important?

Actually, the Law of God contains everything for the godly walk, but it should be understood by the Spirit, spiritually, in the light of the Gospel. We have seen this when we studied tattoos and body piercings which many consider a “gray area” (see here). In that article, we have seen how the Law was not abolished, but the Old Covenant, and we have seen how the Law gives us the principles that a Christian should follow in order to glorify God and not sin in what people may consider “gray areas”. We have seen how people may commit great sins in those areas which they call “gray”, because they actually despise God’s authority over those areas and they do not understand the real issue involved in those practices. In 1 Corinthians 10:31, the Apostle Paul summarizes this principle of studying the Law spiritually to understand how to glorify God in what people call “gray areas”; he says: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all things to God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) Things like eating and drinking may seem very “gray” for people, but Paul says in those areas we may glorify God or we may not. And know this well: not glorifying God in all areas IS a sin; it’s not just a “no problem”. The Lord Jesus was tempted by Satan to turn stone to bread when He was hungry (see Matthew 4:3). From the first and quick sight, people may say: “What would be wrong if Jesus turned the stone to bread and ate? Where was the temptation there? Is eating wrong after 40 days of fasting?? Is eating a sin? Is it not a natural function of life?…” But in fact, a great violation of an important principle would have occurred if Jesus turned the stone to bread there and then: the right and authority of God to decide when and how the fasting should end, and when and how Jesus would eat. This also applies to everyone of us. Many people just ignore God in all these areas, and they think what they do is just a “no problem”, and they often ask: “How far can we go in the wrong direction and still be okay with God?”… This is really a blasphemous question, because the godly man does not ask how much I may unglorify God and still be okay… The godly man asks: “How much more should I come closer to God and know His mind in order to love Him more and glorify Him more?” Indeed, our only goal and occupation is God’s Glory, i.e. our holiness, i.e. reflecting God’s Holiness in our lives: “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16) The Apostle Peter did not say we should be holy only in what the letter of the Law says clearly, thus being legalistic, but he said: “but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”" (1 Peter 1:15-16) “All your behavior” includes what people call “gray areas”. In everything we do, we either shine God’s Light and Glory, or we do not; there is nothing between light and darkness.

And in 1 Corinthians, in the same context where Paul said what we read in 1 Corinthians 10:31, Paul gives us the principles that summarize how a Christian should apply the Law spiritually in what people call “gray areas”, and to abstain not only from what is clearly evil, but also “from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22) in order to glorify God in all things. Let’s see together in short seven of those principles explained in 1 Corinthians which help us glorify God in what people consider “gray areas”:

1. Will it benefit me and the Church spiritually? Will it edify?
“All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)

Of course, in this verse “all things” does not mean everything in the world, but all the things considered in the context, the things that people consider as making part of the gray areas. The other things in the world are clearly mentioned in the Bible, like stealing and murder and adultery, etc. In those clearly black areas one does not need just to look whether they edify or not, but to obey God’s clear commandment about them, because they surely destroy and do not edify. This usage of “all things” for particulars in the context is not new for Paul, especially in 1 Corinthians; he has used “all things” in the same way in 1 Corinthians 13 where he wrote that true love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7) Of course Paul did not mean that true love believes lies, but he meant by “all things” everything that does not violate what he has already mentioned in the same context. For example, Paul already mentioned in the context of 1 Corinthians 13 that love “does not rejoice at iniquity but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6); so it goes without saying that “all things” does not include what is not truth and is iniquity. In the same way, Paul uses “all things” in the context of 1 Corinthians 10:23 where he considers what people consider “gray areas” where the Corinthians may say “all those things are lawful; the Law does not say anything against them” or “we are free, so we can do whatever we want in these areas, because it doesn’t really matter”. In all those things, Paul explains the principle that we learn from God’s Law by the Spirit: that we should seek what benefits us and the whole Church by edifying.

2. Will it put me in bondage?
“all things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1 Corinthians 6:12)

I should abstain from any solely hurtful and questionable practice that may form a habit in me.

3. Will it defile God’s temple?
“Do ye not know that your body is [the] temple of the Holy Spirit which [is] in you, which ye have of God; and ye are not your own? for ye have been bought with a price: glorify now then God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

Many easy-believists or liberals argue that the context of this passage is about fornication, therefore they say that this passage cannot be used against any other sin than fornication. But this is legalistic; this is what it means to be attached to the letter of God’s Law and forgetting the Spirit. It’s like saying for example: “because the context of 1 Thessalonians 4:3 is talking about fornication, then sanctification involves only abstaining from sexual sin…” The objector fails to see that in such passages as 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 God gives us general principles that should apply always, and not only in the context where those principles are given.

So the principle in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 is that we should not do anything with our bodies that would dishonor the Lord. We wholly belong to the Lord, spirit and soul and body, so we should not do anything that may hide the Glory of God which should shine in everything we do with our body. Our bodies should be living sacrifices to God in Christ: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [which is] your intelligent service.” (Romans 12:1)

4. Will it cause other believers to stumble?
“But meat does not commend us to God; neither if we should not eat do we come short; nor if we should eat have we an advantage. But see lest anywise this your right [to eat] itself be a stumbling-block to the weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:8-9)

Many Christians today are so “free” that they are in slavery to sin in many so-called “gray areas”, because they insolently disrespect the weak brothers’ conscience with many practices they do. They think that as they are free in Christ, so if they take care of the weak brother’s conscience, then they are not free. But Paul clearly addressed this issue: “But if any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to go, all that is set before you eat, making no inquiry for conscience sake. But if any one say to you, This is offered to holy purposes, do not eat, for his sake that pointed it out, and conscience sake; but conscience, I mean, not thine own, but that of the other: for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I spoken evil of for what I give thanks for?” (1 Corinthians 10:27-30) What Paul is practically saying is this: we know that eating or not eating meat offered to idols will not affect our relationship with God, so it should not violate our own conscience; but we should not stop at this selfish point! The unbeliever’s conscience may be offended if we eat after he told us that this meat was offered to idols, because he may take a wrong idea about repentance and Salvation from idols and sin. And what if there is a brother there who, if we eat, will be offended because of his weak conscience? It is true that his weak conscience does not affect my own conscience and does not make eating meat a sin, but if it offends that brother’s conscience, then it IS the sin of the lack of love towards that brother! Lack of love and of respect towards the weak brothers IS a sin, a sin at the same level with fornication! So while many Christians think they are “free” in so-called “gray areas”, they actually commit some horrible sins in those areas, as we have seen. And interestingly, in 1 Corinthians 10:27-30 (quoted above), the Apostle is telling us that even if we are the guests of an unbeliever and we do not want to offend him by not eating from the meat that he offers, yet it is better to offend the unbeliever and not eat for the sake of the weak Christian who would be offended if we eat, because the unbeliever does not know God and may be offended by anything godly, including our love for the brethren, while our love for the brethren is what distinguishes us as Christ’s disciples (see John 13:34-35). The sad fact is that many who call themselves Christians today prefer not to offend the unbelievers in such cases, because, according to them, that will make them refuse our gospel (as if the Gospel and Salvation depend of man’s decisions or will…), and they prefer to offend the brethren…

One should refrain from using his freedom in an area which might cause others to sin. In such cases, not refraining from using our freedom IS a sin, although our freedom in itself is not a sin. For “Now, thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore if meat be a fall-trap to my brother, I will eat no flesh for ever, that I may not be a fall-trap to my brother.” (1 Corinthians 8:12-13)

5. Will it help the cause of evangelism? What kind of testimony will it give to the unbelievers?
“Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God. Even as I also please all in all things; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many, that they may be saved.” (1 Corinthians 10:32-33)

We must think of the effect any practice might have on our testimony to the lost. We have seen an example in the previous point: that if eating meat offered to idols may make an unbeliever take a wrong idea about Salvation from sin and about separation from idols, then we should not eat that meat. Eating meat in this case is as sinful as fornication! But if anyone would make it a law that Christians should not eat meat, then we should oppose that error boldly, just as the Apostle Paul did (see 1 Timothy 4:3). Another example: we can’t just criticize a person if he makes the sign of the cross before and/or after prayer, because in this case making the sign of the cross or not making it will not change anything, while criticizing it may make the unbeliever legalists or traditionalists or formalists think we disrespect the cross. But if the making of the sign is defended as essential in our relationship with God, then we should be careful to boldly and clearly explain the error so that we may not be preaching false doctrine.

In all cases, we should make sure not to hinder the true Gospel of Christ.

6. Will it violate my conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:25-29 contains three references to abstaining from a certain practice “for conscience’ sake.” And Romans 14:23 says: “But he that doubts, if he eat, is condemned; because [it is] not of faith; but whatever [is] not of faith is sin.”

If we doubt that an action in a so-called “gray area” is pleasing to God, we should not do it. That way our conscience will remain clear and our relationship with God will not be hindered. Note that in this case, if despite the fact that our conscience is not clear with some practice, we still do it anyway, then it IS a sin (as the Apostle clearly said), even if it is not a practice clearly forbidden by God’s Word. Whatever is not of faith IS sin. Faith should be built on God’s clear Word, without any shadow of doubt.

7. Will it bring Glory to God?
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all things to God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

This summarizes all the principles that we have seen above. If you have studied the Law of God deeply, you may have noticed that all these principles are contained in the Law, and we should follow them by the Spirit and not according to the flesh, according to the New Covenant’s principle of faith and not according to the principle of the ordinances of the Old Covenant, as we have seen in this article.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Stephen continues:

We LDSs have also been accused of blasphemy by many ECs for believing Satan was a spirit brother of Christ, as were all of us who come to mortality.

Yes, that’s blasphemy, because Jesus Christ is God, while Satan and we are creatures. We have seen the details of this before.

Stephen continues:

The EC claim is Satan was an “angel” and therefore not a son of God, as though this term separates these mystical beings from children of God. Let us reason together.

We have seen that Christ is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God, while all creatures are children of God by creation and not by nature. “Only-Begotten” means “unique in Nature”.

Stephen continues:

First, let us look again at the term, angel. As already explained, John the Baptist is called an “angel” in the Greek at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel, translated as “messenger” in English. (See Mark 1:2 & Luke 7:27 in Greek.)

Yes, the term angel is not always about a nature, but it is also about an office. We have seen this in details.

Birds fly, so all what flies is a bird… Good argument?… I don’t think so. Not all messengers are angels… So let it be clear: John the Baptist is a messenger, but not an angel by nature; he’s really human. We pass…

Stephen continues:

John the Revelator almost made the mistake of bowing and worshipping the angel who brought him the vision of the Revelation, as this messenger from God spoke in first person as though he were the resurrected Lord, the Being John beheld on the First Christian Sabbath.

We have seen that John is not the Revelator, but Christ is. I hope you will correct this huge error of yours. This is blasphemy, because no one other than God is the Revelator.

And the angel who was speaking to John was not speaking in first person at all. Look what he said: “And he says to me, Write, Blessed [are] they who are called to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb. And he says to me, These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9) This is very clear: the angel is a messenger; he brought the message to John that he should write these things, and that those who are called to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb are blessed, and that these are the true words of God, and not his own words. The angel clearly distinguished himself from the Lamb and from God. But John would do the mistake of the Roman Catholics who today worship Mary and Saints, and this was written to warn us against such errors which even true Christians may be tempted to commit.

But I don’t see where in this whole argument the angels are the brothers of Jesus… What a blasphemy!

Stephen continues:

But this angel reproved John, saying, “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” (Rev. 22:8-10; see also Rev. 19:10) The angel was a glorified, resurrected prophet.

No, the text says that John is a prophet and all prophets are his brethren, and that angels also are servants of God just like the prophets, they are fellowservants to John and to all prophets. I don’t see where Stephen read that this angel was a glorified, resurrected prophet, especially that resurrection did not happen yet until now… Do you see how Stephen interprets the biblical passages according to his dreams?…

Stephen continues:

He was therefore not some mystical being created by God.

Angels are not mystical beings, but spiritual beings created by God.

Stephen’s “therefore” in this quote would make us think he gave a proof before this “therefore”, only if we didn’t read his silly dream above and if we didn’t see how it had no back up in the Word of God…

Stephen continues:

So, from Biblical documentation, an angel can be a spirit, such as the angel Gabriel who appeared to Daniel and later to Mary; an angel can be a mortal, such as John the Baptist; and an angel can be a resurrected being, such as the angel in Revelation.

We still need to see a proof that John the Baptist was an angel by nature, and that the angel of Revelation was a resurrected prophet. We’ll wait…

Stephen continues:

Even the saints gathered at the house of John Mark’s mother after James was martyred and Peter was imprisoned mistook the liberated Peter for a post-mortal spirit when he knocked on the door: “Then said they, It is his angel.” (Acts 12:11-17) Given John Mark wrote the second Gospel in the NT, I figure he would know something about the Former-day Saint concept on who qualifies as an angel.

WHERE does the text say that this was a “post-mortal spirit”??!! Show us where you read that!! The text simply says that those believers thought it was not Peter, but his angel. Who was this angel of Peter? It was simply the same angel already mentioned in the context! The angel who was sent by God to save Peter from the prison. How can someone be so blind as to not see what the context clearly talks about?? Hebrews 1 says that the angels are ministering spirits (spiritual beings) that God sends to be in the service of the righteous: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14) And the Psalmist said: “The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, And rescues them.” (Psalm 34:7) The Lord also said: “See that ye do not despise one of these little ones; for I say unto you that their angels in [the] heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in [the] heavens.” (Matthew 18:10) The believers in Acts 12 believed in the truth of all these verses, and believed that God sends His angels to be in service of the saints, so they thought an angel who was sent to serve Peter should have come to bring news to them from Peter; they did not expect to receive a so quick answer to their prayers for the liberation of Peter.

As you see, the whole evidence of Scripture is against Stephen’s dream. I am still interested to see how all this nonsense will prove that angels are brothers of Christ by nature… And I am still interested to know who the Former-day Saints are…

Stephen continues:

Now, let us look at Satan, the man.

Spirits do not have a gender; Satan is a spirit, a fallen angel, so he doesn’t have a gender.

Stephen continues:

Isaiah referred to Satan: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, (or, ‘squint at thee and reflect upon thee’), saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake the kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?” (Isa. 14:12-17) At Judgment, we will look upon that small man with a bewildered wince, how he was able to sway so many of us to rebel against the Father either in premortality or in mortality. Hopefully for us, it will not be a look also of regret for having followed his lead.

