Well said brother Eli.

_________________
Jimmy H

It would seem to me that if so many godly men have a problem with what Jesse believes - if they are truly concerned about his salvation and what he is preaching - that they would get down on their faces before the Lord and pray for his salvation rather than murmuring and complaining about whether or not they should fellowship with him.

There really is something wrong with all of this settling into camps, as if being right is more important than the person of Jesus Christ. . . as if the cross of Christ were of none effect.

In all due respect for my brothers and sisters, and for the moderators of this forum, but would we allow those who ascribed to the error of the Galtian church to continue on unchallenged, and counted as brethren in our midst? Did Paul not draw a line in the sand when it came to them? Did he count them as blessed brethren, or did he count them as accursed and severed from Christ? There are some finer points of theology that we can no doubt be gracious towards one another in regard to. But there are some views that we must be dogmatically intolerant towards, though of course, still with a spirit of humility and love.

Some such issues are not merely a division over mere opinion, but it is a division over the very cross of Jesus Christ. Moral Government Theology as taught by Jesse shares nothing in common with either Arminian or Reformed schools of thought. It is a dangerous doctrine that obliterates the necessity of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, and makes the resurrection, and consequently, the new birth as irrelevant. This is not only an affront to basic evangelical soteriology, but is an attack on Christology as well.

Like I've previously said, I have no personal problem with folks like Jesse having continued access to th forums. But in all due respect brother Paul, these forums have becoming a dumping ground for truefaithsav and his moral government theology. Many threads have been created in recent weeks, and many profitable threads have been greatly hijacked by heavy and almost militant like posting. And whether or not truefaithsav is actually Jesse or not is besides the point. He frequently takes direct material from Jesse's web site and dumps it on here in thread after thread. Perhaps he is a follower of Jesse, I don't know. But if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. He's certainly never denied being Jesse in public to my knowledge, and frequently let's people address him as such. But again, that's besides the point, as I previously have said.

Anyway, God bless you guys in whatever you decide. I still love this ministry and the precious saints I have encountered through this ministry. Some have definitely made an everlasting impact on my life for years to come, if not through all eternity.

_________________
Jimmy H

For what it's worth, I heartily agree with the posts of brother Eli_Barnabas and KingJimmy.

We must also bear in mind that we always have about 40 to 60 guests reading the threads in this forum at any time. All of us who post here are actually teaching to an audience of 40 or more, 24/7. It is an enormous responsibility that should not be taken lightly. We should all be mindful of the scriptural soundness of all posts in this forum, particularly those that we post ourselves, so that no one will be misled by what they read here.

Let us hold true to the teachings of Scripture. Although we are instructed to avoid divisions with respect to disputable (non-essential) matters, and to be patient with others of varying degrees of faith, we should never tolerate the teaching of any other gospel other than that of Christ Jesus.

[i]2Co 11:2-4 "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

2Co 11:13-15 "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."

Eph 5:11 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."[/i]

Eli, the error of the Galatians was not that they were repenting of their sins. Their error was that they starting thinking that they must obey the Torah first and then they could be saved, or that they needed to be circumcised in order to be saved.

It was not that the Galatians were repenting of their sins and Paul said, "I better put a stop to this".

A person is not preaching a false Galatian gospel because he says you must forsake your sins.

Likewise in Romans 1, 2, and 3, Paul was not saying that you can be justified by an impenitent faith, and that repentance is works of the law. Paul was saying that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to be justified, just as Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision.

You cannot confuse Judiazers with repentance preachers. Eli this has been your fatal mistake.

The heresy or error is those who say that you can have the forgiveness and mercy of God, while you continue in your sins.

Eli is a wolf in sheep's clothing because he says you do not need to repent of your sins to be saved, since repenting of your sins would be justification by works of the law. He says you must only repent of unbelief. This false doctrine comforts men in their impenitence and therefore helps them to hell. God only gives mercy to those who forsake their sins. Before the remission of sins must come repentance from sin. God is storing up wrath for the impenitent.

A person must turn from sin in order to get saved, and a person must stay away from sin in order to stay saved. A person is not "OSAS" because at one point in their life they merely believed in Jesus.

We must divide and separate from anyone who does not teach biblical repentance as the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself did.

truefaithsav said:

Eli has publicly said in the past that repenting of sins in order to be forgiven is what Paul meant by justification by works of the law. He interprets the writings of Paul to be anti-repentance from sin. He says you must repent of dead works, to be saved, you must repent of unbelief to be saved, but you do not need to repent of your sins to be saved, because that is justification by works of the law.

