Jerry Walls wicked and profane question about God..part2

[SovereignGrace]

Jesus Christ came into this world to "save sinners", and NOT animals! Look at the complete context here. Christians are call on to take God Message of "Reconciliation" to the whole world, and not to limit this in any sense. Would you agree, that if someone is "the elect" of God, who have been chosen by God before the foundation of the world to be saved in Jesus Christ, that these WILL be saved? God WILL save His elect. Right? This makes it easier to understand the language of 2 Corinthians 5, where Paul is speaking of God "reconciling the world to Himself". Notice how Paul uses the Greek word, "δέομαι", here, which means, "to beg, plead, entreat". WHY would God need to do this, IF this was directed only at "the elect", as they WILL come to Him, because they have already been elected? It ONLY makes any sense, if the urgent plea to be reconciled was direct to the entire human race.

The words of Robert Dabney, a solid Calvinist, are important on this passage. "In 2 Cor. 5:15, if we make the all for whom Christ died, mean only the all that live unto Him-, i.e., the elect - it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ" (Systematic Theology, p. 525)

Where did I say God came to save animals? God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Those who are being reconciled are the ones who are not having their sins put to their account. Now, if God was reconciling everybody without exception, which is what many on here think 'world' means, then all are being saved.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I really don't the the point in continuing our discussions, as it is very clear that you have a "theological" response to everything that I say, regardless of whether it is right or not! I wish you well, but will not respond any longer on this.

Take care.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one will listen unless God allows them to...we are to proclaim truth in either case. It is God who opens and closes the hearts b and minds of those who oppose themselves.

I answered, see post 46!

 

[The Archangel]

the problem with the Reformed group is very simple. They are noted for exploiting certain verses that they suppose support their "theology", while completely ignore the general teachings of the Holy Bible. To counter any such doctrine, the passage of John 3:16, will suffice, which is very clear that not only that God loves the entire human race, but also provided for their salvation in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. They use the term "Calvinist" to promote these unbiblical doctrines, but completely ignore what John Calvin, the name they revere, has to say. I will post this once again:

"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one" (Mark 14:24)

Note the language of John Calvin. The reference is to the Lord's Supper in Mark's Gospel, where Jesus says, "And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many", speaking of the shedding of His blood on the cross for the sins of "the many". On the use of "many", Calvin says, that Jesus does not include "only part of the world", which is exactly what we would not expect, if Jesus died ONLY for the elect. Calvin then goes on to use more un-Calvinistic language, by saying exactly who is included in this "many", for whom Jesus was to shed His blood, "THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE". The context is very clear, Jesus is here speaking of His forthcoming Death for the sins of the WHOLE human race. The same account in Luke's Gospel agrees with what Calvin says, because there Judas is included in, when Jesus speaks to him, as He does right here in Mark.

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. (John 3:16)

Again, here we read of language that we would not expect any "Calvinist" use for this passage in John 3. "universal term whosoever". Jesus "invites all indiscriminately to partake of life...entrance into eternal life". Jesus, says Calvin, by His death, was to "reconcile the WHOLE WORLD", which we see from Mark 14:24, means "THE HUMAN RACE", which CANNOT refer only to the "elect", as some suppose the Bible teaches! Then Calvin goes on to say, not using "Calvinistic" language, "all without distinction", but, "ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION", which means that Jesus, by His Death, has opened up the Way for EVERY HUMAN BEING, from Adam till the last person, to have ETERNAL LIFE. It is very clear from John Calvin's own language here, that he is NOT a "Calvinist"!

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated" (Colossians 1:14)

Calvin's words here, are also very clear as to the scope of the Death of Jesus Christ. While some have convinced themselves, against the Teachings of the Holy Bible, that Jesus' Death does benefit the human race, as they all benefit from the rain, sunshine and food, which the Lord blesses all with (as if this were not the case before Jesus died!), Calvin here is clear, that Jesus actually died for the SINS of "the world", that is, "THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE".