Isaiah 14 clearly says who is this man about whom the text is talking: “that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say,” (Isaiah 14:4) So God addresses Israel and tells them that they will say this proverb against the king of Babylon; and this passage that Stephen quoted is a part of that proverb. So this man is the king of Babylon. WHICH king of Babylon? The text does not say, because it is not about ONE king of Babylon, but about many kings: many kings came from Babylon and attacked Israel. So why does the Bible say “king of Babylon” in singular? As we have seen about the Antichrist in another article, “Antichrist” or “king of Babylon” are titles of a man in a position, and not the title of one man in particular, just like the title “the Pope”. When I say “the Pope always persecuted the true Christians in history”, I do not mean a certain man but all Popes. (By the way, before I forget let me say that Isaiah 14 in its New Covenant’s dimension also refers to the Antichrist). Just as Satan is behind the Antichrist in all his actions, the same devil is behind the king of Babylon in all his actions (I remind you again that this is not about only one king of Babylon). So all the kings of Babylon had Satan in the background of their action. That’s why the text which is addressed to this king of Babylon also addresses at the same time Satan who is behind all his actions. Note that the text says about this king that he HAD weakened the nations BEFORE he was fallen. This is clearly not about pre-existence as Stephen dreams, because in pre-existence the nations did not exist in order to be weakened by Satan. This is about the fall of the king of Babylon (his defeat) and with him the defeat of Satan who was behind him and who had always wanted to take the Throne of God, but God has always defeated him. The kings of Babylon had defeated the nations and the kingdoms, but they will finally be defeated and will look very small in their defeat, just as Satan who was behind them is always in defeat before God who is Sovereign above all His creatures.

Does Stephen have any idea about this truth that evil angels who represent their chief, Satan, are behind the evil actions of the kings of the nations? Let him learn this from the Bible: “And he said unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand, and to humble thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come because of thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” (Daniel 10:12-13) As you see in this text, angels are called princes. This is not new, as we have seen that angels are principalities and authorities in the heavenly places (see Ephesians 6:12 — we have seen this before). So the evil angel who was behind the king of Persia at that time did not allow this good angel of the Lord to reach Daniel, but made war against him. Then another angel, one of the chief princes, Michael, came to help that angel against the evil angel who was behind the king of Persia, and thus this angel could come to Daniel after 21 days of delay. As you see, evil forces were behind the kings of the nations, so it is not strange that Isaiah 14 addresses Satan while it addresses the king of Babylon. When the Lord Jesus came, He defeated Satan once for all, and Satan is now bound during the Millennium of the Kingdom of Heaven and cannot deceive the nations. We may see the details about this later if there be a need.

So does this text that Stephen quoted say that Satan is a man? No. This text is about the king of Babylon as the context clearly says. But Stephen does not need to study the context, as he has a bad agenda…

Stephen continues:

If you do not believe Satan could be a spirit child of God who rebelled against Him, then how did he come to be?

God created Satan from nothing, but He created him originally a good angel. God made Lucifer from nothing. Then this angel rebelled against God, and thus he became evil.

Stephen continues:

Did he create himself or simply just exist forever?

God created him. Did you forget that all principalities and heavenly powers were created by Christ?? Read this again: “because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.” (Colossians 1:16)

Stephen continues:

Would not this go against the basic EC tenet God created everything?

Yes, that’s why we refuse your satanic doctrine that says Satan existed before God created him.

Stephen continues:

Paul referred to Jesus Christ as “the firstborn of every creature” who created all things and “is before all things.” (See Col. 1:15-17.) Jesus, known as Jehovah, was the Firstborn Son of God in the spirit.

We have seen how silly and non-biblical are your assumptions when reading those passages. In the Bible, Firstborn also means Preeminent and Heir and Chief or Head, because the firstborn son in a family was the heir and the preeminent. Yes, Christ is the Preeminent and the Heir and the Head in God’s creation, because all were created BY Him and FOR Him. The Bible says that God is the First and the Last. What does this mean? This means that He is the First of His Creation and the Last of His Creation; all things come from Him and go to Him; He is the Source and the Goal. As Christ is God the Son, so He also is called the First and the Last. Yes, Christ is the First of His Creation, the Firstborn, the Head, the Heir of all things, because He is God the Son. The Bible CLEARLY says that Jesus is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God, so there is no one like Him in Nature; He is the unique-in-Nature Son of God.

And we have seen how God is Jehovah; God has no beginning, so the Son has no beginning because He is God.

Stephen continues:

Lucifer was born some time after Him.

Lucifer is a creature; he was created sometime in those six days of creation. The biblical evidence shows that all angels, including Lucifer, were created before the third day in which the earth was made.

Stephen continues:

Lucifer was a rebellious son who sought his Father’s throne and convinced a third of our brothers and sisters to follow him.

No, Lucifer was not always a rebellious creature, but one day he became evil when he rebelled: “Thou wast perfect in thy ways, from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15) And no, it was not a third of humans who followed Satan in his rebellion, but angels.

Stephen continues:

There is Biblical silence specifying Lucifer was a son of God.

The Bible CLEARLY says that Lucifer is one of the angels who are called the sons of God in Job 1:6, and we have seen that that does not mean the angels are the sons of God by nature, but by creation. We have seen that Jesus is the ONLY-Begotten Son of God; He alone is the Son of God by Nature.

Stephen continues:

It also does not say he was not His son, though some ECs claim Ezekiel 28:13-19 refers to Satan and confirms he was just a “creation” and not a son of God.

Yes, Ezekiel 28 and many other passages of Scripture say that all angels, including Lucifer, were created by God. By the way, Ezekiel 28 also talks against some other errors that Mormons have in their beliefs about Satan: Mormons believe Lucifer rebelled BEFORE the creation, while Ezekiel 28 says that Lucifer was a GOOD angel when Eden was made, and that he was created the day Eden was created (i.e. in the same time-period when Eden was created which is the six day period of creation): “thou wast in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the chrysolite, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the emerald, and gold. The workmanship of thy tambours and of thy pipes was in thee: in the day that thou wast created were they prepared.” (Ezekiel 28:13) Lucifer was NOT a “rebellious son” originally, as Stephen dreams, but he was a good cherub: “Thou wast the anointed covering cherub, and I had set thee [so]“ (Ezekiel 28:14); “Thou wast perfect in thy ways, from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.” (Ezekiel 28:15)

The whole Bible is against the teachings of Mormons, and Stephen still wants to defend those teachings with the Bible. That’s why he is obliged to twist the Scripture in order to defend his cause…

Stephen continues:

This is an addition to Scripture, as verses 11 and 12 specify this passage refers to the king of Tyrus (Tyre) and that Ezekiel was to relay this message from God to him.

Wow! So, when Stephen talked about Satan as man quoting a passage from Isaiah 14 that talked about the king of Babylon, that was not an addition to Scripture, but now seeing Satan behind the king of Tyre is an addition to Scripture?? Can Stephen tell us WHEN the king of Tyre was ever blameless in all his ways as the text of Ezekiel 28 says about Lucifer?… And WHEN was he in Eden?!

I have explained above how Satan and his evil angels were behind the actions of evil kings of the nations, and how the Scripture used to address Satan while addressing any of those kings at the same time.

Stephen continues:

And since when has God sent prophets to deliver messages to Satan?

Let me guess: since Isaiah 14 which you yourself quoted as referring to Satan as man?…

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 33 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

What is the Holy Communion?
Transubstantiation? Consubstantiation? Sacramental union? Just a symbol?…
Does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ?
Are the body and blood of Christ really present with the bread and wine unchanged?
Are the body and blood of Christ present sacramentally with the bread and wine unchanged?
What does all this mean?
And why should we philosophize to present the simple biblical truth?…

The Holy Communion: a sacrament
We have seen the explanation of what a sacrament is in our article: What did the Church Fathers believe about baptism?
The biblical language is different from our modern ways of expression or the analytic and systematic ways that theology teachers use to explain biblical truths today. For example, you can’t find in the Bible any passage where baptism or the Lord’s Supper or the Trinity is explained in an analytic way. When the Bible talks about the signs that God gives as the seals of His promises, it doesn’t say “this sign is not the truth itself, but it only signifies the assurance of the promise”; it naturally links the promise to the sign, calling the sign by the name of the effect or the promise itself, because the sign is given by God for this very purpose, i.e. to make the sign truly express that promise and its unshakable and sure nature. For instance, after the Flood, God said to Noah: “I set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be for a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass when I bring clouds over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living soul of all flesh; and the waters shall not henceforth become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living soul of all flesh that is upon the earth.” (Genesis 9:13-16) Here is an interesting passage where we see how the Bible expresses things that the modern man misunderstands. Skeptics, when reading this passage, conclude that the Bible presents a god who forgets and needs to be reminded of things… But that’s because they don’t know what the signs are according to the biblical language. Indeed, before God gave this sign to Noah, He already had the eternal purpose not to destroy all flesh anymore again as long as the earth remains: “And Jehovah said in his heart, I will no more henceforth curse the ground on account of Man, for the thought of Man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will no more smite every living thing, as I have done. Henceforth, all the days of the earth, seed [time] and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:21-22) So God would never smite every living thing as long as the earth remains, and that rainbow was not the reason why He would not do that. But why did He say those things to Noah while giving him the sign of the rainbow? It’s because the sign was given as an assurance for Noah that God would never forget His promise, and thus the promise was sure! In other words, the sign expressed the following truth, but without words: “Noah, later on some strong floods will still happen on earth. When they happen, and even if the weakness of your faith or of the faith of any believer may make you think that God may have forgotten His promise and that that flood will destroy the whole earth again as it did in the days of Noah, just look to the rainbow, and you will get assured that the flood will not destroy the whole earth, because God has given you that sign as an assurance of His promise not to destroy the whole earth again”. You see how a misunderstanding of the signs makes you understand the exact opposite of what is said. Indeed, in this passage God is saying that He may never forget His promise and that He has even given a sign of assurance, while the skeptic understands from it that God may forget… Actually, if God may forget, then how can we be sure that He will not even forget what the rainbow signifies?…
Another example is the lamb of the Passover. Well, look what Jesus said: “say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”‘” (Mark 14:14) To eat the Passover?? Well, the Passover is not something that can be eaten… The Passover is the fact that the Angel of the Lord passed over (and thus the name) the houses of the sons of Israel when He smote the Egyptians… So how could Jesus eat this Passover?… Here is how: “‘It is a Passover sacrifice to the LORD who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes.” (Exodus 12:27) So Jesus ate the Passover sacrifice or lamb! But how did He call that sacrifice? He called it by the name of the thing signified by that sacrifice, and thus He simply said that He would eat the Passover. Does this mean that the Passover lamb could save the children of Israel if they didn’t believe the promise? Not at all! For indeed God said that if anyone of the sons of Israel didn’t stay at home and eat that lamb, he would be destroyed with the Egyptians. So one needs to believe what God expresses by the given sign, or else the sign does not help him in anything. But when someone believes the signified truth of the sign, then this sign becomes for him a visible Word of God and an assurance of the certainty of His promise. The sons of Israel who obeyed God and ate the Passover lamb and put of its blood a sign on their doors could be assured that their firstborn males would not die that night! This is how the sign helps the weakness of our faith. Further, it is a sign that expresses a covenant between God and His people, as it expresses a promise of God to His people. Note that all covenants are based on a promise.

Having clarified these important things, let’s pass to the subject of the Holy Communion or the Christian Eucharist. Indeed, the bread and wine are the sign similar to what we have seen above. God has given this sign to be received by faith as signifying the assurance of the death of Christ for all our sins (past, present and future). And just like the lamb of Passover, the bread and wine are called by the name of the fact that they signify: the bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine is called the blood of Christ. They are the sacramental body and blood of Jesus Christ. Now, faith receives the promise or the Word of God, and thus it is a living faith; and the sign of bread and wine in the Eucharist is a visible Word of God. This in fact is what we call a sacrament. During time, the Church has reached this common way of expressing this biblical truth of signs and the truth that they signify. This common expression is “sacrament”. A sacrament is a sign and a promise linked to it by God in order to give us the assurance of the thing signified by the sign, as we have seen above.

Brief: Sacrament = a sign from God + a promise from God linked to the sign.

So instead of philosophizing about whether the Eucharist is Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, or sacramental union, or even a mere symbol, we should just accept the biblical conclusion that the Church has made a long time ago: The Eucharist is a sacrament, i.e. it is a sign with a promise linked to it, and the sign is called by the very name of the thing signified: the bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine is called the blood of Christ.

If it were easy to explain how God is, we would not invent the words Trinity and Person.
Those words represent each a biblical truth. The Church had to pass long years of study in the Word to find these human words that can explain the biblical truths in the best human way.
But those words are not mentioned in the Bible.
In the same way, the Church has invented the word Sacrament to explain something that is in the Bible but that cannot be explained plainly with any other single word.
But the error that many made was to try to explain it…
So some said it’s Transubstantiation;
others said it’s just a symbol;
others said it’s Consubstantiation;
others said they will make Consubstantiation more exact: they said it’s sacramental union…
And thus they got in trouble with God and with each other, and they kept fighting without understanding the truth of God’s Word…
The simple fact is: it’s a sacrament.
Why should we invent other expressions that make things more complicated and make the very sacrament that should be the symbol of the unity of believers (see 1 Corinthians 10:17) a cause of their divisions because of mutual misunderstandings (even when in fact they all say the same thing, but each with his own complicated vocabulary that the other side misunderstands)…

No, it’s simply a sacrament.
It’s a sign with a promise.

The sacrament is received by faith alone
When I receive the sign by faith in the promise which is linked to it, I have that promise.
How do I have the promise?
By faith alone!
So when I go to the Lord’s Table, I believe I am taking the body and blood of Christ;
and it’s this faith that receives the promise presented by that sign;
and thus I grow by faith.

Is the Eucharist a bloodless sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins?
Do we receive the forgiveness of our sins by receiving the bread and wine?
Is the Eucharist a bloodless sacrifice, as the Roman Catholics call it, by which we receive the forgiveness of our sins only to need that forgiveness again next time we come to the Eucharist?…
Is it the same Sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered again and again each time we do the Eucharist?…

Of course it’s not a resacrificing, because by faith we’re perfected by the once for all offering of Christ’s body (see Hebrews 10:10,14). The Old Covenant sacrifices needed to be offered again and again, because they could not assure an eternal forgiveness of sins and a once-for-all perfection of the saints, but Christ’s Sacrifice does not need to be repeated; it needs to be remembered in the sacrament. “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.” (Hebrews 10:18)
But yes, we receive the washing of our feet, yet NOT the cleansing of our bodies.
I mean,
just as the Lord meant,
that we don’t receive the judicial forgiveness again;
that’s justification,
and that’s once for all;
but we receive the filial forgiveness by faith alone,
i.e. daily sanctification.

Once again, this is not bound to the sign in a way that makes it impossible to be received without the sign,
but we receive it through the sign.
God has joined it to the sign in a way that the sacrament be respected and not neglected, yet He did not join it in a way to make the sign the whole fact.
This means: we’re forgiven every day (our feet are cleansed) as we walk in repentance, even though we do not eat the bread and we do not drink the wine each day.

