Just trying to imply that the Catholic Church can make all kinds of claim that it is the champion of morality. But then it does not really mean a thing. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true.

Well. I am sure you know me for a long time. You know that I am really not that unreasonable.
Thing is, didn't your very pope just change his stance towards homosexuality and atheist.

You see. The fact of the matter is, if you think about it deeper, organization that preaches morality may do it in on the surface. Like participate in Charity Work, donations, etc. But then deep down, you really do not know what those organizations are really doing? I mean some organizations actually cheats money and uses the law to protect itself but then to establish a fake image, they make the claim that they are ethical. I am sure you live long enough to see this.

In fact, you did not really denied that your Church as a whole was involved in some atrocities when we were having discussions in the past. Just that you make excuses to defend them.

When Protestants fight over scripture interpretation, they start their own churches. When Catholics don't agree with Catholicism, they fall away and don't remain Catholics or they become bad ones. If morality is not important in Catholicism, why would we bother over both faith and works? After all, to you, only faith alone.    

Don't you think the reason for John 17:20-21, implies that God still accepts believers regardless of denomination?

Hence the call for unity? It would be redundant for Christ to pray for this, no?

Protestantism is a novelty and departure from Christianity.

Protestanism is to PROTEST against the ROMAN Catholicism.
For the utter corruption of the christian faith, but refusing people from reading the bible, thereby giving priests to freely manipulate people and getting rich from money to pay off the sins.

Any christian denomination that isnt a Roman Catholic, is a protestant.

Well...not all non-Catholic denominations wants to be called Protestant, that's for sure. You have the Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome also wanting to use the term Catholic (meaning universal), Anglo-Catholics (high church Anglicans that refuse to be called Protestant).

The Catholic Church did not refuse people from reading the Bible. What it did was to prevent people from reading erroneous/heretical versions/interpretations. Furthermore, Catholics have the ENTIRE Bible. Not an adulterated version of the Biblical Canon that Martin Luther invented in the 16th Century. Luther threw out many OT and some NT books. Modern protestant canons have restored the NT books that Luther threw out (James comes into mind), but typically lack the OT books. These are sometimes included in protestant Bibles as the "apocrypha" (which means "hidden," but is a silly term because they have never been hidden, and were part of all Christian Old Testaments of the Septuagint until Luther came around, and have been continuously preserved in all Catholic Bibles).

There were indeed abuses in indulgences which the Church clamped down in 1567, but remember, the Protestant founding fathers did more than just fight against abuses regarding indulgences, they rejected many other doctrines as well, similar to the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Happy Chinese New Year to everyone!

We are saved by his grace through faith in Christ alone, and good works are the evidence of our salvation. Paul and James had different views regarding these faith versus works too. LEL.

Salvation is entirely depended on God. "Workmanship" in Greek means what has been made. If there are no change in the life of the believers after salvation, then is that person really truly saved...

Lukewarm is a condition of a defeated SAVED believers

This is why the charge to overcome!

In verses 15 and 16 the Lord says, “I know your works (living), that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of My mouth.”

We are like this. There a times the Lord wants us to be absolute but we shrink back. You cannot say I am a back-slidded cold believers who no longer meeting with church ... but you are still there in the church ... who lost his first, burning love and lived a routine old church life, thinking of your past glories and attainments.

Need to revived by being fanning our spirit into flame and be hotly in love with the Lord

For me, my understanding is that the believer's eternal salvation is a matter of grace through faith alone, his reward is based on righteousness and works, and whereas the believer's eternal salvation can never be lost, his reward can be forfeited.

Indeed salvation is of two sides of the coins. But I am afraid (I could be wrong) that your understanding might be on the "initial" salvation ... as you referenced in Eph. 2:8

For example, Paul said, "For I know that for me this will turn out to salvation through your petition and the bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:19). Was not Paul saved?

"Salvation" in this verse does not refer to receiving eternal life by those who believe, but rather to Paul's release from prison.

Usually we say that is the reward of the kingdom. Paul overcome and finished his course to gain the crown, which the Lord will award His overcoming saints.

Clearly, this reward is not our eternal salvation, which is a gift gained freely by grace through our faith in the gospel.

That the reward is for works is clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 3, which says that each will receive his own reward “according to his own labor” (v. 8), based on his work of building upon the one foundation (v. 14).

As Paul says in 1 Cor 3:15: ... If anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Lukewarm is a condition of a defeated SAVED believers smile.gif

This is why the charge to overcome!

In verses 15 and 16 the Lord says, “I know your works (living), that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of My mouth.”

Initially I thought there was a bit of difference between his theological understanding and mine but looks like there isn't much difference really.

ha.

A THOROUGH REFUTATION OF THE FALSE-GRACE HERESY OF JOSEPH PRINCE PART 1

by Pastor Chace Gordonposted on August 23rd, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Quotes from “Destined to Reign”

Quote #1:

“I distinctly heard the voice of the Lord on the inside.  It wasn’t a witness of the Spirit.  It was a voice, and I heard God say this clearly to me:  ‘Son, you are not preaching grace.’  I said, ‘What do you mean, Lord?...’Every time you preach grace, you preach it with a mixture of law.  You attempt to balance grace with the law like many other preachers, and the moment you balance grace, you neutralize it.  You cannot put new wine into old wineskins.  You cannot put grace and law together.  He went on to say, ‘Son, a lot of preachers are not preaching grace the way Apostle Paul preached grace.”

Excerpt from the Foreword, page vii

 

NOTE:  Paul taught grace and law side-by-side throughout Romans chapters 5-6 for the express purpose of preventing doctrinal confusion.  In fact, the book of Romans uses the word “law” 78 times while only using the word “grace” 24 times.  Hence, teaching the law is often necessary as a basis before one can even begin to teach grace!  The heart must be convicted and humbled with the law before grace can be received.

The word “law” is referred to in Paul’s epistles 148 times in 108 verses; the word “grace” was used in Paul’s epistles 99 times in 92 verses.  Thus demonstrating that his “grace preaching” was a doctrinal balance of both law & grace.

