Central Church - Who We Are

Question: : Can a New Testament Christian fall from grace? What about Simon in Acts 8? What about 2 Peter 2:20-22? What about Gal. 5:4? What about Rom. 8:12-13? I also read in one of your previously answered questions that you said "believing" would allow you to recieve the Holy Spirit. Notice if you will that Samaria had recieved the word of God, but they did not receive the Holy Spirit.

Answer: No, neither a New Testament Christian nor an Old Testament believer can fall from grace, if by that you mean they can lose their salvation. Peter describes Simon in Acts 8:20-23 as in danger of perishing, having no part or share in his ministry, having a heart that is not right before God, in need of repentance of his wickedness and of forgiveness from the Lord, and as full of bitterness and captive to sin. The most reasonable understanding of this situation is that Simon's "faith" (v.13) was more an intellectual faith than a whole-hearted trusting in the Lord leading to salvation.

Peter talks about false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20 who, having escaped the corruption of the world, become entangled in it again and are worse off than at the beginning. This does not indicate that they were saved but only that they benefited from the teaching of the gospel and cleaned up their lives temporarily. It is akin to Jesus' story of the man who cleans out his life of a demon only to get seven more worse than it come back in later. Many people have had a positive influence from the gospel without being inwardly born again through it.

Galatians 5:4 addresses those in the Galatian churches who have chosen to pursue a righteousness based in the law instead of grace. They have been swayed by the false teachers who came in after Paul left. Paul warns them that they are fallen away from the grace approach to salvation and have alienated themselves from Christ. If they persist in this approach they demonstrate that they were never saved to begin with. If they are genuinely saved Paul is confident (v.10) that they will respond to his warning and come back to the truth.

Romans 8:12-14 teaches this very truth. Those who genuinely have the Spirit of Christ (and if you don't you don't have Christ, but if you do it means you have been saved) are led by the Spirit and are sons of God. The Spirit goes to work in the true believer. He doesn't leave the believer to struggle on his own. He enables him to put to death the misdeeds of the body.

If you look at an isolated experience like the Samaritans' reception of the Spirit, you will inevitably draw wrong conclusions. If you look at the overall pattern of what is going on in the account of Acts you will notice that four distinct people groups experience a reception of the Spirit: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, and some disciples of John the Baptist who had missed the events of Jesus' death and resurrection in Israel. Though there is a time delay in a few of these instances, the anticipation of Paul is that you receive the Holy Spirit when you believe (Acts 19:2). The Samaritans have to wait a short time until the apostles can come up and oversee their reception of the Spirit to prevent a schism in the church. Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit the moment they embrace the gospel (even before they are water baptized). Faith in Christ is the only condition for receiving the Holy Spirit.

Randall Johnson

Question: : Jesus is speaking directly to His disciples in John 15:14, but can I assume (i.e., faithfully believe) that he is referring to me as well?

Answer: No, neither a New Testament Christian nor an Old Testament believer can fall from grace, if by that you mean they can lose their salvation. Peter describes Simon in Acts 8:20-23 as in danger of perishing, having no part or share in his ministry, having a heart that is not right before God, in need of repentance of his wickedness and of forgiveness from the Lord, and as full of bitterness and captive to sin. The most reasonable understanding of this situation is that Simon's "faith" (v.13) was more an intellectual faith than a whole-hearted trusting in the Lord leading to salvation.

Peter talks about false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20 who, having escaped the corruption of the world, become entangled in it again and are worse off than at the beginning. This does not indicate that they were saved but only that they benefited from the teaching of the gospel and cleaned up their lives temporarily. It is akin to Jesus' story of the man who cleans out his life of a demon only to get seven more worse than it come back in later. Many people have had a positive influence from the gospel without being inwardly born again through it.

Galatians 5:4 addresses those in the Galatian churches who have chosen to pursue a righteousness based in the law instead of grace. They have been swayed by the false teachers who came in after Paul left. Paul warns them that they are fallen away from the grace approach to salvation and have alienated themselves from Christ. If they persist in this approach they demonstrate that they were never saved to begin with. If they are genuinely saved Paul is confident (v.10) that they will respond to his warning and come back to the truth.

Romans 8:12-14 teaches this very truth. Those who genuinely have the Spirit of Christ (and if you don't you don't have Christ, but if you do it means you have been saved) are led by the Spirit and are sons of God. The Spirit goes to work in the true believer. He doesn't leave the believer to struggle on his own. He enables him to put to death the misdeeds of the body.

If you look at an isolated experience like the Samaritans' reception of the Spirit, you will inevitably draw wrong conclusions. If you look at the overall pattern of what is going on in the account of Acts you will notice that four distinct people groups experience a reception of the Spirit: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, and some disciples of John the Baptist who had missed the events of Jesus' death and resurrection in Israel. Though there is a time delay in a few of these instances, the anticipation of Paul is that you receive the Holy Spirit when you believe (Acts 19:2). The Samaritans have to wait a short time until the apostles can come up and oversee their reception of the Spirit to prevent a schism in the church. Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit the moment they embrace the gospel (even before they are water baptized). Faith in Christ is the only condition for receiving the Holy Spirit.

Randall Johnson

Question: : I have been a Christian for about 4 years but I feel like I have fallen away. Backslidden I guess. I just haven't been leading a very Christ-like life. I want to really bad. I read these verses in Hebrews 6:4-6:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

I was wondering if this means that those who fall away from the faith cannot come back into faith because you are crucifying Christ over again. Does this mean that I have lost my salvation?