Just as Jesus didn’t eat the Passover but the Passover lamb, we also do not receive the forgiveness of our sins by the mere eating of the bread and drinking of the blood, because we do not eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood if we do not have faith. We receive the forgiveness of our sins by receiving what the bread and wine signify, i.e. the Sacrifice of the Lord on the cross which is not only for our justification, but also for our sanctification. The forgiveness received in the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper) is the filial forgiveness, and not the judicial forgiveness (justification) without which no one can approach the Lord’s Table without deserving the divine judgment (see 1 Corinthians 11:29). More details about the link between justification and sanctification in our article: The relation between justification and sanctification. When you approach the Lord’s Table, you should have already eaten the body of Christ and drunk His blood (you should have been justified by faith), otherwise you will not have life in yourself (see John 6:53) and thus you will take the bread and wine for your condemnation! When you approach the Lord’s Table, you should be walking in light, as He is in light, as we have seen in our article A conversation with a Roman Catholic — Mainly about the new birth. So it’s not true, as Roman Catholics say, that when you take that bread and wine you are forgiven your sins… If you’re not justified, then the taking of that bread and that wine is for your judgment and not for the forgiveness of your sins! 1 John 1:7: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Roman Catholics believe a baptized person may be walking in sin, and then suddenly he decides to get forgiveness, so he repents and confesses his sins to a priest, then he goes and takes the Eucharist, and thus he is forgiven. Yet 1 John 1:7 puts a condition: that we walk in the light, as He is in the light… Only the saint who is cleansed once-for-all can keep cleansing his feet, and 1 John 1:7 is talking about this feet-cleansing; it is a cleansing that has as goal to keep us in the way of light, and not to turn us back from darkness to light. The Bible calls the Christians “saints” and not half saints and half sinners; “children of light”, and not half children of light and half children of darkness. Jesus called that which is born of the Spirit spirit, and not half spirit and half flesh (read John 3:6). We are either fleshly by nature or spiritual by nature; we can’t be both. We are either in the flesh or in the Spirit by nature. The Bible says that all true Christians are saints who are spiritual by nature and who are separated from the world to be Christ’s own possession. Yes, the Bible calls the Christians “saints”… We are justified sinners, and Justification is not separate from Sanctification. It’s because we are (now) sinners and we are justified (already) that we are saints. Being a saint is not opposite to the fact of being a sinner, on the condition that we are justified by faith in Christ. If we are not justified by faith in Christ, then yes, being a sinner is opposite to being a saint. The Bible calls true Christians “saints”: Read for example Romans 1:7, Philippians 1:1. We are saints, not in ourselves, but saints in Christ Jesus. The Bible calls true Christians “holy”: Read Hebrews 3:1. The Bible clearly says that only the pure in heart will see God (read Matthew 5:8), and that without holiness no one will see the Lord (read Hebrews 12:14). The Bible calls true Christians saints, a holy nation, a kingly priesthood, a people for God’s possession, i.e. a people separated or sanctified for God (saints): “But ye [are] a chosen race, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a possession, that ye might set forth the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness to his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9). True Christians are children of light, people who are by nature light and who walk in light and not in darkness: “for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light” (Ephesians 5:8). True Christians are people about whom the following words of the Lord are true: “but he that practises the truth comes to the light, that his works may be manifested that they have been wrought in God.” (John 3:21) “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not practise the truth.” (1 John 1:6) But this is where people will say I am a perfectionist, although I am saying the same things that all true Christians in all times always believed. But today easy-believism has become the rule as it seems…
We have seen that per 1 John 1:7, only those who walk in the light have their feet cleansed each day, as they keep the fellowship of the saints. The Lord said: “He that is washed all over needs not to wash save his feet, but is wholly clean; and ye are clean“ (John 13:10); “Ye are already clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you.” (John 15:3) True Christians are already clean; they are purified by the blood of Jesus once for all. They don’t need to be washed all over again and again. They don’t need to be purified again and again. They only need to wash their feet, their walk, to be purified more and more in their walk, but not in their nature. Their new nature is pure once for all; it can’t be purified more; it can grow as they walk in sanctification. They are purified by the blood of Jesus once for all; they are perfected once for all. Their new nature does not need to be cleansed again and again, because it is pure from the very first moment of its birth in regeneration and it is always pure by the blood of Christ. We don’t need animal sacrifices that are offered again and again and that cannot purify the sinner; the once for all Sacrifice of Christ is enough to perfect once for all those who are sanctified: “by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10); “For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14) So in 1 John 1:7 John is not talking about the once-for-all repentance in which the sinner originally turns to God for the once-for-all cleansing, but about the continuous repentance that a saint keeps repenting in order not to fall in sin and worldliness. And the Eucharist is the sacrament of this feet-cleansing, and only the saints can approach the Lord’s Table without bringing judgment upon themselves. Remember that in the last night, when the Lord instituted the Holy Communion, He had in the same time washed the feet of the disciples and He had told them that the one who is cleansed all over only needs to have his feet washed. John later explains in 1 John 3:9 that a born again Christian will keep walking in light and in righteousness, so he cannot sin, i.e. he cannot continue in sin, as per 1 John 1:7 he will surely keep repenting and receiving the washing of his feet and thus continue in righteousness. We have detailed explanations of this truth in our articles: 1. A true Christian is a saint — Perfection in Christ, 2. Blameless in Christ… not legalists…, 3. The relation between justification and sanctification.

So only the saint who walks in the light and, based on the once-for-all Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, has the full forgiveness of all his sins (past, present and future), can approach the Lord’s Table. This is clear even in old liturgies of the Mass, when in the invitation to communion they say: “Holy things for the holy, with perfection, purity, and sanctity.” (See this here in the Maronite liturgy which is an Eastern Roman Catholic liturgy). This was a clear warning for the people that those who are not already saints (sanctified) by the once-for-all justification and forgiveness of their sins cannot approach the holy things, i.e. the Lord’s Table. But just two lines later they say: “Make us worthy, O Lord God, to sanctify our bodies with your holy body and to purify our souls with your forgiving blood. May our communion be for the forgiveness of our sins and for eternal life.” Here we see how this liturgy has included in it all the theological errors that came during the centuries and which turned the Eucharist to a sacrifice for sins. Indeed, you can see the clear contradiction: if no one can approach the Table without already being sanctified and forgiven all his sins, then how is it that the communion will bring him the forgiveness of his sins??! That’s why a reformation of the Eucharist was needed (i.e. a turning back to the original truth of the Eucharist), but Roman Catholics still refuse the Reformation. We have seen above how the already saint receives the filial forgiveness through the sacrament of the Eucharist: this is the reformed original biblical understanding of the sacrament.

Many Christians misunderstand the sacrament of the Lord’s Table
I wonder why people don’t know this, although the Bible says it…
Even many who call themselves Evangelical or Protestant do not know this truth of the sacrament.
Why?
Is it because of the many theories?
Or just ignorance?
Why don’t they want to study these things and know the truth from the Bible? Is it because they don’t have the love of God’s Word?…
Many people just know the Baptist version or another non-sacramental modern version of the Lord’s Supper, and they think that’s what the sign is: just an ordinance, just a symbol that should be done in obedience to a commandment… They think this is the only way to get separate from the errors of the Roman Catholics concerning the Lord’s Supper: by bringing a radical change to the understanding of the biblical signs (sacraments)…

Baptists call the Lord’s Supper an ordinance, a commandment to obey.
A sacrament is not a mere commandment to obey;
it’s a promise, a sign with a promise which we RECEIVE.
A sacrament is RECEIVED by obedient faith, and not DONE as an act of obedience.
As we receive it, THUS we obey.
It’s by faith that we obey;
faith means RECEIVING graces.
“for of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace.” (John 1:16)
We begin our walk with the Lord by receiving the grace of the new birth and justification,
and we keep receiving all the time the graces of sanctification,
and THUS we obey what God has commanded,
including the keeping of the Lord’s Supper.
If we keep the Lord’s Supper in any other way than by faith, then we keep it legalistically,
and that’s not faith.
If it’s just a symbol, and if we have to obey it as an ordinance, then it is not a sacrament that will nourish faith, as we have seen above. Such an obedience is without real faith and it’s legalism.
Faith is always dependent of PROMISES, i.e. of God’s Word.

How is the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist neglected?
How does one neglect the Lord’s Supper? Is it by not taking the bread and wine?
No, but by not walking in repentance, and thus by not taking.

A true Christian, i.e. a saint, never neglects the Lord’s Supper, because, as we have seen, the one who is born of God cannot continue in sin. The saint will always respect the Lord’s Supper, i.e. the sacrament (I remind you that this is not just the sign, but the sign AND the promise linked to it), even if he couldn’t take the Eucharist (i.e. the elements of bread and wine) for some reason. The true Christian always respects the thing signified by the sacrament. Even when he can’t take the bread and wine, he still respects the sacrament. He may fall in a doctrinal or practical error concerning the Eucharist, and that may happen because of immaturity in understanding the spiritual things, but the Lord will discipline him, and he will be kept in the way of light and will not fall: “But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.” (1 Corinthians 11:32) Read more about the discipline of God for His children in our article: God disciplines His children. But the false believers neglect the Lord’s Supper by not walking in repentance. Even if such a false believer takes the Eucharist, he will still be neglecting it, because he does not respect the promise or the Word linked to that sign. Such a person brings judgment on himself, i.e. condemnation, and not just correction or discipline as it is in the case we have seen above with the true believer: “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.” (1 Corinthians 11:29)

What’s the real name of this sacrament?
In the history of the Church, Christians called this sacrament with some names according to what is said about it in the Bible; some were right, others were not so exact, and still others were heretical.

Is this sacrament the Holy Mass? The Sacrament of the Altar? Is it the Divine Liturgy? Is it the Eucharist? Is it the Holy Communion? The Lord’s Supper? The Lord’s Table? Breaking of the bread?…

When we want to call this sacrament by a name, we should care to be precise in order not to give a false doctrine about it through that name. By that name, we should present the biblical truth, and not invent a new meaning which is not found in the Bible and/or contradicts what the Bible teaches about this sacrament.

- Eucharist:
According to the biblical explanation that we have seen above, this sacrament is indeed the Eucharist. The word “Eucharist” is from the Greek “Echaristia” which means “thanksgiving”. When the Lord instituted this sacrament, He gave thanks:

“For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)

This verb “given thanks” is almost a synonym of “blessed” in other texts of the same fact:

“And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken [the] bread and blessed, broke [it] and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26)

Thanksgiving is an act of faith by which we RECEIVE God’s blessing on the bread and wine. Indeed, the Greek word “Eucharistia” contains the root “charis” (grace, favor), and it means that we have received a grace; it’s the same in Armenian when we say “thank you” (“shnorhagal em”), and it literally means “I have received grace”. In the Eucharist, we receive the grace presented to us in the promise linked to that sign, as we have seen. In the Eucharist also, like in everything in our lives, we present the sacrifice of thankfulness: “By him therefore let us offer [the] sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, [the] fruit of [the] lips confessing his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)

So the name Eucharist can be used, because it presents the biblical truth of what a sacrament is.

- Holy Communion:
Again, this sacrament is rightly called “Holy Communion”, because the Apostle Paul called it like that:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not [the] communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not [the] communion of the body of the Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)

And immediately after this verse, the Apostle explains that this communion with the body and blood of Christ through the sacramental body and blood make us also be in communion with His body on earth, the Church:

“Because we, [being] many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf.” (1 Corinthians 10:17)

So this sacrament is the communion with the body and blood of Christ and with the Church which is the one body of Christ. Thus this name “Holy Communion” also agrees with the definition of the sacrament as seen above.

- The Lord’s Supper:
Again, this sacrament is rightly called “the Lord’s Supper”, because the Apostle Paul called it like that:

“When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat [the] Lord’s supper.” (1 Corinthians 11:20)

- The Lord’s Table:
Again, this sacrament is rightly called “the Lord’s Table”, because the Apostle Paul called it like that:

“Ye cannot drink [the] Lord’s cup, and [the] cup of demons: ye cannot partake of [the] Lord’s table, and of [the] table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

To be more precise, the Lord’s Table is the Table on which the sacrament is presented to us by God.

- Breaking of the bread:
Again, this sacrament is rightly called “breaking of the bread”, because that’s how the Bible describes it:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not [the] communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not [the] communion of the body of the Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)

- The Divine Liturgy
This name also can be used, but we should be careful with it, because some people can take it as formalism and legalism. We should understand this expression as meaning the holy service and worship in which we receive the sacrament of the Holy Communion. It is not wrong to have some form of worship which we follow in all services of this sacrament (even those who refuse this term “liturgy” have some form which they usually follow), but this should not go to the negative extreme of formalism; the regular gifts of the Spirit should be respected and the Holy Spirit should not be quenched. For an additional study of what it means to quench the Spirit, you can read the following article: Grieving the Holy Spirit/Quenching the Spirit.

All of the above explained names can be used, because they are biblical and/or agree with the biblical doctrine of this sacrament. Some expressions like “the Lord’s Supper” are preferred by Baptists and other denominations that deny the sacramental meaning, but we remind them that they cannot deny the fact that “communion” also is used in the Bible and it clearly gives the meaning of a sacrament, a sharing in the promise signified by the sign. We can’t take just one biblical expression used about this sacrament and leave others out.

But what we categorically cannot do (and we are clearly heretics if we do) is to call the sacrament a sacrifice or a Mass, and to call the Lord’s Table an Altar, as we will now see:

- The Mass:
Originally, the word Mass comes from the Latin Missa which means dismissal, and it is used after the words that were said at the end of the eucharistic service: “Ite, missa est” (“Go; it is the dismissal”). So if this term is used for the Eucharist in this original sense, then it is not theologically wrong, although it doesn’t express the sacramental meaning and it is not derived from a biblical text. But the sad fact is that during time, this word Mass has taken the Roman Catholic wrong definition given to the sacrament, i.e. sacrifice. This word today (with its equivalent words used in other traditions, such as Holy Qurban and Holy Badarak that all mean sacrifice) is used to mean “The Holy Sacrifice”. This is explained by the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia:

Popular speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was expressed in both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic Sacrifice, the whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of such an application is found in Ambrose (Ep. xx, 4, in P.L. XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our consideration of the Mass in its existence, essence, and causality.

Source

So the term Mass means today “Eucharistic Sacrifice”.

