The Muddy Waters of the “Emerging Church”

Kevin Cauley

In August of 1991 my wife and I visited Vicksburg, Mississippi on our honeymoon.  One sight we could not miss was the Mississippi River.  The United States Geological Service estimates that approximately 373 billion gallons of water flow by Vicksburg every day.  That water comes from the thousands of lakes, rivers, streams, and creeks that flow into it creating the river’s distinctively muddy character.

Christians today live in a world that, not unlike the muddy Mississippi, is influenced by multiple streams of ideas, thoughts, and philosophies.  This period has been characterized as postmodern because of its anti-rational thinking and its complete acceptance of any and all ideas regardless of how ridiculous they may seem.  This is illustrated for us in the chorus of a Charlie Daniels’ song entitled, “Muddy Mississippi.”  “Everybody is alright / Ain’t nobody uptight / Dancing in the moonlight / Muddy Mississippi roll on.”

It should not surprise us that some are placing a special emphasis upon taking the gospel to the postmodern world.  This effort is known as the “Emerging Church.”  It is a pan-denominational effort to engage the postmodern world around us with the gospel, but with a subtle twist.  The “Emerging Church” wants to do this with the acceptance of postmodern presuppositions.

“Emerging Church” adherents do not believe that we ought to characterize the message of the gospel as either true or false.  This, they claim, buys into a failed system of knowledge.  Instead, they seek to engage the postmodern culture “non-confrontationally.”  This entails that we simply sit down to have a “conversation” about things; no one is right or wrong; no one is exhorted to give up false doctrine and embrace truth.  All ideas and philosophies are equally legitimized and somehow the postmodern culture is evangelized.

It reminds me of the 1990 movie “Pretty Woman,” in which a rich businessman hires a prostitute to act as his escort.  During the course of their relationship, the businessman ends up realizing that there is more to life than money; the prostitute ends up leaving her life of sex for money.  Both are somehow redeemed from their formerly wasted lives without condemning or being condemned.

In that regard, the “Emerging Church” movement is analogous to evangelizing a prostitute by fornicating with her.  While that seems harsh, some in this movement would accept that analogy as an accurate characterization.  The only “evils” in society are defined as things that cause human suffering and Christianity is simply equated with an effort to solve social problems such as hunger, homelessness, and racism.

Some Christians have even been caught up in this kind of thinking.  They need to be reminded that Jesus didn’t die for the philosophies of men, but for man’s salvation from the philosophies of men (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).  Jesus proclaimed His message as “truth” (John 8:32) and severely chastised those who did not believe it (John 8:44-45).

The disciples confessed Jesus as the one that they knew and believed to be the Holy One of God (John 6:69).  They died willing to confront a similarly pluralistic culture with the absolute truth that Jesus was the way and the gospel was the truth.  If we, as Christians, are unwilling to stand up for the absolute truth of the resurrection of Jesus, then we’ve been evangelized instead of evangelizing.

The muddy waters of the Mississippi are broad and deep, but it is impossible to see anything clearly when surrounded by them.  If we surrender truth to engage the postmodern world with Christianity, we’ve surrendered the whole war.  Let us not seek to be conformed to the world, but transformed out of it (Romans 12:1-2).

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Muddy Waters of the “Emerging Church”

“Altered States”

Kevin Cauley

In 1980 a movie called “Altered States” came out in which a University Professor of Abnormal Psychology sought to explore whether “our other states of consciousness are as real as our waking states.”  In this movie, the professor conducted bizarre experiments with drugs and isolation chambers in order to explore his hypothesis.  The fictional movie portrayed the professor as being able to physically change into other states of existence while conducting these experiments, purportedly to get in touch with “ultimate reality.” [1] The movie buys into the philosophical viewpoint that one’s personal experiences while in altered states of consciousness are no less real than the world experienced under normal, empirical conditions.[2]

In a recent conversation, it was reported that the Bible was a roadmap for normal reality, but that for other realities brought on by altered states of consciousness, other road maps needed to be followed.[3] The statement itself implies that the Bible makes no mention of such altered states or realities, and that it is not intended to address existence in such places.[4] It would, moreover, imply that God has not revealed anything to us regarding such realities in the Bible, thus cutting off the Bible as a potential source of information regarding the existence of such places.  Outside of revelation, then, we must examine the potential existence of such realities in terms of the evidence that presents itself to us outside of Scripture.  So, in looking to examine the claim that other road maps are necessary for alternative realities, how should we proceed?

