Repentance, Calvinism and Works

I love Wretched Radio. I never miss an episode. Today, Todd took a stand that requires a response. It is a fundamental issue.

Repentance, Misdefined, Is Works

Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, and John MacArthur conflate repentance and reform. In today's podcast, Todd defended including repentance in the gospel. That is fine until they explain repentance as turning away from or ceasing from sins. Todd's reasoned today that repenting is "not works" because not doing something cannot be works. This is a flawed definition and an illogical excuse.

Before continuing, I want to point out that, in the Witness Wednesday episodes, Todd asserts his definition of repentance only a minority of the time, and when he does, he does not camp on it. 

Repentance versus Reform

John the Baptist clearly distinguished between repentance and the fruits of repentance. He challenged people who claimed to have a change of mind and heart toward sin, yet failed to demonstrate that change in their actions. Our word for fruits of repentance is 'reform'. 

The tight causal relationship between repentance and reform makes it easy to conflate them. However, 'metanoia', the change of mind and heart called repentance, is a cause. Reform is an effect and evidence of repentance's sincerity.

Moreover, the natural man cannot reform without God's enabling work of regeneration. So, while repentance is involved in the process of salvation, and genuine repentance motivates reform, reform cannot be part of that process. 

Restraint, an Element of Works

To justify turning from sin as a requirement of the gospel, Todd quoted Ray's explanation that not doing something cannot be a work. Thus, they admit that they define repentance as including reform.

Just as there are sins of commission and sins of omission, there are works of commission and works of restraint. "Not doing something," therefore, is indeed "works."

Ray and Todd frequently make use of the Ten Commandments. Five, and arguably six, of the ten are Thou-shalt-not's. What is obedience to those commandments if not works of restraint? If obeying the Ten Commandments is "works," then refraining from sins as part of "repentance" is an offering of righteousness to God in exchange for salvation.

Arminians say you must refrain from certain sins to maintain salvation. Calvinists say you must refrain from sins to enter salvation. It's like the extremes of both have wrapped around the back and met each other.

Calvinist Repentance

From a Calvinist's perspective, the natural man's spirit is dead, inanimate, nonfunctional, dead-dead. God must regenerate him, that is, must animate his spirit before he can have faith. Therefore, if God has already saved a man, then all of what God commands of Christians becomes presentable in the gospel. Under Calvinism, faith plus works is a result of salvation, not a cause, so commanding good works or restraint from sin is orthodox... under Calvinism. 

But if commanding works is applicable to the convert, who has already been saved so that he can believe, then why would Todd defend preaching repentance-reform? Why must he deny that his definition of repentance is works? His agreement that it would be heretical to preach works refutes his belief in Calvinism. 

A Moderate Calvinist View

A Moderate Calvinist sees problems with the Calvinist definition of spiritual death. How can a dead spirit be accountable for things it was not even conscious of, aware of, and in power over? How can a dead spirit suffer in Hades? How can a dead spirit go to Hades without regeneration that is reserved for Christians? 

A Moderate Calvinist also sees a contradiction between the Calvinist order of salvation processes and the explicit New Testament teaching that God uses faith as the means through which He works the grace of salvation.  

A Moderate Calvinist would define spiritual death as analogous to physical death, which is separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is separation from God with an accompanying cognitive disability with respect to spiritual things, resulting from bondage to sin. The "dead" spirit, then, has awareness and influence over decisions and can be held accountable for sins. The order of salvation would be a bracing or healing of the cognitive disability and a conviction of sin, followed by receiving the gift of faith, followed by salvation by grace through faith. 

In other words, since spiritually dead means separation from God and not dead-dead, God does not need to regenerate the spirit before granting the gift of faith. Commanding the unsaved to perform works, then, mixes grace with wages and faith with works, leaving the "convert" unconverted. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated us, provided credit is properly given. 

Only God (Christ) versus Only God (Father)

Answering a question on Quora: 

Why does the ESV contradict itself in John 1:18 versus John 17:3 (John, contradiction, Christology, Trinity, ESV, hermeneutics)?