Yet "Calvinists" will refuse to accept what John Calvin says here, and still blindly argue that they have a case from the Holy Bible for their nonsense!

You've engaged in several logical fallacies here, not the least of which is the strawman. There is, however, one thing you've mentioned that needs to be addressed. You say:

Again, here we read of language that we would not expect any "Calvinist" use for this passage in John 3. "universal term whosoever". Jesus "invites all indiscriminately to partake of life...entrance into eternal life".

Your reading of John 3:16 is incorrect. Here's why:

Here is the passage in Greek:

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Here's the passage portion transliteration: pas ho pisteuon eis auton,

Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the one believing" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender.

Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

You've engaged in several logical fallacies here, not the least of which is the strawman. There is, however, one thing you've mentioned that needs to be addressed. You say:



Your reading of John 3:16 is incorrect. Here's why:

Here is the passage in Greek:

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Here's the passage portion transliteration: pas ho pisteuon eis auton,

Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the one believing" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender.

Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

The Archangel

Thanks for this solid informative post. SBG...like Van was trying to offer ideas he thought were based on his research of the greek...but evidently he has not come to a correct understanding.
Hopefully he is looking it over even now...and his response should be thank you very much for the much needed correction...I tried but i had it all wrong.Because of this I an re-studying my whole view.

 

[Benjamin]

Hey Icon, I'm thinking of selling a couple of acre lots off my property here in Arizona, it's oceanfront if you know anyone that is interested...

 

[Iconoclast]

Hey Icon, I'm thinking of selling a couple of acre lots off my property here in Arizona, it's oceanfront if you know anyone that is interested...

Thanks for your kind offer B....I find Arizona not to my liking however...the heat destroys spiritual thoughts and brain cells....maybe you are experiencing hallucinations...seeing the waterfront and all....it is just a mirage ben...like your philosophical musings.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Icon, I'm thinking of selling a couple of acre lots off my property here in Arizona, it's oceanfront if you know anyone that is interested...

You might want to keep it, as you have a lot of fertilizar you have been spreading!

 

[Yeshua1]

You've engaged in several logical fallacies here, not the least of which is the strawman. There is, however, one thing you've mentioned that needs to be addressed. You say:



Your reading of John 3:16 is incorrect. Here's why:

Here is the passage in Greek:

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Here's the passage portion transliteration: pas ho pisteuon eis auton,

Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be. If, indeed, John wanted to convey the idea of "whosoever," he would have likely done it with a relative pronoun. But, here's the thing: The participle "the one believing" is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender.

Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believes." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

The Archangel

Excellent point made here, as this makes sense, as the Author John was very definite in His theology concerning just who it is comes to Christ, who draws them, who saved them etc!

 

[Iconoclast]

counter #36

Are you still working on thanking Archangel for instructing you? Where did you go? Are you going to interact with him...or have you gone into the witness protection program?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Are you still working on thanking Archangel for instructing you? Where did you go? Are you going to interact with him...or have you gone into the witness protection program?

Well, I did ask him twice, iirc, if God loves everybody the same and He is immutable, then which is correct?

A) God loves them even after casting them headlong into hell?
B) God then changes from loving them to hating them, therefore rendering Him mutable?

It can't be both, or even 'C'. So, which is it @Saved-By-Grace?

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, I did ask him twice, iirc, if God loves everybody the same and He is immutable, then which is correct?

A) God loves them even after casting them headlong into hell?
B) God then changes from loving them to hating them, therefore rendering Him mutable?

It can't be both, or even 'C'. So, which is it @Saved-By-Grace?

I like when he was trying to do an end run with you saying the Greek means this and that....but when Archangel showed up with the"fine print"..he left Dodge.

 

[steaver]

I’m done here, you have fun walking back those scriptures to suit your system and why you’re at it why don’t you tell the people here, Anthony, did you lie to your children when you put them to bed at night and tell them that Jesus loves them or did you tell them your “bible truth” that you hope they are one of the pre-selected few?