It is true that the apostle Paul had more to say on the subject of grace than any other New Testament writer.  It even states in Acts 20:24 that testifying to the gospel of grace was the purpose of his life and ministry; however, he, and other New Testament writers, went to great length to keep the grace doctrine from being twisted and perverted as we must do as well.

(See Jude 4, Romans 5:20-6:2; Romans 6:14-16; II Corinthians 6:1; Galatians 1:6-10; Hebrews 10:29-31; II Peter 3:15-18)

Here is a side-by-side comparison of “grace teaching” versus “law teaching” throughout the Bible:

Usage of words in whole Bible (KJV):

The Bible addresses the law approximately three times as much as it addresses grace!

The word “law”:  used 523 times in 459 verses

The word “grace”: used 170 times in 159 verses

Conclusion:  The Bible as a whole has FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace.

Usage of words in the New Testament alone (KJV):

The New Testament addresses the law nearly twice as often as it addresses grace!

The word “law”:  used 223 times in 172 verses

The word “grace:” used 131 times in 122 verses

Conclusion:  While the New Testament has more to say on the subject of grace than the Old Testament, the New Testament STILL has FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace.

Usage of words in the gospels (KJV):

The gospels address the law eight times as much as they address grace!

The word “law”:  used 41 times in 35 verses

The word “grace”:  used 5 times in 4 verses

Conclusion:  Even though Jesus Himself ushered in the dispensation of grace to the church, the gospels have FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace!

Usage of words in the Book of Acts (KJV):

The Book of Acts addresses the law twice as much as it addresses grace!

The word “law”:  used 22 times in 21 verses

The word “grace”:  used 10 times in 10 verses

Conclusion:  The record of the early church has FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace!

Conclusion to it all:  There is no Biblical precedent to suggest teaching the law undermines the teaching of grace.  They are complementary doctrines.  In fact, the doctrinal teaching of the law is foundational to receiving the doctrine of grace!

 

Quote #2:

“It is entirely His [Jesus] effort and His [Jesus] doing.  Our part is to believe on Him and receive all that He has accomplished on our behalf.  Sounds ridiculously simple, one-sided and unfair?  Well, my friend, that is exactly what makes grace, grace!  Grace is only grace when it is undeserved, unearned and unmerited.”

Excerpt from foreword, page x

 

NOTE: This statement is confusing on several points:

(1)  It confuses God’s grace with a distorted view of God’s mercy.  It also assumes that God’s mercy cancels out God’s justice.  There is nothing “unfair” about God giving us His grace; but there is something infinitely merciful.  How can an infinitely merciful God extend grace to the sinner and not violate His infinite justice?  Through repentance.

Repentance is the place where justice and mercy kiss.  Without justice, mercy becomes cruel.  If the president of the United States, as an act of mercy, decided to pardon our prison population and loose them on society, the innocent would suffer as a result.  However, if a wicked man is truly penitent and puts his faith in God, he can qualify for pardon because he ceases to be a threat to society.  Though the penitent, formerly-wicked man does not deserve pardon, he can receive mercy without compromising justice.  Hence, the criminal does nothing to earn his salvation; yet qualifies for mercy through genuine repentance.

While grace is not something we earn through good works, it is something we must qualify for through repentance. 

(2) It assumes grace is exclusively for the undeserving.  It is not.  According to Luke 2:40, Jesus grew in grace.  Under the above definition, we would have to assume that Jesus “growing in grace” as a child means He was sinful during His youth.  This is total heresy and an increasingly common heresy in today’s culture.  While this may seem to be splitting hairs, this small error could lead someone down the path to destruction.

(3) It assumes the operation of grace is the same as its initial impartation.  It concludes that since receiving grace was effortless on our part, walking in grace after it’s received must be effortless as well.  But receiving a free gift by doing nothing to EARN it does not automatically mean you do nothing to USE it!

Ephesians 2:8-9 tell us we are saved by grace and not by works; however verse 10 tells us that we are saved UNTO good works!  Which means, we don’t do works to earn salvation, but once we are saved, by grace—we do good works!  It’s not effortless!

The key difference is this:  doing good works on your own apart from God will not save you; however, after you are saved, you do good works because now you are participating with God!  Grace is what enables that participation.  You still have responsibility.  You still have effort.  The difference is, you are united with Christ and He gives you the strength, a.k.a. grace, to do alongside of Him, what you could never do on your own.

 

Quote #3:

“Do you realize that most people believe that one needs to work hard to achieve success in life?  The world’s system of success is built on the twin pillars of self-effort and diligence.  There are always some “laws” that you have to abide by, and some “methods and techniques” that you have to keep on practicing before there can be any results.  Most of the time, any result that you may get will start to fade once you cease to follow through with the prescribed methods and steps.  We have been taught to focus on achieving, on doing and on relying on our self-efforts.  We are driven to ‘do, do, do’, forgetting that Christianity is actually ‘done, done, done’.”

Chapter 1, Page 4

 

NOTE:  Grace doesn’t do away with the Biblical virtue of hard work (See Proverbs 18:9; 20:4, 13; 21:25-26; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; Matthew 5:16; 25:14-30; II Thessalonians 3:10; I Corinthians 9:19; 15:10; II Corinthians 6:1; II Timothy 2:15).  Diligence is still a necessary part of the Christian experience (See John 8:31; Hebrews 11:6; II Peter 1:4-10) and your results WILL fail when you stop being diligent!  (See Galatians 1:6-10; I Timothy 1:5-6, 19; Hebrews 3:6).  “Achieving” is not an evil concept especially when God has provided incentive and guidelines to obey (Deuteronomy 28; Matthew 25:14-30; Philippians 3:14-16; II Timothy 2:3-7; I Corinthians 9:24-27).  

The Bible tells us to “do, do, do” because though Christ’s redemptive work on the cross IS “done, done, done” Christians still have a lot left to do (see the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, the Book of ACTS, the book of Titus (whose theme is GOOD WORKS) and the Book of James (whose theme is being DOERS of the Word)!

Grace is incompatible with works of self-righteousness (See Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:21; 5:4); but grace is also God’s power working THROUGH you and me because we are cooperating with Him!  (See Ephesians 3:7; Philippians 4:13; Romans 6:1-11; Colossians 2:6).