The question is a non sequitur. It presumes, without evidence or specificity, that there is a contradiction. There is, in fact, no contradiction.

The first verse is a declarative sentence in the author’s voice:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. John 1:18 (ESV)

The second verse quotes a prayer by Jesus:

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

(The links take you to a page that lists over two dozen translations of the verses. Versions based on the five-century old Received Text, or Byzantine family of ancient manuscripts, have variations of “only-begotten Son” or “one-and-only Son.” The other versions, which include the ESV, are based on the oldest manuscripts, or Critical Text, which have variations on “only-begotten God” or “one-and-only God.”)

Most of the concepts in the two verses do not overlap. The parts that seem to conflict upon a superficial reading are the description of Jesus as the only God in 1:18 and the description of the Father as the only true God in 17:3.

To answer the question, one must understand the translation in 1:18 and how early Christians solved the paradox of three Persons or Personalities being identified as God, yet there eternally being a grand total of exactly one God.

The Quoran educated at the Theocratic Ministry School (i.e., the Watchtower, more commonly know as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) claims falsely that “The ESV dropped (Only Begotten). If you look the verse up in the Interlinear you will see that they dropped those (key) words.” This claim reflects a shocking lack of understanding of Koine Greek, or even of observing what the interlinear text shows.

The meanings of English words change over time; the same is true for Greek. According to qualified Koine Greek scholars, there’s uncertainty over whether monogenes, “onlybegotten,” had come to mean “unique” or “one and only” during the first century. Majority opinion had leaned toward “one and only” for a while, but opinion is swinging back toward “only-begotten.” In my opinion, “only-begotten” makes more sense in the context, but we should accept and live with the uncertainty.

“Only God” in the ESV, then, is an acceptable translation of monogenēs Theos (although it might suffer from under-emphasis of Christ’s uniqueness). The Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that the ESV dropped monogenēs is false.

Readers who resist the misdirection of attention toward monogenēs will notice that the verse calls Jesus, Theos, “God.” So, again, the Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that “Clearly because Jesus is not God” contradicts the text.

It’s tempting to go on a tangent showing how a triune God is the only solution to many scriptural claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, yet there is exactly one God. It is sufficient in this context to state that, if the Creator of space-time could use His creative power to exist in space-time as God the Father and God the Son, then “clearly” it is presumptuous to say “Clearly because Jesus is not God.”

So, while there is exactly one Creator, God, recognizing that God could exist within space-time as multiple centers of consciousness or “Persons” allows us to reconcile John 1:18 and 17:3.

“Only God” in 1:18 abbreviates a larger concept born out by reading the entirety of the book, or even the first three verses of the same chapter. The abbreviation has obviously caused confusion because, for a shallow reading, Christ cannot be the “only God” and the Father being the “only true God.” That’s why immediate, book, and New Testament levels of context and digging deeper into the language underlying the translation matter.

One more detail from the larger context is needed. The Author of the New Testament anticipated Modalism and ruled it out. Modalism asserts that the one God is one Person who changes modes (roles and costumes) to give the appearance of being three Persons. For that reason, it uses three titles of God: God (the Father), Lord (Christ the Son), and Spirit (the Holy Spirit).

Thus, depending on context, “only true God” can refer either to the eternal, One-as-Three God or to the temporal Person called the Father. And monogenes Theos (only God, one-and-only God, or only-begotten God) refers specifically to the Person who added a human nature to His spirit nature.

When you understand how the writer meant the language, there is no contradiction, even if the ESV is less verbose than it needs to be to prevent confusion by people who take snippets of scripture out of context.

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Tongues of Angels? Probably Not

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 2

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

Tongues of Angels? Not Likely.

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels,

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains,

but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor

and surrender my body that I may boast,but have not love, I gain nothing.

Pentecostal Claim: Languages of Angels

Pentecostals and their child movements, Charismatism, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation claim that the Holy Spirit still grants the spiritual gift of speaking in the languages of men and angels. They see glossolalia at several points in the book of Acts and extrapolate it to today without regard to other events in church history. Then they add their experience and interpret the rest of scripture in accordance with their experience.