I would never lie to my children and make up stories as you would resort to.
I would never speak such speculation to anyone.
My children were told that Jesus saves sinners and that they cannot do anything to save themselves....Jesus came into the world to save sinners...that is what we can faithfully proclaim...

Icon, why do you tell them half truths? Why don't you tell them they may not be selected to be saved from hell?

If one would consume the core tenet of Calvinism early on from a child, one would learn that they could sin all they want, no need to love God nor love anyone, one could not bother to exercise any self control over their desires, live as you please, do as you want, for it does not matter one iota if you behave yourself and try to do good, for in fact you could be the most loving person alive and still God may let you for the fires of hell........ 'Sorry my child, I cannot tell you God loves you, because He may not and you may just have been born for His wrath. Now you sleep well, see you in the morning'.

I would like to see the inside of your church Icon, I would like to see your children's SS rooms, would like to see your SS lessons. I would wager there is "God loves you" stuff everywhere. But do you tell your children the real Calvinism truth? Do you tell your children 'God only loves some of you'? This is the tenet of Calvinism, why don't you teach it to your children?

 

[Iconoclast]

Stever I will answer you when I get to a keyboard cuz you ask many questions I don't want to attempt to do it on my phone or this voice to text because it comes out here very strange sometimes.

 

[Iconoclast]

Steaver,

Hello steaver...

Icon, why do you tell them half truths?

I would never tell anyone half truths...that would not profit them would it?

I have been given a whole bible and I use all of it in communicating saving truth to all persons I have an opportunity to declare the truth of God with.

I think I understand what you are asking and I will fully answer you here...no half way ideas.....

Steaver....every sentence we speak...cannot contain the whole bible as much as we would like it to. I try and follow Jesus and the Apostles in using the language they actually used.....not the made up fables of evangelicalism.

Lets start where Paul did:
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering,
for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Now far from being a half truth...this takes in a large portion of the gospel...can you agree with me here Steaver?
it is not overstated but instead it is dead on....the reason Jesus came into the world.....is to save sinners....I see this very clearly taught as a pattern to them which should hereafter believe....

Why don't you tell them they may not be selected to be saved from hell?

The primary reason is....salvation is from the reigning power of sin.....
Mt 1:21...He shall save His people from their sins....A person is saved from sins and translated into the Kingdom by new birth...
..21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

When my children ask about those who rebel and remain in love with their sin...I did not hesitate to tell them about hell and second death, in age appropriate language...

If one would consume the core tenet of Calvinism early on from a child, one would learn that they could sin all they want,

Every Calvinist I know goes right to Romans 6 :1-11 when they here this false caricature......Paul's Spirit led answer

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

may it never be....
Steaver....if you oppose the teaching....ok.....but oppose the real teaching

no need to love God nor love anyone,

Steaver....????Calvinists see this in their bible and obey it...
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

one could not bother to exercise any self control over their desires, live as you please, do as you want

???? Are you feeling ok Steaver?

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

,

for it does not matter one iota if you behave yourself and try to do good,

do good???
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

for in fact you could be the most loving person alive and still God may let you for the fires of hell..

.

I have heard this objection from many unsaved persons who are self righteous. What we do does not provide salvation.

..... 'Sorry my child, I cannot tell you God loves you

,

So....if Judas mother told him God loves him....that would have changed things?
How about Mrs Hitler?? Adolf , God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
I never saw the Apostles singing Jesus loves the little children...all the children of the world.....you see Steaver....children grow up and become criminals, cult leaders, and all manner of adult sinners who are all under the wrath of God apart from him.

because He may not and you may just have been born for His wrath.

I like the bible does... declare the truth of God's electing love. My children were told bible truth...that God has elected a multitude of sinners in His Son. At a point in time they would be drawn by the Spirit to saving faith, and each one will come to Jesus...jn6:37-44.....All the Father gives...SHALL COME. I would them to examine themselves as to if they have been saving drawn to Jesus, because the saving of the elect is certain.

I would like to see the inside of your church Icon, I would like to see your children's SS rooms, would like to see your SS lessons.

You are welcome to see for yourself...