 

Quote #4:

“Under the new covenant, we don’t have to keep on asking the Lord…for forgiveness because He has already forgiven us.”

Chapter 1, page 7

 

NOTE:  While it is true that if you repent of something once, it is not necessary to repent of the same sin twice; however, if you sin again, you must repent—again. “The modern fallacy that judicial forgiveness covers ALL sins, past, present, and future; that God does not impute sins of believers to them; and that God never condemns a saved man for any sins committed, but charges them to the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most unscriptural and demon-inspired theories in any church…He will forgive all sins that are confessed to Him, but this does not give the saved man a blank check to continue in sin and live as he pleases without any fear of being held accountable for his sins after he has one time been saved.  Salvation does not include freedom to live in sins of all kinds.  It does not guarantee immunity from hell if one goes back into sins and dies in them.”

--Finis Dake

If Christians had a “blank check” to sin and never had to ask forgiveness after they are saved—why did God tell so many believers to repent in hundreds of scriptures, in both old and new testaments?  Why did Paul go to many of the churches that he planted, that he witnessed their conversions, and that he laid hands on to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit—why did he go to these churches and admonish them to repent—if their sins were forgiven past, present AND future?  Why did John write to believers in I John 1:9 and encourage them to confess their sins if they stopped walking in the light (I John 1:7)?  Why does the book of Revelation warn that your name can be blotted out of the Book of Life if one-time repentance is a blank check for everlasting forgiveness?  Why did Peter say that if a Christian backslides into sin after being delivered—his outcome becomes WORSE?

The truth is grace does MORE than cover our sins or empower us to ignore our pesky consciences.  Grace empowers us to stop sinning and walk in the light (I John 1:7).  I suggest that we don’t sin when walking in the light—we sin when we walk away from it!

Here are several sample scriptures that are examples of how eternal life can be lost and that the saved die again when they commit sin: 

Genesis 2:17; Exodus 32:32-33; Leviticus 18:24-30; 26:13-39; Numbers 25:1-8; Deuteronomy 4:23-31; Joshua 7:, 10-12; Judges 2:1-23; I Kings 14:22; II Kings 17:1-17; II Chronicles 36; Isaiah 5:24-25; Jeremiah 2:5-37;  Lamentations 1:8-9; Ezekiel 13:1-23; Hebrews 12:28-29; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; Matthew 7:21; I John 4:8, 12, 16, 21; Galatians 1:6-8; Mark 11:25-26; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Luke 8:13; John 6:66; II Corinthians 5:17; Romans 11:16; Acts 1:20, 25; Colossians 2:8-19; Jude 12-13; II Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16; Philippians 3:7-14; I Thessalonians 3:8; James 5:19-20; & II Peter 1:4-10.

Here are several other sample scriptures that reveal eternal life is not an eternal possession now and will not be until the end of a life of holiness:

Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Mark 16:15; Matthew 12:31-32; Acts 5:3, 32; 7:51; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; Matthew 7:13-14; etc.

Here are several more plain scriptures that demonstrate men have to continue to the end to be saved:

Matthew 10:22; Romans 6:21-23; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 6:11-12; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; Hebrews 10:23, 35-39; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; & Matthew 7:13-14.

Here are a few more scriptures that demonstrate the promises and covenants of God are conditional: 

John 5:14; John 8:31, 34; Revelation 2:4-5, 10, 13-16, 20-25; 3:1-4, 11, 15-19.

Here are several scriptures concerning faith and faithfulness to the end to be saved:

Acts 14:22; Romans 1:5; 16:26; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38-39; Romans 3:3; Romans 11:20-24; I Corinthians 16:13; II Corinthians 1:24; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:23: I Timothy 1:19; 4:1; II Timothy 3:8; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 4:11; 6:11-12; 10:23-39; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13.

Here are several scriptures about saved men falling into sin and becoming lost:

Luke 8:13; Romans 11:11-24; I Corinthians 10:13; I Timothy 3:6; 6:9-10; Hebrews 6:4-6, 11; II Peter 3:17; Galatians 5:4; Romans 14:4; Jude 20-24; Romans 11:22; Acts 1:25; II Thessalonians 2:3; & Revelation 2:5-6.

 

Quote #5:

“John 1:17, KJV—‘For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”  Have you noticed that truth is on the side of grace, not the law?’”

Chapter 2, page 12

 

NOTE:  The point of truth being on the side of grace goes to show that grace must still be tempered with truth.  Are God’s laws “lies” because they were in the Old Testament?  Is “truth” sided AGAINST the law because of its connected usage with grace?  NO!!!  It only shows that LIKE THE LAW, GRACE must still be partnered with TRUTH!

 

Quote #6:

“Grace is personal and came as a person—the person of Jesus Christ.  The law is hard, cold and impersonal.  You cannot have a relationship with two pieces of stone.  But grace is gentle and warm.  Grace is not a teaching or doctrine.  Grace is a person and you can have a relationship with a person.”

Chapter 2, page 12

 

NOTE:  Grace—Jesus.  Law—stone.  Grace—warm and fuzzy.  Law—hard and cold.   Grace—person.  Law—doctrine.  Grace—good.  Law—bad.  Interesting use of metaphors; but however you try to distinguish the law from grace you must still recognize that Jesus THROUGH GRACE FULFILLED LAW, as opposed to through grace God looked past His state of lawlessness (how many modern preachers would foolishly characterize grace today).

 

Quote #7:

 

“Therefore, when you know and believe that Jesus has fulfilled completely the righteous requirements of the law, the devil cannot use the law to condemn you every time you fail.”

Chapter 2, page 15

 

NOTE:  The idea suggested here seems to be that a revelation of Christ’s fulfillment of the law removes condemnation; however, it also infers that this revelation will do nothing to prevent ongoing failure.  The main problem with this statement is it leaves the believer condemned to failure while promising a removal of condemnation for his failure.   Must we settle for such cheap grace?  Can we not believe for grace to do more than help us feel better while we fail?  Let’s instead believe God to not only remove the sense of condemnation, but to remove the failure that brings the condemnation!