Former Pentecostal pastor George Gardner told of how, when he was a ministry student, a Hebrew friend stood in chapel and recited Mary Had a Little Lamb in Yiddish. Another student with the gift of interpretation went into a long translation of the Holy Spirit’s message: The students were spending too much time in volleyball and other recreational activities and not enough time in their studies and ministries. That gave Gardner his first hint that Tongues, or at least Interpretations, was not always genuine. 

My wife’s uncle, by birth a Ukrainian Jew and a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, had a similar story about visiting a Pentecostal church and reciting the 23rd Psalm in Ukrainian. The “interpretation” had nothing to do with the Psalm. 

I’ve heard stories, so nth-hand as to be rumors, about people who were understood by immigrants. Sounds like Navajo or Sounds like German. But is "sounds like" authoritative? The one story I’ve heard that sounded credible came from a Pentecostal co-worker. This man was a certified super genius. He understood the low priority that 1 Corinthians 14 assigns to the gift of tongues, so he attended a cessationist Baptist church for teaching that was better than in any of the local Pentecostal churches. 

While visiting another church, he was invited to give a message, which he gave in English. Afterwards, two ladies came to him. One explained that she heard his message in English, but the other, who had recently immigrated, spoke no English, and had heard the entire message in her native language. Due to being isolated by language, hearing the message in her own language had been a blessing that brought her to tears. Although my coworker spoke in tongues, the “tongues” in this case, was not in the mouth of the speaker, but in the ears of a listener. And it was not a spiritual gift, but a one-off miracle.

Since Pentecostals have not shown that they speak in human foreign languages, by process of elimination, they conclude, they speak in a heavenly, angelic language. But scriptural evidence for such a claim is extremely weak. 

Scripture Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

The chapter reads as very poetic, so one should expect metaphor and hyperbole. Verses 1 through 3 all pose hypothetical situations. Verse 3 describes extreme actions, and verse 2 describes attributes never held by any mere human. Considering this trio of verses as a unit should lead a reasonable person to accepting that the language of verse 1 is hyperbolic, as well. That is, the phrase that suggests glossolalia might include speaking in angelic language may be hypothetical to strengthen the following clause: 

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

The warning in Verse 1 weighs against Pentecostals speaking in the languages of angels in two ways. First, speaking in the languages of angels is like banging brass and clanging cymbals because it conveys no information. Angelic communications with humans have, without exception, conveyed messages. Angels do perform tasks such as making war, but even the Greek word translated angel means messenger. Tongues may be exciting, but it imparts no long-term blessing. By its nature, speaking in an unintelligible, supposedly angelic language violates the test of love and the goal of members of the church edifying each other. 

Second, speaking in the languages of angels, without love, is no better than the sounds of a brass pot falling to the pavement or cymbals clanging in a Hellenist or Roman temple. The allusion to pagan religious practices links back to verses 2 and 3 of chapter 12. Pagans spoke in nonsensical tongues amid much chanting and rhythmic noise (such as from symbols) that was used to work up the worshipers into an ecstatic state of altered consciousness -- the same formula as the worked-up anticipation, long music services, shallow, repetitive lyrics, and trance-inducing songs in Pentecostal churches. 

The Pagans were not alone. To their company, we can add adherents of the heresies of Sacramentalism (Orthodox and Roman Catholic, and many Protestant denominations -- especially Pentecostals), Mariolatry (Roman Catholics), and Modalism (Oneness Pentecostals). In the 1800s, glossolalia was frequently practiced by Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Glossolalia is also practiced by shamans and certain branches of Hinduism. 

Around 2010, Justin Brierly, on the British Unbelievable? radio show and podcast, interviewed an Atheist who de-converted from Pentecostalism and still occasionally spoke in tongues just for fun. According to Pentecostals, abandoning his salvation canceled the blessings of being God’s son, forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. So either the Holy Spirit failed to remove the gift of tongues along with the gift of salvation, and continued to manifest Himself through the ability, or the gift was a learned psychological phenomenon. 