One way would be to talk to the individuals who claim to have experienced such alternative realities.  This would inevitably lead to a series of conversations in which individuals who have had such experiences verbally explain or describe such “realities” in terms that we can understand.  However, the only terms we can understand are terms related to this reality.  Hence, it would be impossible to describe these alternative realities.  This makes talking to individuals regarding their experiences with these alternative realities a dead end.  We could never get a sufficient description in terms that we could understand.  To such an incommunicable state, mystical religions agree.  William James wrote, “…the absence of definite sensible images is positively insisted on by the mystical authorities in all religions as the sine quo non of a successful orison, or contemplation of the higher divine truths.”[5]

Another way to examine these claims would be to try to experience the alternative reality ourselves.  These altered states of consciousness are purportedly brought on through drug use. Others claim to have had such experiences through intense meditation or as a result of physical trauma.[6] Supposing, however, that we were able to enter one of these altered states of consciousness through one of these methods, we would still be left with a vexing problem.  What is there to connect the “reality” that we experience to the “reality” that anyone else has experienced?  We run into the same problem as above, namely, that we could never sufficiently describe our experience of this alternative reality to another in a meaningful way, even if this other person has experienced it as well.  There is no accurate and meaningful terminology to employ.  Thus we would never be able to objectively confirm (through independent sources) that we have indeed experienced an alternative reality.  This places the entire claim into the realm of the subjective which makes such experiences amusing at best, but falls far short of demonstrating an alternate reality’s true existence.

There is not sufficient evidence in either of these methods of inquiry to conclude that anything objective can be observed regarding these alternative realities.  If we are truly speaking of an alternate reality, then it could never sufficiently be described in terms we could understand through the reality we know.  That makes it impossible for someone else who has experienced this alleged reality to communicate it to us, and it makes it impossible to sit down, experience the reality, and communicate it to another.  It cuts one off from objective confirmation of the claimed alternative reality.  The only conclusion left to us, if we are going to be rational, is that these alleged realities are simply subjective states of consciousness brought on by an individual abnormally manipulating his senses to induce wholly subjective experiences.  In other words, there is no “alternate reality” at all; it is, proverbially speaking, “all in their mind.” [7]

Stepping outside of the previous line of thought, we should now consider whether there are any principles taught within Scripture or that we know to be true from correct reasoning that would exclude the existence of these alternative realities.

First, the God of the Bible is set forth to be the God of reality, period; He is not simply the God of “this” reality.  Isaiah declares God to be the one who inhabits “eternity” (Isaiah 57:15) and not simply the god of a particular limited existence.  If God is indeed infinite, as the Bible declares Him to be (Psalm 147:5), then there is no place where man can go, objectively or subjectively, and God not be there.  Paul told the Athenians in Acts 17:28, “For in him we live and move and have our being.”  In other words, our being, our existence, is wholly contingent on God wherever our experiences (objective, subjective, or otherwise) might take us.  There is no “reality” that we can experience where God is not; He is, to coin a word, pan-existential.

Second, the Bible implicitly declares the reality that exists to be dualistic.  This is the concept that there is only one reality, but that it is composed of two fundamentally different realms that are connected together.  In philosophy, Plato first suggested this idea with his description of the physical world having its ultimate explanation in the world of forms, a metaphysical realm.[8] This is also, in essence, what the Bible declares.  Genesis 1:1 implicitly sets this forth when we read of God, with no physical stuff in existence, creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing, ex nihilo, as it were (Hebrews 11:3).[9] Moreover, consider 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1:

For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.  For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.  For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Paul sets up a dichotomy of thought in these verses.  Consider the following contrasts:

  • The outward man vs. the inward man.
  • Light affliction of the moment vs. the eternal weight of glory.
  • Things which are seen vs. things which are not seen.
  • Temporal vs. the eternal.
  • The earthly house vs. the heavenly house.

All of these contrasts lead us to the conclusion that reality is fundamentally dualistic and that the spiritual, not the physical, is the ultimately real place.

When we come to God’s existence as well, we find that God is not a physical Being, but a metaphysical/spiritual One.  We conclude that the physical is not the fundamental essence of reality, but the spiritual, because it is from spiritual power that the physical was created and came into being (Genesis 1:1).  Alternate realities, such as those suggested in the movie “Altered States,” posit something fundamentally different from the Bible’s picture of true existence.  The movie, along with those who posit such “realities,” suggest(s) that somehow the physical is simply another aspect of the spiritual, thus confusing the two concepts all together.[10] However, the Bible makes a clear cut distinction between the two, though it does not preclude their interaction.