As we have seen above, the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament and not a sacrifice. The Sacrifice which the Lord Jesus offered, He offered it once for all, and there is no need to offer it again and again. It’s not a bloodless sacrifice either, as the Roman Catholics call it; God does not accept a bloodless sacrifice: “but into the second, the high priest only, once a year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people” (Hebrews 9:7); “But Christ being come high priest of the good things to come, by the better and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, (that is, not of this creation,) nor by blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, has entered in once for all into the [holy of] holies, having found an eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:11-12); “and without blood-shedding there is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22); “for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11) So the Lord Jesus had to offer His real blood, and an imaginary “bloodless sacrifice” cannot replace that Sacrifice. Roman Catholics contradict themselves when once they say the Mass is the same Sacrifice that the Lord offered on the cross and then they say it is a bloodless sacrifice; I wonder if they think the Lord did not really offer His blood on the cross… If He did, then how is it a bloodless sacrifice??! This is a clear evidence that Roman Catholics believe the Eucharist is a resacrificing of Jesus, which clearly contradicts the Scripture, and especially the passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, as we have seen above.

So the term Mass in its present usage clearly contradicts the sacramental nature of the Lord’s Supper: If it were a sacrifice, then it would not be a sacrament; it would just be a sacrifice. If it were the sacrifice itself, then there would not be a need to speak of a sign and of a promise linked to it (i.e. sacrament); it would just be the real fact, the real sacrifice itself. But the fact is that it is a sacrament and not a sacrifice; this is what the Bible teaches.

- Sacrament of the Altar:
As we have seen in the previous paragraph, “Sacrament” and “Sacrifice” are two contradictory terms when used about the Lord’s Supper. If it is a sacrament, then it is not a sacrifice. So it is wrong to use the term “Altar” for the Lord’s Table, because the term “Altar” is used for that table where a sacrifice is offered, and we have seen that the sacrament is not a sacrifice. But if the word “Altar” is only used in a sacramental sense, i.e. if we mean by it that that table only represents the real Altar where the real Sacrifice was offered once for all (see Hebrews 9:11 and Hebrews 13:10), then it is acceptable, but we should always be careful not to mislead people to think that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and it is preferable to avoid the term. It’s a sacrament; let us not tarnish this fact with terms like “Altar”.

- Sacrament of the Holy Sacrifice (Armenian: Սուրբ Պատարագի Խորհուրդ):
Just like the case of the word “Mass”, this expression can both be a contradiction or an acceptable name for this sacrament. If we mean by it that what is found on the Table is the sacrifice itself, then that’s a false doctrine: it can’t be both a sacrifice and a sacrament, as we have seen. If we mean by it that what is found on the Table itself is the sacrament of the Holy Sacrifice which was offered once for all on the cross, then we agree with the right definition of a sacrament.

I will close this article here, although I realize I have not covered all the aspects of the Holy Communion. But the purpose of this article was just to clarify what the Holy Communion is, and not to cover all the aspects.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

Anyway, this was the fun part…

Merry celebration of our Lord’s Incarnation to everyone. The date is not the issue; what matters is the Incarnation. Do you know why the Son of God was incarnated? Do you know why He was called King and Priest (i.e. Messiah)?

It all originally started in a debate with a leader of the Illuminator’s Lamp Community (an Ecumenical Charismatic group in the Armenian Orthodox church) about the importance of doctrine, i.e. about whether truth matters or not. Later the whole matter got more attention when the writings of their idolized leaders began to be examined by us on Facebook. I will copy here the parts that were written in English (actually, my replies to an Armenian Orthodox who was debating mainly about the doctrine of Election), and from these quoted parts you can conclude what my opponent was saying in Armenian. The purpose of this article is to transfer to the readers some of the important explanations about Election that were given on our page on Facebook, therefore I did not translate what my opponent said; you can conclude it from my answers which contain the doctrinal explanations.

I will begin from the following status update on our wall:

___

Status update

Look at the heresy in the teaching of our clergy expressed in the update of this Armenian clerk on his Facebook wall:

“Salvation is the result of our faith. Reward is the result of our good deeds.” (Vaghinag Miloian)

Salvation is not the result of our faith, but of what the Lord did on the cross; faith only RECEIVES this FINISHED Salvation by the Lord’s Grace. And reward is not the result of OUR good deeds, as if good deeds are separate from God’s Grace, but the gracious rewards of God to the results of His Grace in us. It’s all GRACE upon GRACE!

___

And you still wonder why we are not having an awakening in our Armenian church?? It’s because our clergy is preaching semi-Pelagian HERESY!

___

Yes, I believe that such a person as the one you described is saved, because I am one and because the Bible says so. One is not supposed to believe a false doctrine of Predestination in order to be saved. But if he doesn’t believe the biblical doctrine of Election and Predestination, then yes, he is lost. Note it well: I am not saying he should understand or know the details of this doctrine in order to be saved, but he should BELIEVE this biblical doctrine. Any other kind of faith in Christ is a personal merit, and it cannot save anyone.

___

Հայ Քրիստոնեայ, you are making a joke of yourself as you express your hatred of the reformation and of our call for people to wake up and turn to the Word of God, leaving human deceptions. Where did I ever say that God created humans as robots, without a free will? God created Adam and Eve free to choose, and they fell in sin, and we inherited their fallen nature. We have in our nature this slavery to sin, and a slave is not free! We need the Redemption of Jesus Christ. Now, if for you man is free indeed without faith in Christ, then that’s another problem, but you contradict God’s Word with this doctrine of yours.

God did not give anyone the ability to choose what is good?? Are you kidding? Is this what you understand from the biblical doctrine of God’s Sovereignty?? Don’t you believe that only those who have faith in Christ are free indeed and can choose what is good?? Or maybe you think God has made all humans free from sin automatically?? Do your followers know that you are preaching this Arminian heresy which has come very close to Universalism??

And who said Election is about a blind fate to which we are enslaved like robots?? Oh, what a wrong idea you have about God’s love…

If you really want to be saved, then you should obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is the Gospel of Grace. It is not by man’s will, but by God’s Will. Man would be pleased to be saved without dying to sin and without obeying God’s absolute Sovereignty. If God would answer any such desire to be saved, then who doesn’t want to be saved?? All humans would be saved. But Salvation is only in Jesus Christ, i.e. only the poor in spirit will see the Kingdom. It is really sad that you think otherwise.

Then you quote 1 Timothy 2:1-4 in which it is said that we should pray for everyone, because God wants all men to be saved. Indeed, that’s the truth. But where did you read in that passage that we should pray that God may save people without a real faith and a real repentance?? Actually, John says the exact OPPOSITE! He says do NOT pray in that case! “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.” (1 John 5:16) Don’t tell me now that you pray that God may save people even if they do not repent and have a living faith in Christ!! Oh, don’t tell me that’s the error where you have got. How sad!

___

Status update

Why do you pray for your lost neighbors saying “Lord, open their eyes”?? Isn’t the Lord opening the eyes of EVERYONE according to your Pelagian doctrine??…

___

Friend, what does Arianism have to do here?… We are talking about a doctrine that was a matter of controversy in the time of Augustine, a certain time after Arianism and the Christological controversy… Anyways… Maybe you know that the matter of Predestination and free will were debated between Augustine and Pelagius, right? Just to make sure…

I am not holding Luther’s or Calvin’s doctrine. I am holding the biblical doctrine of Election. Note that Election is different from Predestination, although they are related. It is clear that you have no clear idea about what I believe concerning Election and Predestination, so it would be better to read our blog about these issues before you come here and talk about this. Here is a link where you can find some explanations about this: http://jdisciple.wordpress.com/apologia/

Yes, all those who deny Election have a heretical doctrine about it. But your case is even worse: you think that as many do not understand this doctrine clearly, so the doctrine should be denied, all of it! Wow… Throwing the baby with the bathwater…

And your assumption is that you are right in judging me that I follow some “heros”… Go read those articles, and try to answer me from the Word of God, instead of theorizing without a clear understanding of Election.

Only God’s Word is right, and only the Scripture can interpret Scripture. So go ahead please: begin to debate me with the Bible. Stop referring to human teachers as authorities, and stick to the Bible.

You think that the doctrine of Election is not an essential doctrine, yet it is about the Sovereignty of God… I don’t know who taught you that God’s Sovereignty is so secondary, but I would like to inform you that this doctrine was one of the doctrines that the Lord Himself used the most while preaching the Gospel. Many preachers today are preaching a false gospel because they don’t believe this doctrine and/or do not have a clear idea about what it is, so we should be careful to tell people what the right biblical doctrine is. The very fact that you say Luther and Augustine did not agree on Predestination shows that you have no clear idea about this doctrine, so I hope we will have the opportunity to study this together. Don’t think that any biblical doctrine is not important just because you don’t understand it. That’s a wrong approach already. And don’t assume that I follow humans and not Christ; read our blog before you assume.

___

Dear Հայ Քրիստոնեայ, I said you need to read those articles (not one article only) BEFORE you come here to assume what I believe about Election and what I don’t. So why did you come back before reading those articles? Just to make other wrong assumptions?… Well, you’re free…

Augustine believed in total depravity, dear friend. Do you know what total depravity is? It is that man is totally sinful, unable to do anything good in God’s sight before regeneration. Read the following and see if Augustine believed what I just explained: http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html Augustine detailed the doctrine of original sin which is another expression of total depravity. Study that document well. By the way, why do you keep turning to human teachings and not to the Bible. Show me by the Bible that Election is not a biblical doctrine and that total depravity is not right. Show me by the Bible that man can create a living faith in himself.

By the way, I clarified for you how understanding the doctrine of Election is essential to a right preaching of the true and simple Gospel of Grace. I don’t need to go back there.

You asked a question which you considered impossible to answer by the biblical believers. Let’s see how difficult it is; your question was: “How does God decide to justify some and not others?”

The simple answer is: By His Sovereign Will, by His free Grace, through a true and living faith. Is this not clear in the Bible?? Can a man be justified without faith?? So I wonder if you want God to justify everyone, even those who do not have a real living faith… I remind you again: you need to read the concerned articles on our blog in order not to assume things about the biblical doctrine of Election.

Yes, only God’s Word is infallible and inerrant, so only God’s Word can interpret itself. But you reject this fact (that only God’s Word can interpret itself), just because you are in confusion about many doctrines, and you go to human interpretations instead. Show me how the confusion that you experienced is real. Give me an example. Be practical. To study what other faithful believers learned from the Bible is not wrong, but at the end of the day we should examine all things by the Scripture and accept only what is clearly supported by the Bible. Replacing God’s Word by a human authority will not help in this case, because that authority will make errors, while the Bible does not. When we say only the Bible can interpret the Bible, we do not mean that all Christians will understand it in a right way and always. But the essential is to keep the Bible in its authoritative place all alone, so that all our beliefs may be measured and examined by it. While what you do is to throw that authority and replace it by a human authority, just because humans make errors in understanding that authority. This is a very bad approach; you need to change it.

Indeed, 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” I wonder how you see this contradicting the doctrine of Election. If God desires all men to be saved, does this mean that He will save them all without a living faith?? Are you now preaching Universalism?? I remind you that you didn’t answer yet my original question, but let me add another question: If God loves all men and wants to save them, then why does He not open the eyes of them all?? If it is man who will open his own eyes, then why do you ask God to open their eyes?? And if man can make himself a believer, then why does the Bible say that God justifies the UNgodly by faith?? If man can already have faith before regeneration, then he can be a believer by himself BEFORE being justified, and a believer is godly and not UNgodly! In that case the Bible would say that God justifies the godly, and not the ungodly. Think about these questions.

So I don’t see how you find it contradictory that God wants all men to be saved, and yet He doesn’t want them to be saved without a living faith and a real repentance. And we know that real faith is His work in the dead man, and not man’s merit. Arminians and all semi-Pelagians believe that faith is from man, a merit in him. I see that you believe that too, but you’re afraid to express it.

Now, in your example of the thief on the cross, you express how much you misunderstand the doctrine of Election and the place of this doctrine in the preaching of the Gospel. I already told you that Election is about true faith, so indeed Christ knew that this thief had a true living faith which God created in him, therefore He told him what He told him. So indeed that thief believed that he is totally depraved and that only what Christ did on the cross could save him, and nothing in him (not even an imaginary pre-existent faith in him). This thief knew he deserved to be crucified and not saved! What else is the doctrine of Election??

Indeed, our state is very sad. We are all lost in our sins, unable to do any meritorious thing towards our Salvation. Thank God for His precious Grace by which He chose us and saved us through faith in the Beloved Jesus Christ. Otherwise no one would be saved.

And then you went and came back and said that you read the article… I wonder which of the two articles presently available there about this topic you meant… Anyway, you say even after reading that you are confused… Well, let’s see what is confusing you…

By the way, once again you mention Arianism. Dear friend, it’s Arminianism, and not Arianism. Arianism is about a Christological controversy; that is not our topic.

Yes, all biblical Christians believe only what the Bible says, therefore they formulate doctrines that express the biblical teaching. Some express it the closest possible, and others express heretical teachings. For me in the doctrine of Election the essential is God’s Absolute Sovereignty in man’s Salvation. If you read the articles carefully, then you should have seen that your Arminian doctrine denies God’s Absolute Sovereignty in man’s Salvation, while the Calvinist doctrine, with all its human additions, respects God’s Absolute Sovereignty to the end. So I don’t have any real problem with Calvinism, on the condition that they don’t go to Hyper-Calvinism, but I have a huge problem with Arminianism, because it denies God’s Absolute Sovereignty in our Salvation and gives man a credit at least in his faith which in this case becomes a human merit. This is a false gospel.

And again, if you read the articles carefully and saw the links, you would see that this is not a personal doctrine invented by me. I tell you again, tell me anything about Election that respects God’s Absolute Sovereignty in our Salvation, and I have no real problem with you, because I know very well that true Christians may make errors in understanding doctrines fully and perfectly, yet they will never deny the essential and basic truth in that doctrine. In the case of Election, this essential truth is God’s Absolute Sovereignty in our Salvation which insures that all is by God’s Grace and by nothing in man. No man can ever boast.

And no, I have not a private church; I was baptized in the Armenian Orthodox church, as I already told you clearly, and I am working for that church’s reformation. In the West they had their own reformation when they turned to God’s Word; we want a similar biblical reformation for our church also. Stop assuming that Christ’s Church is not one.

___

Dear Հայ Քրիստոնեայ, thank you for finally admitting that you don’t know doctrines well, as you have not studied theology. I wonder where you read in the Bible that simple disciples should not know biblical doctrines well, and that only an elite who has studied theology should know the doctrines, but anyway I accept your retreat. From now on, you should not debate with me, as you have no theological good knowledge to understand what I am talking about. But I will continue to answer the points you are making, to show the readers what false doctrines some unlearned men like you are teaching to the Armenian believers. We should make this clear, because we want a reformation of our church, a true kind of reformation based on a true reformation of doctrine, and not like your enthusiastic reformation based on feelings and emotions.