I would wager there is "God loves you" stuff everywhere

You would lose that wager real fast, unless a visitor brought it in,lol..

. But do you tell your children the real Calvinism truth?

I did....and still do...without compromise...

Do you tell your children 'God only loves some of you'?

Steaver..... I do not speculate as you do, or lie.....
I tell everyone ,young or old....God's love is ONLY found in CHRIST.
To be apart from Jesus , is to be apart from His love.

This is the tenet of Calvinism, why don't you teach it to your children?

I teach all of the bible to anyone who will listen...I hold nothing back...there is no need to. God does not teach us anything to shrink back from, but on the contrary we are to preach the whole bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Icon, why do you tell them half truths? Why don't you tell them they may not be selected to be saved from hell?

If one would consume the core tenet of Calvinism early on from a child, one would learn that they could sin all they want, no need to love God nor love anyone, one could not bother to exercise any self control over their desires, live as you please, do as you want, for it does not matter one iota if you behave yourself and try to do good, for in fact you could be the most loving person alive and still God may let you for the fires of hell........ 'Sorry my child, I cannot tell you God loves you, because He may not and you may just have been born for His wrath. Now you sleep well, see you in the morning'.

I would like to see the inside of your church Icon, I would like to see your children's SS rooms, would like to see your SS lessons. I would wager there is "God loves you" stuff everywhere. But do you tell your children the real Calvinism truth? Do you tell your children 'God only loves some of you'? This is the tenet of Calvinism, why don't you teach it to your children?

Your version of Calvinism was not taught by either Jesus nor Paul, nor by Calvin!

 

[Iconoclast]

Richard Baxter,

Alas! it is the common danger and calamity of the Church, to have unregenerate and inexperienced pastors, and to have so many men become preachers before they are Christians; who are sanctified by dedication to the altar as the priests of God, before they are sanctified by hearty dedication as the disciples of Christ; and so to worship an unknown God, and to preach an unknown Christ, to pray through an unknown Spirit, to recommend a state of holiness and communion with God, and a glory and a happiness which are all unknown, and like to be unknown to them for ever.

 

[Iconoclast]

consider this doctrinal root of Apostasy by Roger Olson....Leightons hero;

I have called universalism “the most attractive heresy.” For a lover of God’s love, universal salvation might seem to be necessary. (I guarantee you that some neo-fundamentalist will take that sentence out of context and attribute it to me without acknowledging what follows.)

However, I’m not a universalist. On the other hand, I’d rather be a universalist than a true Calvinist (i.e., a five point Calvinist who believes in double predestination).

Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct.
I had to say no.
Sheer power is not worthy of worship. Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.

Looks like a root to me.....check his carnal reasoning:

Let me be clear. (This is necessary because of the power of neo-fundamentalists within evangelicalism today!) I am not a universalist nor do I sympathize with universalism. I am simply trying to get people to consider the possibility that not all versions of universalism are on the same level of error. There is egregious error and there is simple error. One kind of universalism (based on denial of God’s wrath and human sinfulness) is egregious error. Another kind (based on confusion about God’s love requiring his overriding free will) is simple error. I hope I don’t hold any egregious errors, but I’m sure I hold some simple errors. I am open to having those pointed out to me.

 

[Iconoclast]

found this blog by
Pastor Waldrip;

You certainly realize, my friends, that we are living in the last days, days which are rightly understood to be days of religious apostasy. Therefore, because God has seen fit in His infinite wisdom for us to live out our lives during a time and in a place of spiritual darkness and unresponsiveness to His Word, we need to be circumspect and discerning of the times we live in.

To that end, and unlike anything I have ever done before, I have sought the advice of a wise man of God who lived during a time of spiritual apostasy, and exhibited all the characteristics in his own life of genuine fervor for Christ and the things of God when to do so was very, very hard. The man�s name is Thomas Watson, a Puritan who was a highly esteemed contemporary of such godly Puritans as Richard Sibbes and Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Goodwin and John Owen, John Bunyan and Richard Baxter.