Finally, let us appeal to the foundation of rationality itself, the principle of non-contradiction.  This principle states that a thing cannot be itself and not itself at the same time and in the same sense.  For statements, a precisely stated proposition cannot be both true and false.[11] This principle is self- evident.  When we come to an object, whether it is a rock, tree, house, or whatever, we immediately realize that it cannot be both itself and not itself.   Its identity makes it what it is.  This law is not merely true for the physical realm, but for the spiritual as well.  It is a law that covers anything that exists – a law of thought, and hence, a fundamentally spiritual phenomena.[12] By virtue of its being such, that places it in both the spiritual (metaphysical) and the physical realms.

God is a rational God.[13] When we, as God’s creation, seek to be rational, then we must exclude any alternate states of reality as nothing more than subjective manipulation of one’s sense experience.  One might reply that if we exclude sense experience, regardless of how distorted it might be as an avenue from determining what reality is, then we have in essence excluded all reality together.  But this presupposes an empirical epistemology.  It is not with our sense experience alone that we come to conclusions about reality, but rather, the combination of sense experience with the ability that we have to make appropriate discernments based upon the law of non-contradiction and other such fundamental laws of thought.  In fact, it is the law of non-contradiction that makes it possible for us to discern between one particular item experienced and another, whether by vision, hearing, smelling, touching, or tasting.  A thing cannot be both itself and not itself.  Of this we are cognizant a priori.  That is the basic rule of discernment that we bring to the table of our experience of reality whether that reality is physical, spiritual, or even some subjectively posited alternate reality.  We simply cannot escape using this principle to filter our experience and, if we cannot escape it, then we require evidence based upon it to prove the existence of any suggested realities.

In conclusion, so long as man’s thinking continues to be based upon the law of non-contradiction, and God’s existence continues to be infinite and eternal, we cannot accept the premise that the Bible is only a roadmap for one reality among many.  Instead, we explicitly affirm the Bible to be the roadmap for all reality.

[1] Altered States. Dir. Ken Russell, Warner Bros. Pictures production. Burbank, CA: Warner Brothers, 1980, video recording.

[2] Perhaps similar to the thought of Artaud, Antonin, The Theater and Its Double, (Grove Press: New York, 1958).

[3] Presumably the motivation behind this statement is to suggest that one need not follow the Bible if one has learned to transcend this reality.

[4] One wonders if such a statement implies that one ought to explore these realities before coming to conclusions regarding the correctness of the Bible.

[5] James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, (Penguin Classics: London, 1982) p.54.

[6] Leary, Timothy F. et. al., The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, (Citadel Press: New York, 1995) p. 11.  It is even suggested that dreaming may be considered an alternative reality.

[7] In this regard, I would agree with Paul Kurtz when he says, “Appeals to mystical experiences or private subjective states hardly suffice as evidential support that some external being or force caused such altered states of consciousness; skeptical inquirers have a legitimate basis for doubt, unless or until such claims of interior experience can somehow be independently corroborated.”  Kurtz, Paul. Why I am a Skeptic about Religious Claims. May 23rd, 2008. <http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=pkurtz_26_4&section=library>

[8] Hamilton, Edith, Ed., The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1989) pp747-750..

[9] See also 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Torchia, N. Joseph, Creatio ex nihilo and the Theology of St. Augustine: The Anti-Manichaean Polemic and Beyond (Peter Lang Publishing: Bern, 1999).  Augustine’s concept of ex nihilo was polemic in response to the Manichean view of the physical world being an emanation of God.  Hence, the world (perceivable reality) was not distinct from God in this theology.  If, however, creation is ex nihilo, reality becomes fundamentally dualistic for the thing created stands in stark distinction to the creator, exactly opposite of the Manicheans contention.

[10] Not very different from the Manichean view and others.  See Tart, Charles T. ed., Altered States of Consciousness: A Book of Readings (Wiley: Hoboken, 1969).

[11] Sproul, R.C., The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped our World (Crossway Books: Wheaton, 2000) p.41-43.

[12]Aristotle, Metaphysics IV Section 4.  Ross, W.D. Trans, (University of Adelaide: Adelaide, 2007).  Available online at <http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/metaphysics/index.html>.