 

Quote #8:

“I told my minister friend that I actually do not agree that grace should be a topic in a Bible school’s curriculum.  Grace is not a topic—grace is the gospel…Grace is not a theology.  It is not a subject matter.  It is not a doctrine.  It is a person, and His name is Jesus.”

--Chapter 3, page 24

 

NOTE:  (Sigh.)  Is this not a self-refuting paragraph?  Is this not a topical & theological book on the doctrine/subject matter of grace?  While there is nothing terrible or wrong with making an association of grace with the person of Christ Jesus, let’s go ahead and make the association of Christ Jesus and the Word made Flesh as well.  You see, studying the Word (even the Old Testament—GASP) actually brings us closer to the person of Jesus.  I suggest that a chief bi-product of this intimacy with the Word made flesh is sound doctrine concerning grace.  I would also suggest that a person who teaches doctrine without acknowledging it as such smells “fishy.”  Sort of like saying, “I am the great and powerful Oz so…ignore the man behind the curtain!” or “Since my doctrine on grace IS Jesus Himself—don’t doubt Jesus by questioning me!”  Nice catch-22.

 

Quote #9:

“So when they [preachers] see sin, they preach more of the law!  That, my friend, is like adding wood to fire because the strength of sin is the law.  Sin is strengthened when more law is preached!  But the power to have dominion over sin is imparted when more grace is preached!”

Chapter 3, page 26

 

NOTE:  First, let’s properly understand the context of “the strength of sin is the law” taken from I Corinthians 15:56: “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

Is this verse in any way implying that the law makes people sin MORE, as the author suggests?   What is this verse saying?

First, let’s look at the first part of the verse: “the sting of death is sin”.  What is this saying?  Simply put, sin makes death painful.  No problem there.  The sting of death is sin.  Sin is the sting of death.  In short, sin stings.

Now the second part:  “…and the strength of sin is the law” or, in other words, “and the strength of [the sting of death] is the law.”  So…the law makes the sting of death, a.k.a. sin, hurt more.

Now, is this in any way saying the law makes people sin more?  No, it is saying the law makes people hurt more because the effect of sin is made apparent in their lives.  No different than spanking a child.  Does spanking a child make the child sin more, even though the scriptures recommend it?  You might make the case that giving a spanking provokes a child to sin (if not properly applied), but the purpose of the spanking is for the child to associate their sin with pain.  No more, no less.  The purpose of the law is the same:  to associate sin with pain.

So, preaching the law may be adding wood to the fire, in the sense that the person living in sin who hears it feels its pain to a greater degree, but the sting of sin must be felt before the salve of grace is applied to any purpose.  The law can be prescribed like pouring alcohol on an open cut:  its purpose is not to stop the pain, it’s to treat the wound.  The law and grace work together and this is a necessary partnership—because the greater problem of sin is not that we FEEL it; it’s that we keep doing it!  Grace is then applied and preached to restore the sinner AFTER the sinner not only escapes the pain of sin (felt more intensely through the law) but flees sin itself!  The law brings necessary pain to the unrepentant; then after repentance, grace converts the sinner and the pain of sin, condemnation, and the sin itself, is fully dealt with and removed from a person’s life!

 

Quote #10:

“They say that God gives you the gift of righteousness, on the condition that you keep the Ten Commandments for the rest of your life to remain righteous.  Now, is this a real gift?  Come on,  when God gave you the gift of righteousness, it was a real gift.  Stop trying to earn it with your own works.  God’s gifts to us are unconditional!”

                                                                                                                             Chapter 3, page 28

 

NOTE:  The gift God gave us was “righteousness” itself.  If you sin, you reject the gift.  It is a ridiculous and dishonest proposition to suggest that since we were given the gift of righteousness, we are righteous whether we are righteous or not (See the entire book of I John).  Obviously, God’s gifts ARE conditional in the sense that if He gives us the gift of righteousness, we should BE righteous, and not just assert that the gift means we have an unconditional claim on righteousness.

 

Quote #11:

“My friend, righteousness is a gift because of what Jesus has accomplished on the cross for you.  All your sins—past, present and future—have been washed clean by His precious blood.  You are completely forgiven and from the moment you received Jesus into your life, you will never be held liable for your sins ever again.”

Chapter 3, pages 28-29

 

NOTE:  Unconditional forgiveness.  Herein lies the root of error that leads to so many heresies.  All of this quote is true save one important point that makes the difference between a truth and a lie:  righteousness is a gift because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross for you.  All your sins—past and present—have been washed clean by His precious blood, and because of grace you don’t have to have a “FUTURE SINS TO BE FORGIVEN” category!  But if future sins happen, your prescription is not denial, it’s found in I John 1:9.

 

Quote #12:

“…when believers don’t understand that righteousness is a gift, and that it is about ‘right standing’ and not ‘right doing’, they will depend on their own efforts to earn this gift.”

Chapter 3, page 34

 

NOTE:  Right standing implies right doing.  The debate, I guess would be, is right standing compatible with wrong doing?  I don’t think that’s the kind of right standing God had in mind.

 

Quote #13:

“My friend, those who believe that God is sometimes angry with them are still living under the old covenant of the law and not under the new covenant of grace.”

Chapter 4, page 38

 

NOTE:  So the cross was to convert God the Father from his temper problem against sin?  There are numerous New Testament examples that God still gets mad at both sin and sinners, through Jesus example, through the epistles’ doctrine, and through prophetic warnings of the coming wrath of God.  One only needs to read the book of Revelation to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God still gets angry; and if one reads Revelation 2-3 in particular, they will see that He still gets angry at church people from time to time, even among those He loves who live prior to the tribulation!

 

Quote #14:

“Schizophrenic teaching that tells you that God is sometimes angry and sometimes happy with you based on your performance is unscriptural and will make you a schizophrenic believer.  It’s time to get out of confusion and to start seeing your God for who He really is.”

Chapter 4, page 48

 

NOTE:  There is nothing schizophrenic about experiencing a range of emotions for people you love when they perform well or perform badly.  Evidently, the cross not only converted God from His temper problem it saved Him from being schizophrenic and acted as an anti-depressant for mood swings and anxiety.  Now He has only one emotion all the time (at least while the church is here, then after the rapture He will explode in uncontrollable rage after 2000 + years of happy, happy, happy.)