You ask me with which authority I am attacking the heretical teachings of the Armenian church. My simple answer is: you are used to human authority, while I don’t accept any human authority that does not derive its authority from God’s Word. So my authority is God’s Word. I take the Bible in my hand, and I fight with it all false doctrines, whoever is behind those doctrines. I am a soldier of Christ, a disciple of Christ. My Lord told me in the Bible to have discernment, and to teach my brethren with God’s Word: “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” (Colossians 3:16) Did you read well that expression “the word of Christ”? THAT is my authority as a disciple of Jesus Christ. God’s Word teaches us that we should glorify God by the gifts that He has given us, and that’s what I am doing. While in your groups people are breaking their heads to find out how to find out what spiritual gifts they have, others have received the gifts of the Spirit with Salvation, and they are called to be Christ’s priests and kings. Of course, your heresy considers “priest” and “king” as titles to be given only to some elite who are called priests by you, but the Bible teaches us that EVERY true Christian is a priest in Christ, called to tell the truth to everyone: “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9) So as a priest in Christ, I am called to declare the truth. Declaring the truth and warning our brethren is not just the work of some overseers (bishops) or evangelists only; it is the work of every Christian who is given this particular gift of studying God’s Word deeply, and to different degrees it is the work of all true Christians. If one does not have the gift of serving, that doesn’t mean that he will not serve; in the same way, if one does not have the gift of studying the Word of God deeply, that doesn’t mean that he will not study it and will not have discernment.

NOW you know what is my authority. Now, tell me what is YOUR authority to oppose this work of the Lord. You don’t even have a theology degree! Considering your assumption about who should have authority to teach the truth, you do not meet the conditions to have any authority to debate with me or to oppose this work of the Lord. So are you not afraid of the judgment of God?

Now, you tell me I am just criticizing words. No, dear friend, it is not just a critic of words. My question is clear: Why do you pray for your lost neighbors saying “Lord, open their eyes”?? Isn’t the Lord opening the eyes of EVERYONE according to your Pelagian doctrine??… You said that when you pray that God may open the eyes of your son, you do not mean that you ask God to save him even if he doesn’t believe. Great! So you agree that 1 Timothy 2:1-4 does NOT mean that God wants ALL men to be saved, but only those who will have faith! It is true that God wants all men to be saved, yet He will only save those who have faith. Thus, mentioning 1 Timothy 2:1-4 in our debate about Election was just irrelevant, because 1 Timothy 2:1-4 does not contradict the doctrine of Election, by your own admission! You notice of course that faith in this case is the same as the opening of the eyes of the unbeliever. To have faith is to have our eyes opened. So my question is valid again: Why do you pray for your lost son “Lord, open his eyes”? Isn’t the Lord opening the eyes of EVERYONE according to your Pelagian doctrine?? As God wants all men to be saved, and as He has given faith to everyone and has opened the eyes of everyone, then why ask Him to open anyone’s eyes?? Has He not done it already??

Do you see how much this doctrine is important, or not yet? Each time you ask God to open the eyes of someone, realize that you are confessing the doctrine of Election without knowing it. If you just admit that doctrine, you will also begin to preach the true Gospel to your followers.

I know very well what is the stand of the Armenian church concerning the topics that we are discussing. You know that our church does not declare doctrines in the form of written detailed dogmas like the Roman Catholic church. Our church considers the Bible, plus the first three ecumenical councils, plus the experience of the Church (what the Fathers of the Church wrote) as the source of doctrines, and she expresses these doctrines in the book of the church (Jamakirk), it means in her prayers. Read the Jamakirk, read our church’s prayers, and the doctrines are there, without a clear explanation. Now, when it comes to explanations, it is the clergy that is considered to have authority to explain it to us. And here begins the tragedy. Read Vaghinag Miloian’s writings to see how doctrine can be twisted… By the way, our church did not have any participation in the justification and authority controversy that happened in the West in the time of the Reformation. Our church only refused that controversy and categorically agreed with the counter-reformation of the Roman Catholic church. So we did not have our own reformation, and we did not have our own particular stand concerning the controversy of justification and authority. Show me any Armenian Orthodox author who has participated in the controversy about justification and authority without copying all what the Roman Catholics said. We have not really participated in that controversy. We are late. We did not have a reformation. It is time for us to have our own clear stand concerning justification and authority. Our church should have a clear answer to the following questions: 1. How is man justified before God? 2. What is our source of authority. If you have noticed, our church answers these two questions the same way the Roman Catholic church answered it, with the sole distinction that the Roman Catholic church is Chalcedonian, while our church accepts only the authority of the three first ecumenical councils.

I don’t know if you are getting what I am saying, but these are very important things. These are serious things. We’re not playing. The reformation of the Armenian church is a must. Doctrine matters.

You explained to me how the Armenian church believes that Salvation is the GRACE and GIFT of God, but that man should accept this Salvation by his free will and bring his contribution in it. Maybe you do not notice it, but this is clearly a doctrine of salvation by our merits, because if one already has a so good will to accept God’s Salvation and contribute in it, then why does he need Salvation to begin with?? Maybe you don’t notice it, but what our church is saying in this matter does not differ from what the Roman Catholic church said about it when it was confronted with reformation. I mean, the Roman Catholic church had no problem with the expression “justification is by faith”; they even recently declared in an official document with some confused Evangelicals that justification is by faith. Their problem was with the “alone”, i.e. with the expression “justification is by Grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE”. This “alone” is the way the western reformation expressed the fact that faith is not a merit in man. This is the way the western reformation explained how the works that faith will surely produce are not the fruits of the old nature in man, but the fruit of that faith which is a gift from God. Real faith is not a merit in the believer. The fact that I have faith while Sarkis or Nanor have no faith does not make me better than them; we all are sinners in ourselves; only the Grace of God distinguishes between us, and therefore no one has the right to boast. That’s why the Roman Catholic church wants to erase the word “alone”, because without it faith is a merit in man. As you already said, our church does not say something different. So our church teaches salvation by our merits, i.e. by a faith which is the good decision of the good will of man. This is heretical. This gives credit to man in his Salvation. And this teaching of our church is the result of long centuries of false interpretations of what the Bible teaches, and therefore we needed a reformation, and we still need it. Oh, how I pray that this reformation will begin already!

Now, to explain the false doctrine of our church about Salvation, you gave the following image; you said: “The sinful humanity is like a group of people drowning in a stormy sea, unable to save themselves. God throws from the boat the rope of salvation in order to pull them up and save them. He who wants to be saved needs to catch the rope. The only contribution of man is to keep that rope caught in his hand.”

Oh, this is an example that all Arminians or semi-Pelagians use (note, Arminian is different from Armenian). Note how this image assumes that man is just drowning, but is not dead already in his sins… The Bible says that we are DEAD in our sins, without any spiritual life in us, without any good will in us, and that we don’t want God, and we do not want anything from God. You imagine God in a mission to save people in a sea BEFORE they die in their sins, while the Bible says that they are already dead! God does not just throw a rope! He comes HIMSELF, i.e. He sends His Son to die for us, and there is no one to even notice that Rope of Salvation, because they are all dead and blind and unable to do anything good, not even able to see who Christ is and why He came and what He did. Here comes the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of some men by faith (which is the new birth). As I said above, God does not just throw a rope, but He came Himself. So when He gives life to those in whose hearts He creates faith, He doesn’t just leave them in the sea, holding a rope, but He takes them into the Ark (i.e. Jesus Christ) so that the waters of the sea may not kill them, until they reach the safe land (Heaven). In Christ (in the Ark) they fight and overcome the huge waves of the sea and are kept safe in that Ark until they reach the safe land.

You see how in your image, God is just throwing a rope, which makes void of the incarnation. Again, in your example God is seeking LIVING humans, which makes void of the biblical truth that we are already dead and that Christ gives LIFE, and that He does not just HELP us to have life or to save ourselves. You see also that in your image God makes man fight the fight of faith all alone, trying to keep that rope in his hands, while the truth is that Christ fights WITH us our fight; actually we fight IN HIM, we fight by the Spirit and not by the flesh. It is not by our merits that we keep our Salvation. And you see also that in your example no one will be able to keep that rope caught, because the waves of sin are very strong, and man has no power in himself to fight them by himself. Your image makes God a crual Person who KNOWS that we have no power against sin, and yet leaves us alone to fight against it and to try to keep ourselves attached to the rope of Salvation, and He Himself just catches the other side of the rope… Are you noticing with me the huge heretical teachings, especially about the Sovereignty of God?

As I told you before, the doctrine of Election is about the true nature of true faith; it is about the Sovereignty of God in our Salvation. It is not about some imaginary hatred that God may have had against some people who are not saved, as you imagine the doctrine of Election to be. On the contrary, the Bible clearly says that God loved the WHOLE world and that He sent His Son to save the whole world. The thing that you are not accepting is that God has the right to choose to save only those who have real faith, whose eyes He opens by His Grace. You are not being able to accept the ABSOLUTE Sovereignty of God in everything, INCLUDING our Salvation.

In your comments about your image, you say that this view believes that God did not ordain from the beginning to whom He will throw the rope and to whom He will not throw the rope, although He knows by His Omnipotence who will catch the rope and who will not. But I remind you that God has thrown the rope in the Old Covenant, and no one caught it! He said believe in Me and keep My Law, and no one could! They all sinned and deserved eternal condemnation. No one could save himself by his merits. That’s why the incarnation happened! Man did not just need a HELP from God to save himself; he needed SALVATION. So God had to choose some people in Christ, or else no one would be saved! Without Christ there is no Salvation. You see it as unfair that God saves only those whose eyes He opens, while the Bible sees it unfair if God saves the ungodly without faith! The ungodly do NOT deserve to be saved! You talk about Salvation in a way that makes us think all humans DESERVE to be saved. But do you realize what you say?? You say that we have a merit in us, and if God does not save us all then He is being unfair! Who are you to debate against your God!! Will you tell Him what is just and what is not??! This is what Paul answered those self-righteous Jews who objected to Salvation by Grace alone: “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?” (Romans 9:18-21) So you are objecting like them, but who are you to object against God and to teach Him what is fair and what is not and what is loving and what is not??

By the way, God does not just passively know who will believe and who will not. If that was the case, then we are in trouble, because in that case evil people do whatever they want to us and God just watches… God does not just know passively what will happen, but has something to do to fulfill His eternal Plan. He said that out of this dead humanity He will have a multitude of saved people, and He is doing it! No one can stand against that, not even our hopeless death in sins. This is how God presented this truth in Ezekiel 37 with the picture of VERY DRY bones to which God gave life. Those bones didn’t catch any rope… Those bones didn’t sit and think whether they want to have life or not. God commanded, and they became alive! Learn from these pictures!

And without understanding all these important biblical doctrines, and with all those false doctrines that you expressed, you come to tell us that we have begun the reformation from a wrong place… How is it wrong to go back to the Bible to begin the reformation? Would it be better to begin from human assumptions that imagine humanity as a big group of living people who are fighting to stay alive, and not dead people who need LIFE??! If you do not understand and accept what was explained above, then I warn your followers from your heretical teachings. Beware of these teachers who teach you salvation by your own merits. No one can save himself by keeping the rope in his hands, that’s why Christ came. Put your trust in Christ alone and repent from your own ways.

And concerning the links that you gave [http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/03/man-the-fall-free-will-and-grace/, http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/06/a-problem-with-total-depravity/], I am already answering their wrong human doctrines here.

Grace be with you!

“The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.” (Proverbs 15:29)

This verse in Proverbs, as well as many other passages in God’s Word, make it clear to the unrighteous or the wicked that his prayer will not be heard (i.e. accepted) by God. The unrighteous does not have a right relationship with God; he is spiritually separated from God (i.e. spiritually dead) because of his sins, and God does not accept his prayers: “Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” (Isaiah 59:1-2). The only prayers accepted from an ungodly are the prayers made in the context of seeking God’s Righteousness, i.e. when the ungodly seeks justification by God’s Grace and asks for things in that context (i.e. he repents). The prayers of repentance are the only prayers accepted by God from the ungodly, with all what is related to repentance. Note that in this latter case, the prayers of the wicked are not accepted for any merit in him, i.e. not because he is good in himself, but because of the Righteousness of Christ which he seeks.

And the promise of God is that He will always hear and answer the prayer of the righteous, i.e. the prayer of those who have the Righteousness of Christ by faith and do not rely on their own righteousness. Christ is the only righteous by Nature, and He is the only one whose prayer can be accepted for His own merits. We are righteous in Christ, and our prayer is accepted in Him, in His Name, for His merit, because of His Righteousness. That’s why the Lord said that we are to pray or ask in His Name, and the Apostle Paul said that the Holy Spirit teaches us how to pray according to God’s Will: “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-14); “In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Romans 8:26).

So the only prayers accepted by God are those that are made on the basis of Christ’s Righteousness, either the prayers of the ungodly who seek God’s Righteousness, or the prayers of the godly who also rely on God’s Righteousness alone. Of course, God is Sovereign, and He may even use the prayer of an unrighteous man (which is an abomination to Him per Proverbs 15:8) in order to accomplish His eternal Purpose, but this doesn’t mean that He accepts the prayer of the wicked. The wicked or the self-righteous may think in this case that his prayer was answered, and he may even use this seeming answer to his prayer as a “proof” that God is with him and/or with his beliefs, but in fact God is just accomplishing His Purpose and/or answering the prayer of a righteous concerning the same matter, and He is using the abomination of the wicked to His Glory and to do something good at the end, yet without being responsible of that abomination, as He clearly says that He does not accept that abomination.