It is one thing to say that a saved person will repent of their sins, and it is another thing to say that you must repent of your sins to be saved.

The Bible says you must repent of your sins in order to get saved. But Eli has called this the heresy of justification by works of the law.

It must be understood that a person is NOT a heretic because he tells sinners to forsake their sins. A person is a heretic if they tell sinners that they can stay in their sins and still be saved.

To accuse a preacher of repentance of being a heretic, because he tells sinners to turn from their sins, just shows how apostate many in the Church have become. This is doctrines of demons to say that you do not need to forsake your sins in order to be forgiven of your sins.

A faith that does not repent is a dead faith that cannot save. Saving faith is not an impenitent faith. Saving faith is a repentant faith. Justification by faith in the Bible is not synonymous with easy-believism, nor is it contrary to repenting of your sins. We are justified, not by obeying the Torah or being circumcised, but by having true faith, a faith that works by love, a faith that purifies the heart, a faith that overcomes the world, a faith that keeps the commandments, a faith that turns from sin. Hense the name "truefaithsav", it is true faith that saves.

Any faith that does not include a total abandonment of sin is a false faith that cannot save.

Let's not forget this heretical statement from Eli:

“Therefore they are not subject to the law. To the law, the Christian is dead. They CANNOT break the law, and so therefore they CANNOT sin! At all!" Eli on a previous thread

So even if a believer steals, this is not a sin, because they are not obligated to "thou shalt not steal". Even if a believer blasphemes God, it is not a sin, because a believer is not obligated to "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain". Even if a believer cheats on his wife, this is not a sin, because a believer is not obligated to "thou shalt not commit adultery." A believer could steal, blaspheme, and commit adultery and still remain morally perfect. It is not a sin for a believer to break any of the moral law, because a believer is not under the law.

Charles Finney said, "There have been many, in modern times, called Perfectionists, who held that they were not under obligation to obey the law... Where the Bible says sin shall not have dominion over believers, these persons understand by it, that the same acts, which would be sin if done by an unconverted person, are not sin in them. The others, they say, are under the law, and so bound by its rules, but themselves are sanctified, and are in Christ, and if they break the law it is no sin."

I agree with Eli and KingJimmy. Moral Government and Open Theism go far beyond mere doctrinal or theological differences - it touches the very heart of salvation and preaches a different gospel and preaches a different God and different Jesus much like Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons.

I am a STRONG proponent for unity among denominational, doctrinal and theological lines as long as the basics fundamentals of Christianity is agreed upon. One of my common sayings is:

"we have eternity to argue about our doctrinal and theological differences, but right now precious souls are dieing and going to hell - let's put our differences behind us, lift up the blood stained banner of Jesus Christ to a lost and dieing world and bring men out of darkness and into the marvelous light of new life and freedom in the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

I work with many denominations and just in the past couple of weeks have labored along side, Lutheran, AofG, Vineyard, Southern Baptist, Calvary Chapel, 4 Square and Nazarene. But at the same time we must draw the line and not fall into this modern thinking that counts all men brother - to start to accept those who hold to moral government, open theism, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, and other false religions is a dangerous and slippery path.

I like what HeartSong said -

_________________
Patrick Ersig

Ah, the many experts are in fine voice :) As an ex-catholic , when I witness to Catholics I talk of Jesus, the Jesus that I "know," and love. I also do that with JW and mormons. If this was 400 years ago, I wonder what would happen to this man ? Any histroy buff on here know what would happen to men who had a "wrong," notion as to the nature of salvation 400 years ago. What happened to the poor anabaptists? The Moravians? What did God fearing men do to these people? Was it done in the name of correct doctrine? Did these men not believe they were about the work of God? So my question is this, transport yourself back in time and and figure out if you would be the one getting burned or the one doing the burning? What was the spirit that led men to burn other men? Was it a Godly Spirit, was that the work of the Holy Spirit or the work of the spirit of men? I find it so refreshing to read how Paul delt with the gnostics of his day. He spoke of who Jesus truly was.

Its interesting to me how men can take salvation, dissect it 280 ways, formulize it , dogmatize it, systematize it(are these even words:)Almost all of it is ego. The bottom line for any soul is, "do you know Jesus," does He know you? When we cry out "Lord, Lord," will He recognize us ? This of course is not an intellectual reply, got bored with those debates years ago, always, always fruitless. And yes, while the debate rages on, men are dying and going to hell."Oh yes," they say," but a man must be saved correctly." A man is either saved or he is not...........Frank