I realize no one would actually ascribe to believe the above paragraph; however, I’m trying to make the point that we sometimes go too far in our analogies about how happy God is with us that we begin to paint an illusion of the nature of God that is very different from His true Person.

 

Quote #15:

“Soon after the tragedy of September 11 had taken place, some believers publicly declared that God was judging America because of its sins…Come on, when Christians attribute such events to God’s judgment, terrorists would be the first to say, ‘Amen!  Preach it!’  Can you see that something is amiss when both believers and terrorists agree on the same thing? 

Chapter 5, page 49

 

NOTE:  The devil believes in God and divine judgment, why shouldn’t some of his followers?  Can you also see that something is amiss when believers and secular humanists agree to scoff/belittle/patronize the notion of divine judgment?

 

Quote #16:

“Thousands of people died [referring to 9/11], and many families, friends and loved ones were thrown into grief.  How can that be the work of our loving Father?  Read the Bible for yourself.  It says that God is ‘not willing that any should perish.’”

Chapter 5, page 49

 

NOTE:  Reading the Bible is always sound advice…in fact, let’s start by reading the rest of the verse cited above:  “[God is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”  This verse is in II Peter 3:9, which ironically, is a New Testament verse in the middle of a large passage of scripture dedicated to warning believers about divine judgment.  The theme being that in the last days many would scoff at the coming judgment of God, and that if men don’t repent, even though God wills to save, even though God wills that none should perish, men will still perish as part of divine judgment.

The classic argument being that these verses refer to a future judgment exclusively, and that we are in an interim period where God has (please pardon my crude theological paraphrase):  “lovingly decided to stop being judgmental because of the cross (but will have a relapse after the church is gone and judge again in the future).”

Nevertheless, one would be right in saying these verses refer to a future judgment, they do—but not exclusively.  So one must ask the question:  In this “Age of Grace” (or “justice-free Shangri-La” as the Age of Grace is often described), do men still perish?   They do.  Is the command to repent still applicable to us?  It is.  Did God decide to wink at us and ruthlessly judge everyone else by a different standard?  He did not.  In fact, I Peter 4:17-19 tells us that divine judgment not only still applies to us, it begins with us!

Jesus did not die on the cross so the Father would stop being judgmental.  He did not die on the cross to deliver us from consequences to bad behavior.  He died on the cross to provide a way of escape to those who would repent.  Though we repent, if we sin again (as II Peter 2:19-22 tells us) consequences are reinstated.

We cannot have a loving Father and an unjust one at the same time.  A loving Father punishes evil (or refuses to sanction it), to preserve righteousness in His children.  The Bible instructs natural parents to discipline (and punish, if necessary) their children.  Good parents do that.  Hebrews 12:5-29 tells us that God the Father chastens those He loves.  Revelation 3:19 tells us that Jesus rebukes and chastens those He loves.  I Corinthians 5:1-5 tells us that a church was to surrender one of their members to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit might be saved.  There comes a point when wickedness MUST be judged to preserve righteousness.

One might ask, “how can God be just and merciful at the same time?”  It is simple.  God is just in that He punishes wickedness.  He is merciful in that He forgives and pardons the penitent who turn from their crimes.  If they turn back to their sin, they must renew themselves through true repentance once again.  They are not given a lifetime pass.

 

Quote #17:

“I have also heard some believers pronouncing, ‘If God does not judge America for all its sins, God has to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.’ Well, let me say this with honor and respect: If God judges America today, He has to apologize to Jesus and what He has accomplished on the cross! My friend, God is not judging America (or any country in the world today).”

Chapter 5, page 49

 

NOTE:  Proverbs 19:28-29 says the following:

“An ungodly witness scorneth judgment:  and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.  Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools.”

Divine judgment is throughout the Old Testament and was a common theme in nearly every book.  That theme was continued through our Lord Jesus in the Gospels when He declared judgment upon men, cities, nations and churches who failed to receive Him.  In fact, Jesus rebuked the religious leaders in Matthew 23:23 for NEGLECTING to teach judgment.  Many of the judgments Christ pronounced took place long after the cross.  The epistles teach and warn concerning divine judgment as well.  Hebrews 6:2 lists “judgment” as a foundational doctrine of Christ, the MILK of the Word for babes!  Yet we arrogantly or presumptuously mock the importance of it and say, “Nah, it doesn’t apply to us!”  FOOLISH!

 

Quote #18:

“You will never find an example of God punishing a believer for his sins in the new covenant.”

Chapter 5, page 57

 

NOTE:  Please see the following examples of God punishing believers for their sins in the new covenant:

(1)  Ananias & Saphira—Acts 5:1-14(2)  The Galatian church—Galatians 6:7-8

(3)  The promiscuous church member at Corinth—I Corinthians 5:4-5; II Corinthians 2:6

(4)  Christian brothers who maintain certain sins—I Corinthians 5:9-13

(5)  Hymenaeus & Alexander—I Timothy 1:19-20; II Timothy 4:14

(6)  The younger widows—I Timothy 5:11-15

(7)  Sinning brothers—I Timothy 5:20

(8)  Believers who become lovers of money—I Timothy 6:9-10

(9)  Demas—II Timothy 4:10 (see also Colossians 4:14  & Philemon 24 for confirmation he was not only a believer, but a one-time preacher)

(10)  Huge segments of the seven churches in Asia (Revelation 2-3)

Also note God’s divine judgment illustrated in the death of Herod (Acts 12:23), Elymas the sorcerer being struck with blindness (Acts 13:8-12) and God’s use of civil government to punish evil (Romans 13:1-6).

 

Quote #19:

“Did Jesus die on the cross to free us from committing sinful actions or harboring sinful thoughts?  If He did, then allow me to conclude with reverence that He failed.  You and I know fully well that we can still be tempted with sinful thoughts and tempted to commit sinful actions, and there will still be times when we fail.”

--Chapter 5, pages 58-59

 

NOTE:  To be blunt, this is a most inflammatory, heretical & unbelieving statement which is contrary to all the Word of God.  Yet, it is what so many preachers believe without saying it so recklessly.