The glossolalia of the pagans calls into question that of Christians. If the practice is a learned, altered state for pagans, it can be a learned, psychological phenomenon for Christians. If it results from demonic control for pagans, it can result from demonic control of false brethren among us. Some argue that it results from demonic control of genuine Christians, too; but I'm not convinced that it is possible for a demon to go beyond making suggestions to one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Rumors of legitimate glossolalia have, in fact, been countered by missionary accounts of demonic blasphemy through glossolalia. Although, without recordings and authoritative interpretation, neither type of account presents credible evidence, one must admit that the accounts cancel out each other.

A Pentecostal might point to 2 Corinthians 12:4 as evidence of angelic, non-human languages. Paul said he knew a certain man, probably himself, who was caught up to heaven where he heard inexpressible words. The term, inexpressible (arreta) meant not that the words were difficult to pronounce, but rather that they were too holy to be permitted. Indeed, the term is followed by that are not permitted for a man to utter. 

The word permitted (exon) means exactly that: permitted or lawful. It is used over 30 times in the New Testament to refer to permission. So the sense is not that the words in the vision were an unpronounceable foreign language, but that they were too holy to be spoken without negative consequences. The verse does not support the existence of angelic languages.

The “name” of God provides us with three examples of forbidden holy words. Some Christians consider even the title G_d too holy to even spell out. This echoes how the pronunciation of YHWH was lost. After the return of Judah from exile, the priests decided that God’s name was too holy to speak. As a result, the pronunciation was forgotten between 400 and 200 BC because written Hebrew had no vowels. Soon after, to make the name pronounceable during readings in synagogues, they added the vowels from Adonai, Lord, to the consonants, YHWH, I AM. Transliterating YaHoWaH from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, and finally to English, gave us Jehovah. At the same time, Bible translators replaced most occurrences of Jehovah with the LORD (in all capital letters). It was assumed that any literate person would understand the meaning.

Consideration of genre, tone, and history undercut the belief that verse 1 promotes the idea that glossolalia comprises an angelic language. 2 Corinthians 12:4 is not even relevant. One avenue remains: Does the study of angels support a literal reading of the phrase, tongues... of angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

Angelology Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

Evidence that one or more angelic languages exists in physically expressible form is extremely weak. Logic weighs overwhelmingly against it. Assuming that tongues is a language of angels crosses into presumption. Translating spirit communication into audible form would involve human languages, and such translation would violate known historic precedent.

In native form, Angels, being spirits, lack physical bodies. When they have communicated with humans on earth, they have taken physical form to create soundwaves in air and have used human languages. In visions, human witnesses always heard angelic speech in their own human languages. Since human witnesses receive a gift of spiritual sight that enables the visions, it would make sense that they also receive a gift of interpretation. But that would be speculation, and it does not establish that angels have a unique language that can be expressed as “tongues.”  

A related point is that, since spirits lack organs such as tongues, resonant nasal cavities, and vocal cords, and do not live in a physical, sound-conducting atmosphere, their medium of communication would more likely be analogous to what we would consider telepathic. Telepathy would likely communicate thoughts directly without need for verbal protocols. Translating thoughts through a gift of tongues would require adding layers of grammatical, syntactical, and phonemic protocols defined by the natural human language of the speaker. 

The result of encoding angelic thoughts with human language protocols would be expression in human language. It would be easiest to use the language of the speaker. However, it would also be possible to use a human language unknown to the speaker, as happened at Pentecost. But would use of a foreign language be likely? The speech in foreign languages at Pentecost had an audience: people who understood those languages. The purpose of speech is to be understood, so if nobody is there to receive the message, use of a foreign language serves no purpose.

If tongues is used for prayer by the Holy Spirit and the audience is God the Father, human language would not be needed. Like angels, God is Spirit. This returns us to the fact that language, and even sound, would be redundant. Since the Father and the Spirit know each other’s minds, glossolalia is again redundant. Indeed, the Holy Spirit prays within each Christian (Romans 8::26-27) with wordless silence and is perfectly understood by God. So glossolalia as an additional form of prayer is redundant in three ways.