Before I close this article, I want to make a short comment about what it means to pray in the Name of Christ. God is Omnipotent, and He is able to answer our prayers sovereignly, and not according to the personal limited wishes of the person who prays. Actually, prayer doesn’t change the mind or the Will of God, but it makes the person who prays willingly participate in the accomplishment of God’s Will, something which the wicked or the unbeliever cannot do, and therefore his prayers are not heard (i.e. not accepted) by God. When you come to God with selfish ambitions and desires, you do not really come to Him. As I said, this is why the Bible says that God accepts ONLY the prayer of the righteous and He is far from the wicked (cf. Proverbs 15:29). The contents of our prayers are not a surprise for God, but He had those prayers already in His Purpose. In other words, God already had in His plan that such and such righteous will pray, and that He (God) will answer those prayers. It pleased God to make the righteous participate in this way in His eternal Purpose. And this is why we pray, although God knows what we will ask for, because a righteous man in Christ fulfills the Will of God by the Spirit, not because he resolves in the flesh to do so, but because that is the natural thing the Spirit makes us do. Like breathing is natural in biological life, prayer is natural in spiritual life. Note that even the believer, when he resolves by the flesh to pray and makes plans to do so, without following the principles about prayer explained in the Bible (i.e. without doing it by the Spirit), he will experience a regression in his prayer practice; we have seen(*) that even the believer cannot do the Will of God by the flesh. God has given us His Spirit so that we may fulfill His Will by the Spirit. The righteous in Christ does the Will of God not as a heavy duty, but as his greatest desire, his only purpose in life! So doing the Will of God concerning prayer flows like a natural river from the well of the Spirit which is in him (see John 4:14). God uses those prayers which He Himself causes in the believers to fulfill His eternal purpose: “for it is God who works in you both the willing and the working according to [his] good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13) So when a righteous man in Christ prays, he is fulfilling the eternal Purpose of God; by our prayers God does what He will do; He uses our prayers to His Glory like everything in the life of the righteous. We know that all humans are sinners, and only Jesus is Righteous, so God only hears the prayer of the one who seeks or has Christ’s Righteousness. That’s why the Lord Jesus said that we should pray in His Name. The Name of Jesus means all who He is. In other terms, when you say “in the Name of Jesus”, you are not using a magical expression that would make God listen to you whatever you “command” Him, but you are representing that you want only what the Will of God is in a particular matter, and that you are ready to submit to His Will even if it doesn’t please your flesh. When you come to God in prayer in the Name of Jesus, you are declaring that you ask only what Jesus would ask; you come as Jesus. That’s why the condition of an answered prayer is expressed by two expressions that mean the same thing: “in My name” (John 16:24; John 14:13, etc.) and “according to His will” (1 John 5:14). All true prayers should be done in Christ’s Name, i.e. according to God’s Will and Plan of Salvation. In other terms, prayer and the answer of prayer are included in God’s Plan of Salvation. If God were not Omnipotent or the God who SAVES, then no prayer would be answered, because an impotent god who cannot save and who is not Sovereign cannot answer prayers. Thus the Bible makes it clear that prayer should be addressed ONLY to God who can SAVE: “Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations. They have no knowledge that carry the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Declare and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath caused this to be heard from ancient time? [who] hath declared it long ago? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour, there is none besides me.” (Isaiah 45:20-21); “And with the remainder thereof he maketh a god, his graven image; he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me, for thou art my god.” (Isaiah 44:17).

It is very dangerous to use the Name of Jesus as a magical formula. That’s a disrespect to the Glorious Name. And because the judgment of God does not fall today on blasphemers immediately, many false prophets today use that blessed Name and claim to do miracles in that Name… Their condemnation is just.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Stephen continues:

Another item needs to be addressed in this chapter. There has been a lot of debate over the War in Heaven mentioned in Revelation 12. This one chapter in the middle of John’s Book of Prophecy is out of sequence with the rest of the text.

Out of sequence?? For whom? For a confused Mormon like you?? That chapter is in a perfect agreement with the whole of the Book of Revelation and with the whole Bible. Let’s see what is the problem of Mormons with that chapter…

Stephen continues:

A careful study reveals it as an overview of earth’s temporal history that started in Pre-Existence.

Now you want to convince me that Mormons can do a careful study of God’s Word?… What we have seen thus far proves the opposite…

Earth’s temporal history that started in pre-existence?? Is this Chinese?… How was there a history of the earth before existence? The earth did not exist then!…

Stephen continues:

It is what scholars call a parenthetical interpolation, an overview insertion placed in a text for clarification and as a point of reference of surrounding text.

Which text? Which interpolation?? What are you talking about?…

Stephen continues:

The woman mentioned at the beginning of Revelation 12 refers to the Kingdom of God.

Excuse me?… Which verse made you say this?? Did the Kingdom of God give birth to a male child who is Jesus Christ?…

Stephen continues:

Her “man child” would be the temporal version of the Kingdom, the Church.

Let us read that verse:

“And she brought forth a male son, who shall shepherd all the nations with an iron rod; and her child was caught up to God and to his throne.” (Revelation 12:5)

I wonder when the Church was caught up to God’s Throne… And I wonder how the Church is shepherding the nations with an iron rod… Stephen just interprets Scripture with his imaginations, as it seems… So let’s see who is this male Son who will shepherd all the nations with an iron rod and who was caught up to God:

The Son who will shepherd all the nations with an iron rod:
“And I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and one sitting on it, [called] Faithful and True, and he judges and makes war in righteousness. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head many diadems, having a name written which no one knows but himself; and [he is] clothed with a garment dipped in blood; and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which [are] in the heaven followed him upon white horses, clad in white, pure, fine linen. And out of his mouth goes a sharp [two-edged] sword, that with it he might smite the nations; and he shall shepherd them with an iron rod; and he treads the wine-press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” (Revelation 19:15) This passage clearly says that the one who will shepherd the nations with an iron rod is JESUS CHRIST, the Faithful and True (see Revelation 3:14), the one who has flame of fire eyes (see Revelation 1:14), the Word of God (see John 1:1).

The Son who was caught up to God:
“And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding [him], and a cloud received him out of their sight.” (Acts 1:9) So it’s Jesus who was taken up.
“For David has not ascended into the heavens, but he says himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I have put thine enemies [to be] the footstool of thy feet. Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:34-36) So it is Jesus who was taken up to the Throne of God and now sits at the right hand of God on His Throne: “I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

Have you read anything about any temporal version of the Kingdom, the Church?… So Stephen is hallucinating…

Stephen continues:

Many ECs believe it refers to Christ.

Yeah, how bad of them to believe what the Bible says, right?…

Stephen continues:

However, neither the Kingdom nor the Church gave birth to Christ.

Israel, the woman with 12 Tribes represented by those twelve stars on the head of the woman, gave birth to Jesus, and now Israel is the Church. We have seen the details about this truth in two main articles on this blog: “A woman shall encompass a man” – What does this mean? and The Assumption of Mary? From this latter article I will quote the concerned passage:

It is not new for John who wrote the Revelation to call a people by the symbol of a woman or a lady (cf. 2 John 1:1). And it is not new for God to call a people by the symbol of a woman! In the whole Old Testament, Israel as the people of God is the wife of God! Indeed, the people of God is described with the glory of the sun in Song 6:10 just like in Revelation 12:1: “Who is she that looketh forth as the dawn, Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, Terrible as troops with banners?” (Song 6:10) This woman of Revelation 12 has on her head a crown of 12 stars who are the twelve tribes of Israel according to Genesis 37:9-10 and Genesis 49:1-28: “And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamt another dream, and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me. And he told [it] to his father and to his brethren. And his father rebuked him, and said to him, What is this dream which thou hast dreamt? Shall we indeed come, I and thy mother and thy brethren, to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” (Genesis 37:9-10) This woman of Revelation 12 has the pain of childbirth, and this is indeed said to happen to the people of God: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man-child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Can a land be made to bring forth in one day? shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her sons. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith Jehovah; I who cause to bring forth, shall I shut [the womb]? saith thy God. Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn over her: because ye shall suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; because ye shall drink out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. For thus saith Jehovah: Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing torrent; and ye shall suck, ye shall be carried upon the side, and be dandled upon the knees. As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 66:7-13); “Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished, that pangs have seized thee as a woman in travail? Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail; for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon: there shalt thou be delivered; there Jehovah will redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.” (Micah 4:9-10). And of course, all this is not about the whole people of Israel, but about the remnant of Israel who are the real people of God and who are ONE people with the Church of Christ; thus the twelve stars on the head of this woman are symbols of the twelve Apostles of Christ who represent the twelve tribes of the remnant of Israel in unity with the Church. This one people is called “Jerusalem above”: “but the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break out and cry, thou that travailest not; because the children of the desolate are more numerous than [those] of her that has a husband.” (Galatians 4:26-27) It is indeed Jerusalem ABOVE, as Revelation 12 also pictures this woman as being in Heaven (cf. Ephesians 2:6, Revelation 21:2). Thus the people of God is both the mother of Christ through the remnant and the bride of Christ through the Apostles! For more details about this, please read our articles Who is the mother of believers? and “A woman shall encompass a man” – What does this mean? As you see, the passages quoted here in this paragraph contain details explained in Revelation 12, like the pains of childbirth and the going to the wilderness or to Babylon. In Revelation 12:4 the dragon wants to devour the newborn Child as soon as He is born, and this is indeed what happened when Jesus was born: Herod wanted to kill Jesus, so he murdered the babies of Bethlehem. On the occasion of this massacre of the babies of Bethlehem, God gives us an example of how this woman of Revelation 12 is in pains of childbirth, for the murder of babies was indeed a pain of Christ’s birth! On this occasion the woman is mentioned to have cried in this pain of childbirth: “A voice has been heard in Rama, weeping, and great lamentation: Rachel weeping [for] her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.” (Matthew 2:18) Rachel represented the people of God which gave birth to Christ.

Stephen continues:

On the contrary, He created them.

So what? If God created Israel so He can’t be incarnated from Israel? What kind of arguments is this?

Stephen continues:

Many ECs believe the War in Heaven, where Satan and the third of the hosts of Heaven were cast out “into the earth” is some future event, as it does not clarify the time of this event with its imperfect past, “there was war in heaven.”

This war has already happened, and the Lord Jesus has already overcome on the cross. It’s not difficult to know what this war was, because the very next verse tells us what it is and how the righteous rejoiced for the victory in that war: “And I heard a great voice in the heaven saying, Now is come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren has been cast out, who accused them before our God day and night” (Revelation 12:10) Don’t you know when our Salvation came? You don’t know when the Kingdom came with power?? You don’t know when the Millennial Kingdom of Christ began?? Well, all that happened before that generation passed away which was in the days of Jesus. For more information about this, you can read the following articles: This generation will not pass away until all these things take place; An introduction to last days prophecies.

Stephen continues:

However, this chronology is illogical, as Satan was already in the Garden of Eden to tempt our first parents.

What does this have to do with anything?? Do you think that the expression “cast out into the earth” means that Satan is now living on earth?? We have already seen that Satan and his angels are NOW in the heavenly places, and we have seen how Satan also stood before God in Heaven when Job was tempted. You need to read those parts carefully, because we have seen how wrong you are in this.

Stephen continues:

He was already an evil and rebellious spirit by that time.

Yes, so what??… What does this have to do with the war of Revelation 12?… Do you think Satan stopped his war against the Sovereignty of God after his original fall?… What kind of logic is this, Stephen?…

Stephen continues:

It would be ludicrous to believe he had power, after his rebellion, to come and go between Heaven and earth whenever he pleased.

Why? Is the spiritual realm limited by the physical universe that you see? Does Satan need to be in a certain place in order to be kept for always in the chains of darkness?? Is this how you understand biblical truths? “And angels who had not kept their own original state, but had abandoned their own dwelling, he keeps in eternal chains under gloomy darkness, to [the] judgment of [the] great day” (Jude 6) Does this mean that Satan’s angels are now tied in chains in a dark place and they can’t tempt people on earth? Does this not mean that they are forever doomed just in the same way they were forever overcome and thrown to earth when Christ died and rose?…

Your argument is silly, because after Eden Satan is seen many times in the heavenly realm, one of them in the time of Job, and the other one when there was debate about the body of Moses: “But Michael the archangel, when disputing with the devil he reasoned about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a railing judgment against [him], but said, [The] Lord rebuke thee.” (Jude 9) And even now, Satan and his angels are in the heavenly places: “because our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual [power] of wickedness in the heavenlies.” (Ephesians 6:12)

Stephen continues:

In response to the Seventy returning to report their success at casting out devils in Christ’s name, the Lord made this bold and unequivocal statement: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (Luke 10:17,18) This declaration of the Lord’s Divinity as God in Pre-Existence leaves no room for debate. Even 2,000 years ago, the fall of Satan was listed as a past event.

Yes, as I said above, Satan was thrown to earth, i.e. he was overcome, in the ministry of Jesus Christ. When the disciples came back and reported to Jesus how they exercised power on the powers of Satan, Jesus told them that truth that through His ministry Satan is overcome. Or else, why did He talk about that in a context where we see the disciples coming back and reporting to Him the powerful things God has done through them?

Later, in Ephesians 6:12, Paul tells us that Satan and his angels are in the heavenly places, so being thrown to the earth doesn’t mean something physical, i.e. it doesn’t mean that those angels fell from a place called Heaven to a place called earth, but they were overcome and thrown to earth in the spiritual realm, i.e. in the heavenly places (as an enemy falls to earth in a fight when you overcome him). Satan and his angels were overcome by the death and resurrection of our Lord. And Jesus saw that happening as His ministry was going on on earth, because at the same time when He was in flesh here on earth, He was also in the heavenly places, and He was seeing all what was happening in the spiritual realm as His ministry was going on. Job could not know what was going on in Heaven between Satan and God when he was tempted, but Jesus is God and could see all what was behind the scene.

Stephen continues:

Since there is no mention of the War in Heaven itself in the temporal history of the OT, by process of elimination, it was therefore a premortal event.

Since this war happened in the time when Jesus was on earth, so I don’t see what we have to eliminate in that process of elimination… Before existence Satan did not exist, so how could he make any war??

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 32 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

“Thus therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in the heavens, let thy name be sanctified” (Matthew 6:9)

"And he said, Abba, Father" (Mark 14:36)

This prayer is for those who know God as their Father in Christ, for those who have become the children of God by faith in Christ. Although all humans are the children of God by creation — and in this case “children” means “creatures”, — but not all of them are His children spiritually; only those who are born of God by faith in Christ are the spiritual children of God in Christ: “but as many as received him, to them gave he [the] right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God.” (John 1:12-13) Only these have the adoption in Christ, and only these will know how to call God “Abba” in the right way: “For ye have not received a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye have received a spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15); “But because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6) The unrighteous do not respect God as their Father in Christ, because they don’t know Him in that way; some of them are false Christians or mockers who go to some really unashamed extents of iniquity by disrespecting the Holiness of God and lowering Him to their level by interpreting “Abba” as “Daddy” in the wrong sense.