The simple answer is “YES”; Jesus DID die to not only free us from our sins, but from our iniquities (bent towards sin) as well (Isaiah 53:5).  He didn’t just forgive us for the sins we commit.  His grace delivers us not only from the sins we commit; but from the sin nature that accompanies sin.  II Peter 1:4-10 tells us how we can stay free from sin.  I John 1:8-9 says that if we have fellowship with God but continue to walk in darkness (continue sinning) we lie.  Then it also reveals that we are cleansed and maintain freedom from sin by walking in the light.  We don’t sin as believers when we walk in the light; we sin when we walk away from it.  In which case, we do as I John 1:9 instructs, we repent and get back in the light!

Let me also say that temptation itself is not sin.  Jesus was tempted and remained sinless.  Wrong thoughts or suggestions of the devil don’t become transgressions unless acted upon (James 1:14-15).  Wrong thoughts or suggestions of the devil don’t become iniquities unless brooded about and not cast down (II Corinthians 10:5).

Grace that merely “helps sinners not transgress as much as before” is just cheap.  You don’t need salvation for that, a monastery will suffice.  Grace that not only removes sin, condemnation, & the slavery to keep committing it is the only grace worth having!  Everything else is a cheap counterfeit!  God help our unbelief!!!

 

 

Quote #20:

“…I was told that the more I knew, the more God would hold me accountable, and my punishment for falling short of His expectations would be more severe than someone who knew less…I was also taught that the closer I drew to God, the more trials and tribulations I would experience…As I grew in the Lord, He opened my eyes and I realized that the teachings that I had received were not true.”

Chapter 6, pages 61-62

 

NOTE:  These teachings are not lies—they are common sense.  When a believer matures, more is expected of him (James 3:1); You expect more from adults than babies because part of maturity is taking responsibility (Hebrews 5:11-14)—and yes, the more you mature, the greater trials you will face!  Adults tend to have bigger trials than babies.  This is not a fearful thing though, because adults are equipped to handle it.  The premise here is that teaching these things causes believers to shun intimacy with God for fear of greater expectations upon themselves.  Don’t worry!  If a person chooses to stay a spiritual baby to avoid growth pains they can and will.  Personally, I prefer to grow up and tap into the destiny that God has for me.  I want God to trust me to rise to His expectations because of His grace and my partnership with Jesus Christ.

 

Quote #21:

“You see, faith does not come by simply hearing the word of God because the word of God would encompass everything in the Bible, including the law of Moses.  There is no impartation of faith when you hear the Ten Commandments preached.  Faith only comes by hearing the word of Christ…Only when Christ is preached will faith be imparted.”

Chapter 7, page 75

 

NOTE:  The complexities of doctrinal confusion in this statement are so vast it is difficult to give a simple refutation.  Nevertheless, it raises some important questions for Pastor Prince:

(1)  How is “the Word of God” out of harmony with “the Word of Christ” in your estimation that makes it necessary to make this distinction?

(2)  Since the Word of God encompasses everything in the Bible, but the Word of Christ does not, which words belong to Christ, and which do not?

(3)  If the law of Moses is God-inspired, why is it not Christ-inspired as well?  Is there strife in the Godhead, or did Jesus convert the Father/Holy Spirit at the cross?

(4)  Why do only the words of Christ produce faith, but not the words of the Father or the Holy Spirit?

(5)  If the law of Moses came from God, but didn’t produce faith in them that heard it, why did so many people try to obey something they had no capacity to believe?

(6)  If the law of Moses doesn’t produce faith, why did Israel experience so many revivals when it was taught to the people (II Kings 22-23; Nehemiah 8-10)?

(7) If the Ten Commandments don’t produce faith, why has our nation sunk further into spiritual darkness since we’ve removed it from our schools, courthouses and public places?

In summary, splitting hairs between “Word of God” verses “Word of Christ” is absurd since Jesus was called “the Word made Flesh (John 1:14)”  and was in the beginning WITH God AS God called “The Word of God (John 1:1).”  Nothing that Christ ever said is out of harmony with the Father or the Holy Spirit, because they are one (I John 5:7).   All of the Word of God contains and produces faith, not just words pertaining directly to Christ Himself (see Hebrews 11:3 & Romans 4:17 for examples).  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, is considered the inerrant Word of God and is necessary for edification of the believer (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:19-21).  No scripture is subject to private interpretation, nor is it wise to sift through scripture saying, “this is the word of Christ—this is not.”  Hebrews chapter 11 lists many who are referred to as “heroes of faith” who knew no distinction between “word of God” verses “word of Christ”, yet received faith from God’s Word anyway. 

Just for clarification, it is right and proper to teach and preach based on a revelation of Christ (like Paul did, Galatians 1:11-12) and hearing the Word of God/Word of Christ IS the method that faith comes.  However, a revelation of Christ—or an understanding of the words of Christ—are not limited to a hand-picked selection of New Testament verses.  The Word of Christ encompasses all of the Bible and INCLUDES THE LAW OF MOSES!

 

Quote #22:

“I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Christian cannot commit the unpardonable sin.”

Chapter 8, page 90

 

NOTE:  Here are several sample scriptures that are examples of how eternal life can be lost and that the saved die again when they commit sin: 

Genesis 2:17; Exodus 32:32-33; Leviticus 18:24-30; 26:13-39; Numbers 25:1-8; Deuteronomy 4:23-31; Joshua 7:, 10-12; Judges 2:1-23; I Kings 14:22; II Kings 17:1-17; II Chronicles 36; Isaiah 5:24-25; Jeremiah 2:5-37;  Lamentations 1:8-9; Ezekiel 13:1-23; Hebrews 12:28-29; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; Matthew 7:21; I John 4:8, 12, 16, 21; Galatians 1:6-8; Mark 11:25-26; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Luke 8:13; John 6:66; II Corinthians 5:17; Romans 11:16; Acts 1:20, 25; Colossians 2:8-19; Jude 12-13; II Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16; Philippians 3:7-14; I Thessalonians 3:8; James 5:19-20; & II Peter 1:4-10.

Here are several other sample scriptures that reveal eternal life is not an eternal possession now and will not be until the end of a life of holiness:

Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Mark 16:15; Matthew 12:31-32; Acts 5:3, 32; 7:51; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; Matthew 7:13-14; etc.