If angels have at least one language, God must have a language. Since God and angels communicate, they would probably share a single language. Being perfectly obedient to God, they would have no need to hide communication from God, so only one language is needed. The language would be labeled as belonging to the greater owner, so why would it be called the language of angels and not the language of God or of the Spirit? If angels had a separate language, why would the Holy Spirit translate His thoughts into an angelic language when speaking directly to the Father?

Why, without love, is speaking in the tongues of angels worthless? Love (agape) focuses outward. Loving speech conveys information that benefits the hearer. Unloving speech selfishly focuses on edifying ego at the expense of others’ time. God does not need to reward it; They have already rewarded themselves, who speak in tongues that do not inform, correct, or encourage others.

 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 1

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels, 

but have not love, 

I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy 

and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, 

but have not love, 

I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor 

and exult in the surrender of my body, 

but have not love, 

I gain nothing.

(Berean Study Bible)

This passage introduces “the most excellent way” from which the Corinthians had deviated. While it seems self-explanatory, it has a surprising quantity of material to unpack. 

Chapter 12’s lists were just a warm-up for Paul’s poetry in chapter 13. Paul begins the chapter with three stanzas comprising a repeated thought in Hebrew poetic form. I strongly recommend reading the linked article about parallelism in Hebrew poetry and prose. Much meaning will pop out the next time you read the Old Testament.

Each stanza is an example of antithetical parallelism: The first line states a positive, whereas the second line counters with a negative. The repetition of the idea means Paul is emphatic about the message. He establishes that the lesson is an absolute truth. 

Paul states several things that, on their own, seem good. The opening stanza makes it clear that it is not a tangent; it directly addresses the Corinthian-Pentecostal error. As he often does, Paul states a principle before giving the reason. Since the phrases that follow give context to the opening statement, I’m going to save for last my notes on the opening statement.

Prophesying and discerning the depths of all mysteries and knowledge

This refers to exercising spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and wisdom. Since discerning all knowledge would make one omniscient, Only God is omniscient. The situation, then, is purely hypothetical. It’s presence in no way implies that “prophesying and discerning the depths of all mysteries and knowledge” is humanly possible.

Having absolute faith so as to move mountains

This refers to persistence in belief and trust, especially, in prayer. Again, having absolute, mountain-moving faith would be an attribute of God. The situation is hypothetical and not humanly possible.

Giving all possessions [to the poor]

This act would be possible. The verb literally means to feed morsels of food, or in modern English idiom, to spoon-feed, and by extension, to personally, carefully distribute. The word translated possessions means those things under one's ownership, so it might have a meaning even broader than physical possessions. The Greek text does not include the phrase “to the poor.” Personally, carefully giving away everything under one’s ownership would be no great work if the recipients had no need of it, so the phrase may reasonably be inferred. The 1769 edition of the KJV italicized it.

Surrendering my body that I may burn / that I may glory

Some Greek tests and English translations read I may burn while others read I may glory. The focus is on bodily self-sacrifice. There is one letter difference between the Greek words meaning I may burn (kauthesomai) and I may boast (kauxesomai). (“Th” is the single Greek letter theta.)

According to the commentaries, Rome did not begin burning Christians for at least another decade after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. However, many commentary writers point out that Paul could have had in mind the three young men thrown into the furnace in Daniel or the tortures described in some apocryphal books. Another possibility could have been a current-events reference described in Vincent’s Word Studies (see previous link). About that time, a man from India had burned himself to death in Athens to achieve immortality through the merit of self-sacrifice. However, since he performed the deed on himself, it doesn’t quite fit with “giving himself over.”

The contrast between the motive for giving oneself over and the motive of love for others, stated at the end of the sentence, weighs in favor of “that I may boast” 

Fanatical people have long sought death in order to redeem themselves, and the ego can drive a man to stubbornly accept a death sentence rather than recant and admit to having been wrong. I may boast seems to have the better evidence in ancient manuscripts. It says more about human nature, and specifying what would happen to one’s body (burning) adds little besides drama to the sentence. Either way, the sense of the conditional clause is, “If I give myself over in self-sacrifice for personal benefit....”