[13] See Isaiah 1:18, Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Acts 24:25.  See also Moreland, J.P. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove, 2003) p.606-607.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “Altered States”

Singing With the Instrument in the Name of the Lord

Christians have a divine obligation to use instrumental music in worship! Many people today use pianos, guitars, and other similar instruments in their worship. This is NOT the kind of instrument of which I am speaking. But the Bible does teach us to use an instrument to accompany our singing in worship to God. In Ephesians 5:19 we read, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Notice the phrase “in your heart” in this passage. The instrument upon which God expects the Christian to “play” is the heart. Colossians 3:16 states this principle in similar words, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” In both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 instrumental accompaniment is commanded. Singing is to be accompanied with a specific instrument, namely, the heart. Please note that when God specifies something, we must respect God’s instructions.  We refer to this as specific authority.  Let’s look at several Bible examples that illustrate this principle.

One great example where God specifies the use of a particular item is Noah and the ark. If we look back at Genesis 6:14, God tells Noah, “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch.” We don’t know what gopher wood was, but Noah knew! God specified this type of wood for a reason and Noah was expected to respect God’s specific instructions in that regard. In Genesis 6:22, “Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.” Noah built the ark out of gopher wood because God told him to do it that way and was saved from the flood.

Another great example of specific authority is found in Exodus 12, where God gives Moses specific instructions for how to avoid the tenth plague-the death of the firstborn. Part of the instructions was to kill a lamb, take the blood and put it on the doorposts and lintel with a bunch of hyssop twigs (Exodus 12:7, 22). The Bible says that when God saw the blood, He would pass over the house and spare the firstborn. God specified a lamb’s blood. Those who followed God’s specific instructions were spared the life of their firstborn. Those who used anything but the blood of a lamb lost their firstborn that night.

We read of a man named Naaman in 2 Kings chapter 5. Naaman had leprosy, a deadly disease, but through the prophet Elisha, God gave Naaman the opportunity to be healed. God gave Naaman a specific condition. Naaman had to immerse himself in the Jordan River seven times. Naaman was angry because he didn’t want to get into that nasty, muddy, dirty Jordan River, but God had specified THAT River. Naaman wanted to go back to his homeland and immerse himself in one of the rivers of Damascus. He said, “Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage” (2 Kings 5:12). But those rivers could not have cleansed him. Only after washing seven times in the Jordan did Naaman’s leprosy go away.

As a last example, many in the religious world today observe the Lord’s Supper. Paul tells us that this holy meal is to be observed in remembrance of the death of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:24). Both Jesus body and His blood are represented in this supper. No doubt everyone in the religious world who observes the Lord’s Supper can tell you the elements used within it. These elements are the bread and the fruit of the vine. These things were specifically mentioned by Jesus as items that were to be used to in this supper (Matthew 26:26-29). Now ask one who observes this religious practice if Jesus would be happy if we substituted a McDonald’s hamburger for the bread and Coca Cola for the fruit of the vine. The predominant response you would receive would be, “Of course not. Jesus said to use bread and fruit of the vine and that settles that.” To which we reply, Amen.

In each of these Bible examples God specified something and those who wanted to receive the blessings of God were expected to do as God had specified. Noah was to build the ark of gopher wood because that was what God specified. Moses was to use the blood of a lamb because that was what God specified. Naaman was to immerse himself seven times in the Jordan River because that is what God specified. Christians are expected to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper because that is what God specifies. In each of these instances to abandon, substitute, or add something different for what God specified would be to ignore the specific authority of God. Noah’s ark would have sunk. Moses would have lost his firstborn son. Naaman would have died of leprousy. Christians would have observed “in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:29). The principle in each of these examples is the same. When God specifies how He wants something done, we must do it the way God says to do it without deletion, substitution, or addition.

Let me refine my question in the title of this article. What instrument should the Christian use to worship God in song? God has specified the heart as the instrument the Christian is to accompany song in worship to Him. If we delete the heart, substitute some other instrument for the heart or add some other instrument to the heart, then we worship in vain. Should we accompany our worship to God in song with any other instrument of music than the heart? No, we should not. To do such would be to abandon the blessings that God says we have through worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Our worship to God must be done as God has specified, in His name. To worship God in any other way than the way God has specified is to place our own righteousness above the righteousness of God. Let us humbly submit to God’s will in our songs of worship.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Singing With the Instrument in the Name of the Lord

Finding Faith in Moses, the Man of God

Kevin Cauley

One can hardly begin thinking about the relationship of faith and Moses without considering the inspired penman’s comments in Hebrews 11:23-28.