Here are several more plain scriptures that demonstrate men have to continue to the end to be saved:

Matthew 10:22; Romans 6:21-23; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 6:11-12; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; Hebrews 10:23, 35-39; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; & Matthew 7:13-14.

Here are several scriptures concerning faith and faithfulness to the end to be saved:

Acts 14:22; Romans 1:5; 16:26; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38-39; Romans 3:3; Romans 11:20-24; I Corinthians 16:13; II Corinthians 1:24; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:23: I Timothy 1:19; 4:1; II Timothy 3:8; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 4:11; 6:11-12; 10:23-39; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13.

Here are several scriptures about saved men falling into sin and becoming lost:

Luke 8:13; Romans 11:11-24; I Corinthians 10:13; I Timothy 3:6; 6:9-10; Hebrews 6:4-6, 11; II Peter 3:17; Galatians 5:4; Romans 14:4; Jude 20-24; Romans 11:22; Acts 1:25; II Thessalonians 2:3; & Revelation 2:5-6.

 

Quote #23:

 

“A believer has already received the gift of eternal life and will never be “subject to eternal condemnation.”

 

Chapter 8, page 92

 

NOTE:  See scriptures from previous quote.  Particularly the scriptures that reveal eternal life is not an eternal possession now.

 

Quote #24:

“…some of the words which Jesus spoke in the four gospels…are part of the old covenant.  They were spoken before the cross as He had not yet died.  The new covenant only begins after the cross, when the Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost.”

Chapter 8, page 92

 

NOTE:  (Sigh).  The gospels are the foundation for the new covenant; not merely the capstone for the old.  Jesus didn’t come to earth to teach us about the old covenant.  He certainly didn’t prep His disciples, “Guys, I want you to record the things I say and do and then ignore it because after I’m gone—none of it applies to you anyway.  A man named Paul will come who will teach you what to believe about me.  For now, I want it to be a surprise, so just keep bumbling around like idiots until I’m long gone.”

None of the gospels were written so Jesus could propagate the old covenant!  The gospel of Matthew could probably be considered the most “Old Testament” of the four gospels because it was written to Jews; and yet, the subject of Matthew from the first chapter until the last is the kingdom of heaven (of which the church is a part).  Everything about this gospel is revolutionary, and was written to convert Jews to Christianity.  Why would this gospel be used to evangelize if it was merely an extension of the Old Testament?  It wouldn’t.

The gospel of Mark and Luke were written to evangelize Romans and Greeks.  Why would they need Old Testament teachings of Jesus?  I thought evangelizing Gentile nations was a mark of the new covenant, not the old!

For Pete’s sake, the gospel of John was written to the church!

Now Jesus DID say that there were things He could not teach them yet because they were not ready to bear it; however, John 14:26 said that one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit when He comes is: “TO REMIND THE DISCIPLES WHAT JESUS TAUGHT! “  We all need that reminder.

 

Quote #25:

“Not everything that Jesus said was spoken to the church.  Paul’s letters were written to the church and are thus for our benefit today.  God raised him up to write the words of the ascended Jesus…That is why, when it comes to reading the Bible, I always encourage new believers in our church to begin with the letters of Paul.  (Many new believers like to start with the book of Revelation or Genesis, without first getting a foundation in the gospel of grace through reading the letters of Paul.)”

Chapter 8, page 94

 

NOTE:  If Paul had all the post-cross doctrine and revelation we need, why would the church need Jesus’ pre-cross teaching?  Why did Paul say we have the “mind of Christ” if all we need is the “mind of Paul?”

The answer is:  our salvation starts with Jesus, not Paul (See I Corinthians 1:13).  Our doctrine starts with Jesus, not Paul.  Our chief example of compassion, ministry, authority and power is Jesus Himself—not Paul.  Paul’s ministry began with a revelation of Jesus, not Paul coming to self-actualization.  Christ showed us how we can live through His own example.  He taught us what to believe through His own words.  When Pentecost came, a foundation of the Word in new covenant terms through the Word made Flesh was already laid.  The disciples didn’t have to make up their own doctrines after Jesus left!  They taught the good NEWS—that is, what Christ Himself had ALREADY revealed to them!

Jesus didn’t die to save His own doctrine (or the plethora of other things in this book that are wrongfully attributed to the cross)!  He’s the same yesterday, today, & forever!

 

Quote #26:

“Listen carefully:  We don’t have to confess our sins in order to be forgiven.  We confess our sins because we are already forgiven…I’m talking about being open with God…So confession in the new covenant is just being honest about your failures and your humanity.  It is the result of being forgiven and not something you do in order to be forgiven.”

Chapter 9, page 104

 

NOTE:  There is no scriptural basis for this statement anywhere and there are literally hundreds of verses to the contrary.  The term “confession” is linked to the idea of repentance, and there is no example in scripture where we are told repentance is “about being open with God” and is not necessary for forgiveness.  This statement is just another way to substantiate an already bogus doctrine that misunderstands the work of the cross.

 

Quote #27:

“I took I John 1:9 to the limit and it nearly drove me insane.  But what does I John 1:9 really say and to whom was it actually written?...People have actually taken this verse and built a whole doctrine around it when in actually, chapter 1 of I John was written to the Gnostics, who were unbelievers.”

Chapter 9, page 106

 

NOTE:  The book of I John was written as one single, cohesive letter given to one primary audience.  It is cohesive and thematic throughout and to separate the first chapter from the rest of the book as having a different audience is either dishonest, willfully ignorant or naïve at best.

So the question arises, to whom was the letter written?  If the first chapter was written to the Gnostics, then the whole book was written to Gnostics.  If the first chapter was written to the Gnostics, and then beginning in chapter two it was written to the church (as Pastor Prince later suggests), then why is chapter one included in the same letter, particularly if his letter contained no original chapter divisions, and again if it was not intended for the audience of chapter two and forward?

 (I think the reason Pastor Prince insists that the first chapter only is written to Gnostics, is because the rest of the letter is indisputably written to a local assembly of Christian believers that were intimately connected with the apostle John because of the frequent usage of the phrase “my little children” that begins in the opening of chapter two.)