Speaking in the languages of men and of angels

The issue of speaking in the languages of men and of angels faces two issues in this passage:

• Are the Corinthians practicing the gift correctly? (Part 1)
• Since Pentecostals make the claim, do languages of angels exist? (Part 2)

Chapters 12-14, as a whole -- as do both epistles to the Corinthians -- corrects. That a correction is made implies that an error needs correction. Chapter 12 corrects unawareness of God’s sovereignty in consignment of roles and spiritual gifts in the church. Chapter 12 also corrects disunity caused by unlovingly elevating or denigrating different gifts. Chapter 14 corrects disorder and abuse of gifts caused by using gifts in an unloving manner. When Paul inserts an entire chapter about motive in the middle of a discussion, we can have confidence that the Corinthians had the wrong motives. 

In four situations mentioned immediately after verse 1 -- two abilities and two actions -- Paul says the lack of a loving motive renders the ability or action worthless. The results, “I am nothing” or “I am a nobody” and “I am profited nothing,” mean that the gifts have neither elevated the possessor nor benefited the actor.

Mere possession of the ultimate insight and faith serves no purpose if not lovingly used for the benefit of others. As 4:7 says, What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? The whole of chapter 12 teaches that God gives gifts for the church, not for our own sake. Mere possession does not mean you’re big stuff, it means you’re still nothing, a nobody, until you use the gift properly and with the right motives.

Similarly, mere action to sacrifice one’s possessions or to sacrifice your body brings no reward if not lovingly done for the benefit of others. Self-sacrifice for the sake of self-sacrifice or to acquire boasting rights is a meaningless loss. It is a futile discarding of a member of the body of Christ with accompanying opportunity cost. 

Now bring this awareness to verse 1. “If I speak in the languages of men and of angels, but have not love (agape), I am only a ringing gong (literally, more like a clanging brass pot) or a clanging cymbal.” Verses 4-7 define this love as outward facing, concerned with the benefit of others. A loving speaker always addresses his audience. He adjusts his vocabulary, grammar, cultural references, and message to the needs and culture of his audience. More importantly, he designs his message for their benefit. Without this loving, audience-sensitive composition and delivery of a message, the speaker makes meaningless noise. 

The clanging of brass or cymbals may excite the senses, but they convey no useful information; they do nothing beneficial for the hearers. Such is the effect of tongues practiced without love. They may produce excitement, but they give no actual benefit to the hearers because the speaker produces noise without consideration for the audience. 

Chapter 13 has begun with three implied questions.

Verse 1: If the speaker does not consider the audience and strive for their benefit, then whose benefit is he or she seeking at their expense? 

Verse 2: If the tongues-speaker is not motivated by love, then has the gift actually elevated him or her... or does the speaker remain a nobody?

Verse 3: If tongues do not serve the purpose of outward-directed, beneficial love, is the benefit loving, or is it selfish? And if the benefit is selfish, is it its own reward that excludes a heavenly reward?   

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated us.

Binding Yourself to Salvation with Jello Cords

Imagine a chain binding you to your salvation. 

The Strong Chain

One gospel  has one link in it: God's grace through faith. This link is infinitely stronger than titanium; it will never fail.

The Weakest Possible Chain

Another gospel, commonly found among "Christian" churches, has two links. The first link is, again, God's grace through faith. Some churches in this group primarily preach about the first link, so, whether or not members later become convinced that there's a second link, they are kept secure by that first, titanium link.

The second link, however, is human merit. This link requires completing the earning of salvation by doing good, avoiding certain evils, or perseverance through character and will-power. In other words, the second link is works and wages. 

This other gospel puts the two links together, the titanium link of God's grace with the mercurious link of human merit. If your conversion depended on the first link alone, you are secure. If your "gospel" required both, your religion has already caused you to stumble, for the second link has no power to save nor to keep. It is time to repent of this false gospel of self-righteousness and trust God alone.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please don't plagiarize like an SBC president.