By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.  By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;  Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;  Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.  By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.  Through faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

We learn from this passage that Moses’ faith began with his parents who defied Pharaoh’s command.  That same defiance cropped up in Moses’ own life as he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter and when he finally forsook Egypt.  These things were not done for defiance sake, however, as the inspired penman tells us.  Moses did these things looking to “the recompense of the reward” and “as seeing him who is invisible.”  Moses was defiant toward Egypt because he believed in something greater than what Egypt had to offer; He believed in the existence of and the promises of God.

Nevertheless, Moses faith wasn’t always perfect.  We find, in fact, there were several occasions when his faith wavered.  We wonder where his faith went when we witness his flight after the Israelites rejected him as their leader (Acts 7:23-29).  We ponder how he could, in the presence of God, doubt himself even as God promises to be with him (Exodus 4:10-17).  We pause when we see his noble visage wrinkled with anger at the children of Israel and in disobedience strikes the rock to which God had simply said speak (Numbers 20:1-13).  Despite these failings, Moses legacy is one of faithfulness.  Let’s notice a few things in that regard.

First, Moses faith was a faith that faltered.  We mentioned some of the times when Moses faith was less than stellar.  He had times in his life when he gave up, had self doubt, and even deliberately disobeyed God.  Regardless, with God’s encouragement, Moses found ways to return to the Lord.  In Psalm 90, perhaps after the return of the 12 spies from the land of Canaan and God’s wrath with the disappointing report they brought, Moses prayed, “Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations” (Psalm 90:1).  Moses realized that even in times when our faith falters, that it is only to the Lord that we can turn for ultimate comfort and refuge.  So he says, “Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants” (Psalm 90:13).  Yes, on occasion Moses’ faith faltered, but he always came back to God when he realized his wrong.  We need to let the true spirit of penitence characterize our faith as well.

Second, Moses faith followed.  From the time that God called Moses to bring His people out of the land of Egypt to the time that Moses’ foot set down on top of mount Pisgah, he followed the Lord.  We remember many of the trials Moses had to endure: the mocking of Pharaoh’s magicians; the rejection of his message by Pharaoh; the complaints of the Hebrew people; the creation of the golden calf by Aaron; the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; the final lack of faith demonstrated by the 10 spies.  In each of these times, Moses could have easily given up and thrown in the towel.  Indeed at one point God Himself told Moses to just abandon the children of Israel and let Him make a nation from Moses Himself (Exodus 32:9-10).  It was in precisely these times that Moses faith shined more brightly than ever when he dedicated Himself to following the path that God had laid out before Him.  Under extreme trial, temptation, and trouble Moses’ faith came shining through like a beacon of hope among the fog of despair.  What a tremendously faithful follower!

Finally, Moses faith was a faith that finished.  While forbidden to enter into the Promised Land, Moses continued to serve God until such a time as his life was required.  One can well imagine Moses walking up that rocky path to the top of Mount Pisgah and looking over into the land of Canaan.  His time on earth was at an end and he had completed the task God had set before him.  Yet his faith looked not finally upon an earthly plateau, but a heavenly one.  We find Moses again in the gospel accounts speaking with Jesus about his death (Luke 9:31).  We no longer see a Moses that is burdened by the cares of earthly life, but one who is triumphant over death and glorified, providing comfort and peace to One who would lead His people not out of a physical land of bondage, but a spiritual one.  No doubt our Lord took comfort in this conversation when He declared upon the cross, “It is finished.”  Like Moses, he laid down His burdens of physical existence to take up a glorious heavenly one.  Moses faith was a faith that finished.

What joys and comforts the faith of Moses brings to the faithful child of God.  Moses’ example gives us much to contemplate.  Let us take up his banner of faith in our lives each day as we may falter, follow, and seek to finish the path of faith we each have before us.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , | Comments Off on Finding Faith in Moses, the Man of God

The Ancient Doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.”

Kevin Cauley

We all know people who believe the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved.”  This is the idea that once a person becomes a child of God, there is no sin that they can commit to lose their salvation.  Many people today find this doctrine to be of great comfort, because it in essence relieves them of all personal responsibility in their relationship with God.  After all, if I am saved, and there is nothing that I can do to be lost, then it doesn’t really matter how I behave or act, so I need not worry that much about it.  The truth is that this is a most dangerous doctrine when it comes to matters of religion, because it deceives people into thinking that their relationship with God is secure, when it really is not.