But does the word “Abba” really mean “Daddy”? In both of the verses which we saw above and where this word “Abba” is used, the word is immediately followed by its translation to Greek, and in both cases the translation is “Pateir”, which literally means “Father”. Yes, in Aramaic “Abba” — as used in these verses — means “Father” in the sense of “O Father” (i.e. we are calling Him). It is the same in Arabic (another Semitic language) where it would be “Abana” or “Abee”. Readers of the Bible are familiar with the name “Barabbas” which in Aramaic is “Bar abba“; it literally means “son of the father”. As you see, the word “abba” is used in this name, and this name certainly does not mean “son of daddy” (as the word “daddy” means today)… It is true that this word “abba” was used in the context of a Semitic Eastern emotional context and thus it expressed the familiar sense of the word “Father”, but at the same time that Semitic Eastern context gave this word the sense of honor and respect, as in that society the father was respected in the family, and his children honored him and used this term “Abba” in a respectful way. Even until today in many places children kiss the hand of their father and behave respectfully in his presence. So in that society, which is the biblical context, the word “Abba” expressed at the same time familiarity and respect. In the Bible, this respect is expressed by the verb “fear” in the filial sense. Thus God is our Father in Christ, therefore we fear Him in a filial way (i.e. we respect and honor Him as our Father). In fact, the English word “Father” itself previously used to mean both familiarity and respect. But in today’s definition, in many societies the word “Father” has lost its meaning of familiarity, and “Daddy” which has replaced “Father” has lost the respectful aspect of the word “Father”, especially in the Western societies. Centuries of wrong philosophy and psychology have brought humanity to a place where fatherly discipline is considered as a “non-civilized” way to educate our children, and where fathers should befriend their children and just give them enough “freedom”… The result is that disrespectful generations are growing up, and the words “Father” and “Daddy” are taking a new corrupted sense. Many people today want to interpret the biblical “Abba” with the word “Daddy” or “Pappa” in order to express this new corrupted sense in which only familiarity is meant and respect is rejected. In this new sense, the father has no real authority on his children, but he is just a man in the service of his children, ready to fill all their needs and to give them whatever they wish. Thus, concerning God, when some people today want to make “Abba” mean “Daddy”, they are in fact dishonoring God and they do not understand His Holiness, because they use about Him a term (“Daddy”) which has come to mean something very different than what the Lord Jesus and His Apostles meant when they used it in the Bible in that biblical context. In this new sense, God has become the cosmic Daddy who is in the service of humans to fill all their needs… This is a man-centered definition of the word “Abba”, yet this is not the biblical sense. Step by step, for many people God has become their servant… They command Him and they think they have sovereign authority over Him to the point that they think they have authority to give Him permissions… We recently received a comment on one of our articles where a Roman Catholic (who seems to be Charismatic) tells God that he gives Him absolute permission to move… Of course, he was copy/pasting from a Roman Catholic website, and here is how the source of his copied comment has put that prayer: “Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians become a reality, in Your way, we have absolute confidence that you can bring your people together, we give you absolute permission to move, Amen.” This author thinks he can give God permissions, while in fact it is God who is Sovereign and who commands and gives permissions…

It is not by chance that the Lord, when He was teaching us how to pray, added immediately after the “Our Father” the expression “who art in the heavens, let thy name be sanctified”. With this expression, the Lord made it clear that God should be respected as Holy and as the HEAVENLY Father who is Sovereign. God is in Heaven, and we are creatures on earth! God is in Heaven and He does whatever He wants, because He is Sovereign; this is what the Bible says exactly: “But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” (Psalm 115:3) John MacArthur explains this in a simple and deep way, so let’s read together what he says:

Now this I think comes after “Our Father,” because it’s a protection against something. Too much “Our Father,” too much Abba, too much Daddy turns into sentimentalism, and we drag God down and we make God into a nice kind of a, a buddy-buddy, and we’ve dope that in American Christianity to the point where it’s a real problem. People talk to God in such low level concepts and terms that they don’t really do justice to His hallowed name.We’ve got the Daddy part down pretty much, we think God is the big Daddy that we ought to approach and He’s going to give us everything. Listen the Jews were very aware of this and so was our Lord, that’s why after “Our Father,” Abba, He says, hallowed, holy, reverenced is Your name. Jews were conscious of this when a Jew called God Father he almost always immediately added another title after that to balance off his thinking. I read through some of the Jewish prayers this week and over and again I found this, 0 Lord, Father and Ruler of my life. 0 Lord, Father and God of my life. 0 Father, King of great power, Most High and Almighty God. In the Shemonēh‘esrahwhich is the eighteen prayers a Jew had to pray everyday this is the way they began every one of those prayers, 0 Father, 0 King, 0 Lord. In the ten penitential days at the time of the Day of Atonement the Jews prayed a thing called the Avinumalkaynuand when they prayed through this forty-four times they said this, Our Father, Our King, Our Father, Our King, Out Father, Our King, because they never wanted the concept of God as limited as theirs was of God as a Father to cause them to be sentimental about God who was also a majestic sovereign King. And so they guarded carefully the issue of sentimentalizing God. In First Peter 31:15 Peter says, “Sanctify the Lord God in your heart.” He uses the same word hagiazēn, reverence God, treat God as holy, treat God as separated, extraordinary, uncommon, worthy to be adored and praised and glorified. What is it to hallow? It is to set apart from everything common and profane, to esteem, to prize, to honor, to reverence, to adore as divinely and infinitely blessed the true and only God, an you cannot speak of God in earthy terms, you cannot drag God down to the street talk, God must have titles that are fitting for His power and His holiness. How easy it is in our lifetime to go through it saying, “Hallowed be thy name,” “Hallowed be thy name,” and have no idea what we’re even saying. The truth of such a petition is that God is to have the rightful priority place, my heart longingly seeks to have Him glorified, honored in every situation, every circumstance and every relationship. Jesus said, “Father, honor your name in me.” In John 12, that was His goal.

Source: The Priority of Prayer.

Of course, there are well-meaning Christians who try to explain the familiar side of the word by using the term “Daddy” in order to make their idea clear, but when you hear them pray, they always use the word “Father”, because it better expresses the original biblical sense of intimacy in a respectful way. God is Holy and He is not of our level. God is in Heaven (as Matthew 6:9 says), while we are on earth. God is our Father, but not in an earthly sense; He is not of our level; He is our Divine Father and we’re just humans (i.e. creatures). When we address Him, we should address Him in a filial respectful way, just as the Lord’s Apostles used to address Him with respect calling Him “Abba”. We see a representation of this filial respect in the Old Testament when a son addressed his father, especially in the case of the children of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) who sought the blessing of their father with a great respect.

Of course, as I said in the introduction, only those who are really born of God will know what “Abba” really means and will know how to address God with that term in the filial and most respectful way.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

Real success in Christ is not like the success that we find in the world. Ask anyone today: “Would you feel successful if you are beaten unjustly?”, and they will answer you: “No way! I will be successful only when I take revenge for that unjust act towards me, or at least when justice is re-established in any other way!” Yet, look what happened with the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: “and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” (Acts 5:40-41) The world is after self-esteem, while the Apostles preferred shame for Christ’s Name. The world would not rejoice in the distress of failure, but the Apostles rejoiced when persecuted for Christ’s sake. The world says those people are fools, because they rejoiced in the distress of failure, yet God says they are very successful, as that’s what the world did to all the prophets and righteous people before them: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12) “Blessed” practically means “happy”, and “exceeding glad” means being in feast!! The psalmist said: “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their wine increased.” (Psalm 4:7) Yes, the world rejoices with the visible unstable successes of life, because that’s where their hopes are built, but our hope of Glory is Christ Jesus (see Colossians 1:27)! The prophet Habakkuk, after the Lord taught him the lesson of true faith which looks to the real hope, said that he will rejoice in God even when everything fails and even if the normal things of life do not work in the right way! Look what he said: “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.“ (Habakkuk 3:17-18) No, Habakkuk was not insane; he had his hope rested in the right place. We also, just like Habakkuk, we should have our hope in the right Person, Jesus Christ. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:19) But no, we rejoice, because our hope in Christ is not only in this life: “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.” (Philippians 3:20-21) Worldly people do not understand this hope; they think in Heaven we will be “just praying and saying glory! glory! to God”… They don’t understand what they are talking about! After we were sinners, falling short of God’s Glory (see Romans 3:23), we now “rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” (Romans 5:2), now that we have been justified by faith (see Romans 5:1)!! After we were separated from God and we could not have any relationship with Him, oh and we were even unable to do anything to have that relationship fixed, “now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2)!! “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” (Galatians 4:7)!! THIS is the hope of glory that we have! We seek to glorify God in all our walk here on earth, as we shine His Holiness in the holiness of our lives which is by His Grace alone, and when we will see the Lord, we will be completely in that holiness, having finished our fight of faith and reached glory! We will have glorious bodies in conformity with the body of Christ’s Glory! We will be like Christ! We will see Him AS HE IS! We will be so unified with Him in all of the inheritance of God (the inheritance of Grace) that we will perfectly think like Jesus, feel like Jesus, see like Jesus, without any presence of that foe called sin! This is the true hope that the world cannot understand, therefore they can’t rejoice, for they are miserable in their earthly toys that give them pleasure for a time and then vanish, for “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2) The ambitions of the world all are vanity of vanities! Those Apostles who rejoiced and were exceedingly glad when beaten had their hope in the right place, as they followed in the steps of their Lord, “who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2) In the same verse (Hebrews 12:2) we are told to look on this Jesus and to imitate Him! The Apostles told us this again and again, because it is very essential in the Christian life: “For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1 Peter 2:19-24) The Apostle Peter is practically saying: the world sees it as a failure that Christ died, and yet His death was a big success, as by that suffering and death we were healed from sin; we have to follow in the steps of our Lord.

Yes, the most successful moment in the lives of the Apostles was when they gave their lives for Christ’s Name, something which the world considers a big failure! The Lord said we should rejoice when we are persecuted; the world would not rejoice in the distress of persecution, because they consider it a failure. In Christ, our troubles become a great way to success, because we have the coming glory before our eyes, and our hope cannot fail. It was given to us in Christ Jesus not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake; and that’s a great privilege, a great success! “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Philippians 1:29). In Christ alone, and not in any other ambition in life, death itself becomes a GAIN, a success: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21)

Of course, the world misunderstands us and misunderstands the Lord; when we talk about joy in Christ through the troubles and sufferings of life, they imagine that we seek troubles and suffering, and they call us masochists… Yes, the world always finds a psychological term to stick it on Christians in order to avoid the seriousness of their holy experience… But it is normal when the world does not understand us, for the world does not know us: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” (1 John 3:1) It is normal for a Turk who doesn’t know English to think an American is talking about something dirty when he says “peace”, because “pis” in Turkish means “dirty”… The Lord and His Apostles are not saying that we should seek troubles and sufferings; they are not saying that we should rejoice in suffering, but in the Lord! “Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I say, Rejoice.” (Philippians 4:4) We rejoice in the Lord when suffering comes. Note it well: he says that we should rejoice in the Lord always; so this includes also the times when we have peaceful conditions in the world, and not just suffering! Actually, some peaceful conditions may tempt us to rejoice in worldly conditions and in earthly ambitions! We should be careful not to put our hope in worldly ambitions and hopes, but to always rejoice in the Lord alone. Suffering will surely come, because “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12) When suffering comes, — and it is coming for sure — then we should rejoice in the Lord, because we know that He is in control and He is using that suffering to make us more Christlike, the thing to which we are predestined (see Romans 8:29). So no, we do not rejoice in suffering, we rejoice and delight in the Lord: “Delight thyself also in the LORD: and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.” (Psalm 37:4) To delight in the Lord is very different from delighting in suffering (or in any other condition of life) for the Lord’s sake. When we delight in the Lord, the Lord is the very Source of our happiness; while when we delight in suffering, then suffering is the source of our happiness. We are taught by God to delight in the Lord when we suffer, and not just bear suffering as a heavy burden only to please a sadistic god who wants to make us suffer. That’s not our God. When we say that we rejoice in suffering, we mean we rejoice during suffering in the Lord. But the world does not understand, of course.

And I remind the brethren, me included, that suffering does not always need to be a physical suffering or death. At the beginning of the passage that I quoted above where Peter said we should imitate Christ in suffering for the right cause, he does not talk only about persecution when we go in a mission to a far land; he says: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.” (1 Peter 2:18) And he goes on to explain how glorious it is to suffer unjustly, following in the steps of Christ. So the main topic there is domestic suffering. Some of the greatest sufferings and persecutions are met by Christians in their household, in their jobs or in their everyday relationships and friendships. Those sufferings may not be physical, but psychological and emotional. What we learn from Christ’s unjust suffering is that we glorify God and we shine His Holiness as we bear those sufferings patiently and we love the people who hurt us, rejoicing in the Lord always, knowing that the Lord uses those sufferings to make us more Christlike. We should not miss this very important point; I say this because we tend to think that suffering is only for missionaries who go to hostile areas… A right understanding of this truth has a great impact on our sanctification. In our everyday relationships, when we bear patiently an unjust suffering or an unjust accusation or any unjust act towards us, rejoicing in the Lord and hoping in His glory alone, then we will shine God’s Holiness, and God will be glorified in our lives, for this will show the glory of His Grace which has created this holy patience in us. And His Grace does not stop at that point of making us bear patiently the suffering inflicted on us by others, but makes us love those who make us suffer and do good to them at the very moment when they revile us and make us suffer unjustly. Actually, that’s what the above quoted passage of Peter says: when Christ was reviled by the very people for whom He was dying, He reviled not in return and did not threaten, but did the highest good for those who reviled Him by dying for their sins: “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1 Peter 2:22-24) Yes, when we were crucifying Him with our sins, He died for us! We should meditate on this in order to follow in His steps. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

The same truth applies to natural negative events and hard conditions of life that always cause stress to worldly people. Worldly people may manage those stressful conditions by avoiding them or by any other selfish way, while the child of God learns to pass through them with joy in the Lord, because he knows that God is in full control, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28) Yes, ALL THINGS, whatever those things are, work together by God’s control for good to the children of God. We know this by faith, although often we may not understand it by our heads. Paul, who wrote this verse in Romans 8, knew this lesson well by the Lord’s Grace. He was planning to go to Rome with joy while going to Spain: “Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. [...] That I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed.” (Romans 15:24, 32) Although his plan was to go as a free man to Rome and then to continue to Spain to preach the Gospel there, yet he entered Rome as a prisoner of Caesar. Preaching the Gospel in Spain was a great godly purpose, so one would ask why God has not allowed that, and thus he would lose his joy because of that change in outward conditions, especially that this may tempt us to doubt God’s total control on all circumstances (why would God not allow a good work like preaching the Gospel in Spain?…) But Paul did not doubt the Wisdom of God, and he knew God knew what He was doing, and thus the outwardly negative conditions did not make him lose his joy and peace and contentment, because his hope was not in outward conditions, but in Christ alone. And indeed, it was from his prison in Rome that he wrote his Epistle of joy and contentment, the Epistle to the Philippians where he said: “Rejoice in the Lord always: and again I say, Rejoice.” (Philippians 4:4) Again: “for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) When they were taking Paul to Rome as a prisoner of Caesar and they experienced hardship and shipwreck, Paul kept relying on the Lord, knowing that even the shipwreck is for his good, as God is in control of the conditions of nature also! The Lord can command the natural troubles (like waves of the sea) to stop and to be still! The waves of negative conditions cannot destroy the boat of our life, because the Lord Jesus is in it! Can a boat sink when the Lord Jesus is in it?? “And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.” (Mark 4:37-39) Whatever happens outwardly, our hope is beyond! “Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.” (Psalm 46:2-3) Indeed, as Paul wrote: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:35-39) Not just physical and/or emotional persecutions… not just any distress… not just any tribulation, not just hard material conditions… not just death… but ALSO life, and angels, and things present, and things to come, and any height or depth or anything whatsoever… all these cannot separate us from the love of God who loved us in Christ Jesus to the end with an eternal and undeserved love!