QUESTION: How may we keep up the briskness and fervour of grace in times of apostasy?


This is Thomas Watson�s way of asking how a Christian should maintain an energetic spirituality when virtually no one else is spiritual in a time of apostasy and general spiritual decline.


ANSWER I. Let us beware of having our hearts too much linked to the world. The world damps zeal as earth chokes the fire. We are bid to love our enemies; but the world is such an enemy as we must not love, Love not the world (I John 2:15). The world bewitches with her blandishments, and kills with her silver darts. He who is a Demas will be a Judas; lover of the world will, for a piece of money, betray a good cause, and make shipwreck of a good conscience.


Watson begins by cautioning us about our love for the world. To be sure, we live in the world. The Savior acknowledged as much. However, we should not be of the world. It is one thing for the boat to be in the water, but there is a real problem when water starts getting in the boat. The man of God has warned us.

Why should we beware having our hearts too much linked to the world? Because of its effect. As dirt thrown on a fire puts it out, so the world dampens the zeal of a Christian, smothering and suppressing our spirituality, crushing our interest in the things of God, so that we start thinking like lost people think.

To be sure, the Lord Jesus Christ did tell us to love our enemies, as we should love individuals. However, the world is not any one man, therefore we should not love the world. This the Apostle commanded in First John 2.15. To be sure, it is reasonable that a Christian should not love the world. After all, the whole world lieth in wickedness, First John 5.19. The whole world is dominated by the wicked one.

He tells us the world bewitches with her blandishments, with blandishments referring to enticing words. Silver darts refers to something that is both beautiful and deadly. In other words, the world promises one thing, but delivers quite another. Lures and entices the gullible, all the while snaring and trapping.

What does he mean when he warns that �He who is a Demas will be a Judas�? Remember that Demas abandoned the Apostle Paul because he loved the world. Judas betrayed our Lord because he loved the money. The two are not far apart. Therefore, though it is but a single step from faithfulness to Christ to forsaking faithfulness for a love of the world, it is only one more step after that to betray Christ altogether, which is apostasy.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2;
ANSWER 2. Let us be volunteers in religion; that is, choose God�s service; I have chosen the way of truth (Psa. 119:30). It is one thing to be good with an end in view. Hypocrites are good only out of worldly design. They embrace the gospel for secular advantage, and these will in time fall away. . . . False hearts are good no longer than they are enclosed in golden prosperity; take them out of the gold and they lose all their seeming goodness. But if we would retain our sanctity in backsliding times we must serve God purely out of choice. He who is good out of choice loves holiness for its beauty, and adheres to the gospel, when all the jewels of preferment are pulled off.


His second answer advises that you be a volunteer in religion, with the implication being that you should not serve God for what you can get out of such service, but for what you can put into such service. Sound advice, in these days of people wanting to do only what they feel �led� to do, whatever that means. The concept of such spiritual leadership as is referred to by those who talk about being �led� in this way is not found in the Bible.

He rightly calls our attention to David�s comment in Psalm 119.30: �I have chosen the way of truth.� Notice, he did not inform his readers that he was �led� to the way of truth in the way most evangelicals talk about being �led.� Right behavior begins with right choices, and the rightest choice is to choose the way of truth. Does it really matter what other people say or do to those who choose the way of truth?

There are many people who do good when they get some benefit for themselves. He points out that they are hypocrites who are only good for the good it does them. These are people who are pragmatists, who will serve God to enhance career, or to solidify marriage and family, or to enhance status. However, what do these same people do when serving God costs them their spouse and children, when serving God costs them their career, or when serving God costs them social status?

If you are going to hang tough and maintain your spiritual identity when everyone is backsliding, when everyone else is compromising, when everyone else is turning away from the faith, it will be because you have chosen to hang tough, you have determined to be steadfast. If you do right only because it is right, serve God only because it is right to serve God, even though such service comes at great personal cost, then you are one who loves holiness for its beauty, and sticks to the gospel even when there are no social benefits to being a professing Christian. Such a Christian is the real deal.