Interestingly enough, this false doctrine has been around for quite a long time.  In fact, early Christians had to deal with it in the 1st and 2nd centuries.  During that period of time, there was a false doctrine known as Gnosticism.  Of the Gnostics, one sect taught the doctrine of once saved, always saved.  A Christian named Irenaeus lived during the 2nd century A.D. (130-202).  He wrote a book titled, “Against Heresies” in which he called attention to this particular fact.  In this work (Book I Chapter 6) he said the following regarding Gnostic teaching:

But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.

Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed. For they declare that we simply receive grace for use, wherefore also it will again be taken away from us; but that they themselves have grace as their own special possession, which has descended from above by means of an unspeakable and indescribable conjunction; and on this account more will be given them.

Now, let’s compare what was stated regarding Gnosticism with some more recent quotes.  Notice the following quotation from Billy Graham in answer to the question, “Will I lose my salvation if I sin?”

When we do sin, God does not reject us or disown us. Our fellowship with Him may be broken, but our relationship is not; we are still members of His family if we have truly committed our lives to Christ” (h**p://www.billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=484)

In response to another question, “How big a sin do you have to commit before you lose your salvation?” Billy Graham said:

I am convinced that once a person sincerely and honestly trusts Christ for his or her salvation, they become a member of God’s family forever — and nothing can change that relationship. (h**p://www.billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=1777)

Edward Hiscox in “The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches” says it this way:

We believe that the scriptures teach that such as are truly regenerate, being born of the Spirit, will not utterly fall away and perish, but will endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare; and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (Hiscox, pg. 67, 1939).

The Westminster Confession of Faith states regarding the perseverance of the saints:

I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevelancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

The point of these quotations is not to prove that Calvinists teach this doctrine, because they freely admit it.  The point is to show the similarities between what the Gnostics taught and what Calvinists teach.  There are some differences, but the essence of the teaching is the same.

1.    If a person is saved, it is not by means of his own conduct, but on account of his nature.  While Gnostics and Calvinists differ in the origin of that nature, the doctrine is still the same.  Gnostics say that it is due to a special spiritual nature.  Calvinists say that they are infused by the nature of Christ.
2.    One is saved on account of one’s election to be saved.  The Gnostics said that they were of the “elect seed.”  Calvinists say that they are elected by God.  Both agree that being elected precludes their actions from affecting that election in a negative way.
3.    While one may sin in the flesh, that does not affect the relationship that one has to God and salvation.  The third part of the Westminster Confession of Faith (as quoted above) makes it plain that Christians may even live in sinfulness, yet not affect their salvation.  The Gnostics just went one step further and stated that it was there desire and practice to do so.
4.    Grace overcomes all sins regardless of the individual’s attitude toward sin.  Calvinists state that grace is irresistible and the Christian cannot help but fall under it.  Gnostics say that regardless how much sin they willingly commit, grace flows upon them freely for every sin they commit.
5.    Both agree that there is nothing that can cause the one who is saved to lose their salvation.  Gnostics take this to the ultimate conclusion and pursue their own lusts and passions without constraint.  Calvinists, however, take another approach.  They say that the Christian who is saved generally won’t choose to live like that, even though if they did, they couldn’t lose their salvation.  In essence giving mere lip service to practicing righteousness.

The parallels are striking.  How many times have we heard the person who believes in this doctrine of “once saved, always saved” say that the child of God cannot fall from grace?  How many times have we heard those who believe this doctrine say that the child of God cannot lose their spirituality?  How many times have we heard them say that the child of God cannot sin in such a way so as to lose his salvation?  The similarities between this form of Gnosticism and the doctrine of “Once saved, always saved” are too numerous to ignore.

It was indeed the teaching and practice of the apostles to reject the doctrines of Gnosticism, including this doctrine.  The book of Colossians was written by Paul in rejection of Gnosticism.  John’s account of the gospel of Christ and his book of 1 John were also written as a response to the doctrines of Gnosticism, and particularly, 1 John was written to refute the idea of once saved, always saved.  One cannot honestly read through this book and ignore that conclusion.  In addition, the following passages in the New Testament clearly indicate that Christians may sin so as to fall from grace: Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; Hebrews 10:26; 2 Peter 2:20-22.

If you know of someone who believes this doctrine, then I urge you to take this article to them, invite them to study it with you and help them to come to understand that believing this doctrine is not in harmony with God’s word.  If one truly believes this doctrine they will be eternally lost, because they will not regard sin as the awful and terrible thing that it truly is.  A Christian may be forgiven after having committed sin based upon repentance and confession, but one will not be forgiven while actively pursuing a life of sin.  The Christian can so sin as to fall from grace.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Ancient Doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved.”