This is real success!

___

Stephen continues:

The next issue to address in the Plan of Salvation is the doctrine of diverse kingdoms.

Stephen addressed many false doctrines of his sect, but he still didn’t talk about Salvation, although his chapter is about the plan of Salvation… We still did not know from what we will be saved… On the contrary, Stephen kept telling us that we don’t need to be saved, because, as his arguments practically mean, we can save ourselves by our faithfulness… This is what all self-righteous people think about Salvation…

Let’s see now what are his diverse kingdoms…

Stephen continues:

Our understanding of this doctrine and who qualifies for which kingdom will be given in more detail in Chapter Seven.

Then it would be better to leave it for that chapter… But is it not important to know who qualifies, especially that we are in the chapter which is about Salvation?…

Stephen continues:

For now, we will look at the logic of their existence.

Existence of what? And which kind of logic? Human logic?…

Stephen continues:

We know David told the Lord, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; . . .” (Ps. 16:10)

In Sheol, not in Hell…

The Apostles told us that this is about Jesus, and not about David in himself: “for thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, nor wilt thou give thy gracious one to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me [the] paths of life, thou wilt fill me with joy with thy countenance. Brethren, let it be allowed to speak with freedom to you concerning the patriarch David, that he has both died and been buried, and his monument is amongst us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath, of the fruit of his loins to set upon his throne; he, seeing [it] before, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither has he been left in hades nor his flesh seen corruption.” (Acts 2:27-31) As you see, the Apostle said that this prophecy was not about David, as David has died and has seen corruption, but it was about Christ.

Stephen continues:

Since we know Sheol and Hades do not mean “the grave” or the final resting place of the wicked, we must understand David was not to be left there.

As Hades means the grave where all the dead are, so David is still there now as the Apostle told us clearly in the passage that I quoted above, while the Lord Jesus rose and His body did not see corruption like the body of David.

Stephen continues:

He was to be allowed to go somewhere else.

David’s body is still in that tomb, as Peter clearly said in Acts 2… his body didn’t go anywhere…

Stephen continues:

David had committed not only adultery, but he had taken the life of Uriah the Hittite to hide his sin. David would not be left in hell, but he would not inherit the Celestial Kingdom of God, as he had conspired to commit murder—premeditated murder.

David has received forgiveness from God and was justified by faith. David will be in Heaven with us forever and ever.

But I remind you again: the verse from Psalms that you quoted is not about David. Have you built your whole argument on a misunderstanding of that verse?…

Stephen continues:

So, if he did not inherit the Kingdom of God and would not be left in “hell,” where would he go?

He will inherit the Kingdom of God with us. Nowhere in the Bible it is said that adultery and murder are the unforgivable sins…

Stephen continues:

After he had explained to the saints at Corinth, “all would be made alive,” Paul said, “But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1 Cor. 15:23) As already discussed, Paul went on to explain how there are “celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial,” and how they differ in glory. He even gave as comparison the differences in glory between the sun, the moon, and the stars and how the stars themselves differ in glory one from another. Then he said, “So also is the resurrection of the dead.” (1 Cor. 15:40-54)

Yes, there is an order: Christ first, and THEN those who belong to Him. The dead in Christ have not risen yet.

And yes, the resurrection of the dead happens in risen bodies that are different from our present weak bodies, just as stars differ in brightness or glory. This has been explained in details before. So what does this have to do with any kingdoms?…

Stephen continues:

If you have a problem grasping the concept of different kingdoms and various degrees of glory, ask yourself the following question: Would God be a just God if he took the unrepentant who knew the Gospel and had committed atrocious crimes such as murder, rape, and or child molestation, and grouped them together with those who had never even heard of Jesus Christ and had committed such minor offenses as petit theft or simply coveting a neighbor’s property without ever having actually stolen it?

Yes, it is just, because God does not look to some committed sins, but to the nature. All those sins are the fruits of a fallen and sinful nature. No sinful nature will enter Heaven, and all sinful people deserve eternal Hell. If you have even ONE sin, you deserve the fires of Hell forever, because the wages of sin, any sin, is eternal death, i.e. eternal separation from God in Hell.

Readers, note how Stephen thinks some sins are not so serious for God… That’s his unholy god of whom he has been talking to us all the time…

Stephen continues:

When Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth, he knew they had a basic understanding of the Gospel. He did not have to go into depth about the different kingdoms and what types of people would inherit them. They were already familiar with that doctrine. If you want a more in depth look at the degrees of glory in Heaven and who goes where, I invite you to read the seventy-sixth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the section discussed in Chapter Seven.

What different kingdoms?? What glories for sinners?… Anyway, we answer you when we get to your chapter seven, if the Lord wills and we live.

Stephen continues:

So, the less-righteous and even the wicked will be resurrected in their own order.

There is nothing called less-righteous; you either are righteous or unrighteous. And yes, the unrighteous also will rise, but for eternal judgment, as we have seen.

Stephen continues:

We learn from John the Revelator in chapters 20 and 21 of the Revelation,

You’re in error: John is not the Revelator, but Christ is: “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John” (Revelation 1:1). John is the bondman who received the revelation; he’s not the revelator…

Stephen said:

We learn from John the Revelator in chapters 20 and 21 of the Revelation, the Second Resurrection comes at the end of Christ’s millennial reign.

Second Resurrection?? Show us where you read this?! I know about the first resurrection which is not the resurrection of bodies, but of souls: “and the souls of those beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the word of God; and those who had not done homage to the beast nor to his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and hand; and they lived and reigned with the Christ a thousand years: the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed. This [is] the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:4-5) So tell me where you read about two different bodily resurrections…

Stephen continues:

Those who then will be resurrected will taste of “the second death,” the spiritual death—the cutting off of the wicked from the presence of the Lord.

Not all of those who will rise will go to eternal Hell. We have seen that the righteous will rise to eternal life.

But it’s good that you finally admitted that the cutting off, the destruction, means spiritual death, and not just some misery as you previously said…

Stephen continues:

Getting back to David, we need to reason out of the Scriptures to understand how, although David’s soul would not be left in Hell, the Prison of the Spirit World, he would not partake of the First Resurrection.

We have seen how it is Christ who would not be left in Hades, the place of the dead, and we have seen how the sin of David was forgiven and was not the unforgivable sin. I wonder where you read that David will not partake of the first resurrection…

Stephen continues:

While explaining the guilt of the Jews in crucifying their Lord, Peter referred to David, the prophet, “For David speaketh concerning him (Jesus), I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . . David . . . is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. . . . For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.” (Acts 2: 25-35) So, as of Peter’s dissertation, David had not been resurrected.

NO ONE other than Jesus has been resurrected yet; the resurrection did not happen yet. So did you discover something special, Stephen??

Stephen continues:

We know from Matthew 27:52 and 53, many saints were resurrected after the Savior came forth.

Yes, just as Lazarus was resurrected before. But they all died again, just as Lazarus died again, so that was not the final resurrection. The resurrection of the dead did not happen yet. Stephen is teaching a wrong doctrine that the Apostle Paul has already condemned: “[men] who as to the truth have gone astray, saying that the resurrection has taken place already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:18)

Note also that many of the saints rose, but NOT all of them, so not all the saints of the Old Testament were supposed to rise. Those who rose were just a revelation from God that in Christ we have life.

Stephen continues:

However, David was not.

And Solomon also did not rise… And Daniel also did not rise… And Jeremiah also did not rise… And Noah also did not rise… And Abraham also did not rise… SO WHAT?? What does this prove?…

Stephen continues:

But his soul will not be left in Hell.

As you yourself quoted, that was about the Lord Jesus, and the word is not Hell but Hades…

Stephen continues:

Once he has served his time for Conspiracy to Commit Premeditated Murder and for First Degree Murder, both capital offenses under sections 182 and 187 of the California Penal Code, the Atonement of Christ will redeem him to a glory above Hell.

What does the California Penal Code have to do with God’s Justice?… We have seen that redemption is NOT by our works, but by the pure Grace of Christ. So David’s sin was forgiven when he confessed it. Have you read Psalm 51?… If his sin was not forgiven, he would go to Hell forever, because there is no forgiveness after death, as we have seen, because there is no faith after death.

The glory in which David is is in the presence of the Lord, not less.

Stephen continues:

And only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can explain David’s predicament and redemption from Hell to the satisfaction of both Justice and Mercy.

Only the cult of Mormonism could say such silly things as the ones we read above…

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 31 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” (Romans 7:18)

The flesh in the believer is one of the most misunderstood facts. Why do we still sin when we are not in the flesh anymore but in the Spirit? What’s the difference between a saved person and the unrighteous who lives in sin? Can the believer please God?… So this is a subject directly related to the truth of the new birth and of the new life. We have on this weblog some very interesting articles that study this very important topic: 1. A true Christian is a saint — Perfection in Christ; 2. Blameless in Christ… not legalists…; 3. The relation between justification and sanctification.

I have noticed that 100% of those who have heretical teachings about Salvation do not know what the flesh is… They either think Paul was talking in Romans 7:7-25 about his Christian walk (they present Paul as a person who couldn’t do anything good), or they think he was not talking about his present experience at all, but about his experience before Salvation. Both sides are in error: Paul walked in righteousness in Christ, and yet he was always a sinner in himself, as we will now see.

So those who misunderstand what the flesh is mainly misunderstand Romans 7. They don’t know who Paul is talking about there…

Romans 7:7-9 — “What shall we say then? [is] the law sin? Far be the thought. But I had not known sin, unless by law: for I had not had conscience also of lust unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust; but sin, getting a point of attack by the commandment, wrought in me every lust; for without law sin [was] dead. But I was alive without law once; but the commandment having come, sin revived, but I died.”

WHEN was Paul alive apart from the Law?? Have you ever thought of this?… Well, he’s not talking about Paul…. he’s talking about man as man, every man… He’s practically saying: “I as man… Paul as a human would not be dead in sins practically if it were not the Law of God that said it’s a sin”.

Romans 7:10-15 — “And the commandment, which [was] for life, was found, [as] to me, itself [to be] unto death: for sin, getting a point of attack by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me]. So that the law indeed [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Did then that which is good become death to me? Far be the thought. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death to me by that which is good; in order that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am fleshly, sold under sin. For that which I do, I do not own: for not what I will, this I do; but what I hate, this I practise.”

Until this verse, people have no problem to say that Paul was talking about himself before his conversion… For he says that he is fleshly… But now he says that he has a good will and that the sin which he practices is what he hates… So now those same people say: “No, now Paul began to talk about himself after conversion, because only a converted person can have such a good will and can hate sin truly”… Indeed, only a regenerated person really hates sin and wills what is good. But did Paul suddenly pass from talking about himself before conversion to talking about himself after conversion??… Where is the transition?… No, Paul is talking about man as man, the flesh, the human nature as it is, the fallen humanness, whether it is in the unbeliever as his nature or in the true believer.

Romans 7:16-18 — “But if what I do not will, this I practise, I consent to the law that [it is] right. Now then [it is] no longer I [that] do it, but the sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell: for to will is there with me, but to do right [I find] not.”

In other words, he’s saying: “Even if I am a believer and I like to do God’s Will, I will not be able, because sin dwells in me, i.e. in my flesh, that’s why I needed to be set free. Even a believer cannot please God by the flesh. I as a human, even I as a believer, I do not have anything good in my self.” How to be set free? By the new birth.

Romans 7:24-25 — “O wretched man that I [am]! who shall deliver me out of this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law; but with the flesh sin’s law.”

In this last verse, “mind” means the new nature, my inner being, the heart, the new nature in Christ, while “flesh” means the old nature, the fallen humanness. As a regenerated believer, with my mind I serve (present continuous) the Law of God which is holy, and with the flesh I serve (present continuous) the law of sin, i.e. the principle of sin.

The flesh IS serving the principle of sin. Even now that I am a believer, it is not my flesh that has changed and that has begun to serve God. My flesh IS (now) serving the principle of sin… Present tense… Present continuous… So when we’re in Jesus Christ, the flesh has NOT changed its nature… It still serves the law of sin…

But guess what…

Romans 8:2 — “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death.”

So we’re dead to the flesh… We’re separated from the flesh. We’re totally separated from the flesh, and thus we are set free by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Read more about this in our article What is the law of Christ?

The one who is in Christ Jesus does not have two natures; he is totally a new creature: “So if any one [be] in Christ, [there is] a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold all things have become new“ (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Yes, the old nature exists, but that’s not his nature anymore, because he is separated from it in Christ Jesus. The flesh is still there… It’s not changed… It’s not changing to the better, but it is still serving the law of sin. It’s getting worse with the whole humanity going from bad to worse… But we’re separated from it, totally separated from it in Christ. That’s what happened in new birth.

We are now saints.

So the passage of Romans 7:7-25 is very clear if we have read and understood the previous chapters in the Epistle to the Romans, and if we understood why Paul introduced the freedom of chapter 8 by the slavery of chapter 7: in Romans 7:7-25, Paul is speaking in the first person singular as a representative of humanity, and he’s talking about the human nature in general. Paul says that the human nature is fallen (the fallen humanness = the flesh = the sinful nature), so no human can please God in the flesh even if he tries to, and even if he knows in himself that he should obey God’s Law. And this is not only true for unbelievers; this is also true for believers, because the believers also cannot please God in the flesh. So what Paul is practically saying is this: if the unbeliever tries to please God, he will fail, because those who are in the flesh cannot please God (and he details this more in Romans 8), and the believer cannot please God by keeping the Law, so he should have died to the Law and to the flesh (note: death = separation); he details this more in Romans 8. If you read his conclusion at the end of Romans 7, he says that with his mind (mind = the new nature, the whole new inner being) he serves the Law of God, as the new nature fulfills the Law (he explains this more in Romans 8 where he says that we fulfill the Law by the Spirit and not by the flesh), and that with his flesh (i.e. the fallen nature) he serves the law of sin, i.e. the fallen humanness is still present and is still fully sinful, but the Christian is separated from it (dead to it). The principle that governs the flesh is called the law of sin and death; the principle that governs the believer is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (detailed in chapter 8). The simple conclusion that many do not realize is: when I was born again, the flesh did not change and did not become a new nature; when I was born again God gave me a new nature totally different from the flesh and has separated me from that old nature. So if a Christian is still fleshly by nature, then he is still dead in his sins and he is not born of God.

Romans 7 should be read after reading and understanding the previous chapters in Romans, otherwise it will not be clear.

For more details about this topic, please read the following VERY IMPORTANT articles:

A true Christian is a saint — Perfection in Christ

Blameless in Christ… not legalists…

The relation between justification and sanctification

What is the law of Christ?

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