It makes no sense for John to write a letter to Gnostics in the opening and then the church later on.  That would be like my father, Pastor Larry, writing a letter to a church that belongs to one of his spiritual sons in the ministry, and including in the opening paragraph an address exclusively for Mormons.

If Christians are to ignore the first chapter because it doesn’t apply to them, why did John open with it?  If it was necessary to address the local Gnostics, why didn’t John put it on the end of the book, and give a disclaimer:  “Oh yeah, will you send this SEPARATE note to the Gnostics, and remember, YOU don’t need to confess your sins, if you do, you aren’t believing in the finished work of the cross!”

Perhaps Pastor Prince meant that the Gnostics addressed in the first chapter were part of the same congregation/audience—odd, but perhaps.  But if that was the case, why didn’t John single them out, like Paul did in many of his letters, when he was addressing specific people or referring to a particular group of people within a church body?

Regardless, the evidence is overwhelming that the book of I John fits together beautifully and flows perfectly without having to switch audiences after the introductory comments of the first chapter.

 

Quote #28:

“If you really believe that you need to confess all your sins to be forgiven, do you know what you would be doing?  You would be confessing your sins ALL THE TIME!”

Chapter 9, page 107

 

NOTE:  This statement just comes down to a misunderstanding of confession of sins.  I will explain in a couple points:

(1)  As previously mentioned, confession of sins is inextricably linked to the act of repentance (which is an inward and outward turn from sin).  Now, if your definition of grace is, “the power to continue to sin (less often) but free of the associative feelings of condemnation”, then yes, you would be confessing all the time because your faith is set on needing perpetual bailout from God.  BUT, if your definition of grace, at least in part, is “the power to stop sinning,” then no, you would not be confessing all the time because the power of grace keeps you from perpetual sin, setting you free from not only your transgressions, but your iniquities (habitual sins, and inclinations toward sin)!

(2)  Secondly, confession is more than parroting words.  It is also more than a ritualistic recitation of sin.  Confession, in the Greek is the word “homologeo” and it means more than a recitation of words.  It could be described as entering a covenant or binding agreement with God to renounce sin—aligning your thinking, believing, convictions and viewpoints with God Himself—talking the same language!  When you see confession as strictly lip service to repentance, you miss the point and power of confession.  When you see confession as a covenant with God to cease from sin and be aligned together with Him against sin, then you understand confession not only deals with the act of sin, it deals with the propensity to sin as well.

(I recommend you see the Strong’s Concordance and the Greek word studies of Rick Renner for a better understanding of confession).

 

To Continue read...

A Thorough Refutation of the False-Grace Heresy of Joseph Prince Part 2 (http://www.cornerstoneworld.org/articles/a_thorough_refutation_of_the_
false_grace_heresy_of_joseph_prince_part_2)

In every generation, almost every preacher has been criticized one way or another.

From Billy Graham, John McArthur, John Piper...even if there's one preacher which is generally well accepted by some people, he/she will have someone in his/her church to criticize.

It's a never ending cycle and I see that as the problem of being human in the flesh. What you deemed as heretic may not be to someone else.

You may not agree with me but I think the right Christian trait for this matter is not to judge anyone, let God be the rightful Judge.

Because the moment you do that, you've just step into the problem of having a critical spirit which will lead to other problems....being hard on people, demeaning, insulting, doing so much sarcastic remark on people.

For me that is hypocritical in a way when one fight so much propagating works but never put the practise on ownself. Whenever someone post a long winded post on condemning some preacher (whoever it is) I just ignore it, throw it in the rubbish bin.

Wouldn't want any dirt...it's not edifying.

1 John 1:8-10

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 2:1-2

1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

This was written to believers which are already saved.. sin is an ongoing thing.. you will still sin even after you're saved.. but salvation is permanent..

There are certain aspects i agree.. such as the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Hebrews 12:6,7
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Correct. But I rather think there's a gap of clarification between what is your term of salvation.
You are right to say, when a person is saved, there is a repentance of sin..

Ephesians 4:22
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

Colossians 3:9
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;

Yes. These are the fruits of one that is saved.

However, your argument is to backsliden christians.. that their salvation is at stake?
Revelations 2:5
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

What does the verse above tell you? and from the verses above, what will God do if His children are backsliding?
Salvation is permanent for many reasons supported by many verses (although you've mentioned its quoted out of context.. im not sure how how else you took those verses into your understanding)

I understand its plural. Yes.
So what do you understand about John 10:28
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
What do you understand when Jesus says, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

By theory, if a person kills after the person is saved.. his salvation is intact, IF salvation is true in the beginning.
If a person sins after salvation, salvation is still intact.
Is sin quantified in the Bible or categorized? Sin is still sin regardless if its murder or merely a lie.

1 John 1:8 - 1 John 2:2.

If you're saved and you lie by choice, are you bound to the lake of fire? According to the law, you don't even need to lie to sin, even a thoughts is a sin..

Lastly, If backsliders die a spiritual death.. then basically you're just saying God is a liar..

Romans 10:9,13
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Did the Bible say.. you shall be saved conditionally? or you shall be saved.. as long as you continuously call upon the name of the Lord?
While you ponder on this,

What about Revelations 2?
Did God say, all of the church of Ephesus shall be sent to the lake of fire?

Okays what about Lot?
Questionaire..Is Lot today now in the lake of fire or at the bosom of Abraham?
Solomon? Did he not backslided too?
What about Jonah?

p/s: I think you've ignored a number of bible verses about salvation..

By theory, if a person kills after the person is saved.. his salvation is intact, IF salvation is true in the beginning.
If a person sins after salvation, salvation is still intact.
Is sin quantified in the Bible or categorized? Sin is still sin regardless if its murder or merely a lie.

Dear all, please put up a spoiler on the quoted text whenever you reply a post that is very long, by doing so we minimize others from reading such a long windy posts

Dear all it's Chinese New Year today and most Chinese is celebrating Chinese New Year in their hometown and at home,. Please save your argument on Monday

Happy Chinese New Year to everyone!

Same to you too Sophie

GongXi GongXi.

Thank you same to you!!