Answer: This passage must be understood in its context. The writer to the Hebrews was concerned that they were Jews who had converted to Jesus but who were considering leaving Christianity for Judaism. They had experienced some persecution and felt that God was signaling them that they had made a wrong decision about leaving Judaism, plus they were no doubt hearing fellow Jews talk about the importance of the sacrificial system and priesthood, as well as how their faith had been delivered by angels through Moses and Joshua and so was authoritative.

But the writer makes it clear that Christianity is superior to Judaism because now the Son on whom Judaism was supposed to be focused, the Messiah, was come and he is superior to angels, Moses, Joshua and the priesthood of Judaism. His covenant, the New Covenant, is a superior covenant and his sacrifice is a superior sacrifice.

He warns them here that if they abandon the faith they are leaving this sacrifice of Christ and saying it is useless. Since, of course, Christ cannot be sacrificed again, it is impossible to renew them to repentance. They have committed the unpardonable sin. Even though they may have been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, this would indicate that they were never really born again. This would indicate that they are like land that produces thorns and thistles and is worthless, rather than land that drinks up the rain and produces crops.

However, he says, "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case - things that accompany salvation" (verse 9). Because he believes they are really saved, he does not believe they will abandon the faith, but will continue to maturity.

If you are a believer, even though you have backslidden you are not in danger of losing your salvation. Salvation cannot be lost. If you desire to come back to Christ and live the way he wants you to, you have not committed the unpardonable sin, you are not incapable of repentance. You have not abandoned the faith, but are feeling convicted of its truth and thus of your failure in it. Confess your sins to God and accept his forgiveness (1 John 1:9) and begin to take the steps necessary to come back to a Christ-like pursuit.

Randall Johnson

Question: : Where is the passage that says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Answer: Proverbs 29:18 in the King James Version says what you are thinking about. The New International Version translates it, "Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law." In Exodus 32:25 the people of Israel are described as "running wild" (the word translated "perish" in the KJV of Proverbs 29:18, and "cast off restraint" in the NIV). Moses has been on Sinai receiving the Law and the people have forged a golden calf and engaged in a religious orgy. There is a contrast here between the glorious word of revelation from God to direct the people's lives in holiness and their desire instead to be governed by their own lusts and by the religions that support their lusts.

1 Samuel 3:1 describes the lack of "visions" or revelations in Samuel's day. They had the Law, but there were too few prophets who were hearing from the Lord and preaching the intent of the Law to the people. When we tire of listening to God and responding to the convicting of the Holy Spirit, God pulls back from speaking to us. But to those who have an ear to hear, He is most willing to speak.

Randall Johnson

Question: : I was wondering how come we at Central do not celebrate Lent and Ash Wednesday? I know a lot of people associate this with the Catholic Church, but many other non Catholics celebrate Lent. I have attached a good write-up on Lent.

Answer: The article you attached was very instructive and the question is a good one. In the article it mentions that "Lent is a forty-day period before Easter. It begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on the day before Easter Day." This period is marked by fasting. It also says, "By observing the forty days of Lent, the individual Christian imitates Jesus' withdrawal into the wilderness for forty days," and "All churches that have a continuous history extending before AD 1500 observe Lent."

In 1500 the Protestant Reformation began to question all things related to the church and sought to measure all proscribed activities by the Bible. In the article it says, "The ancient church that wrote, collected, canonized, and propagated the New Testament also observed Lent, believing it to be a commandment from the apostles." But in point of fact, there is no authoritative record of the apostles commanding this observance, since the only authoritative record the Protestant church would accept is the New Testament.

One of the best known reformers, John Calvin, writing in his Institutes of the Christian Religion about fasting, spoke of the "superstitious observance of Lent" in which "the common people thought that in it they were doing some exceptional service to God, and the pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ." But he argues that Christ did not fast to set an example for us to follow but to demonstrate that he received the Law from God's hand as did Moses. He mentions also that various parts of the church observed different numbers of days of fasting, some three weeks excluding Saturdays and Sundays, some six, some seven, and differed in what could be eaten, some eating only bread and water, others allowing vegetables, some excluding fish and fowl only, and others making no distinction in foods. In other words, there has never been a uniform rule in the church.

There is nothing wrong with preparing ourselves for Easter by using fasts and observing historical events (holy week commemorates Christ's last week in Jerusalem, Good Friday the day of his crucifixion, etc.). It is wrong, however, to make it a required observance or to suggest that those who observe it are more spiritual than others. For this reason it has become in our tradition something that is up to the individual believer to determine for him or herself.

Randall Johnson

Question: : If you were to summarize or paraphrase Christianity for someone as it compares or relates to all other religions, what would that be? "Forgiveness of Sin" would certainly be in this phase right? Do other religions have this principle? Do any other religions have this principle of a sacrifice for our sin?

Answer: The main principle that sets Christianity apart from every other religion on the face of the earth is grace. Every other religion posits that in order to have a right relationship with God I have to earn it by being righteous. Christianity says I can't be righteous enough (or even righteous period) and that if I want a right relationship with God He is going to have to take the first step and make it a gift, or I'm sunk. He's going to have to pursue me and allow me to receive what He offers by faith, and He will consider that as righteousness. If I am in any way depending on my own works or ability to be good, I am missing out on what God has for me. I have overestimated myself and underestimated God.

There is a hint of grace in the Bhagavad Gita when it says, "Abandoning all duties, come unto Me alone for shelter. Be not grieved, for I shall release you from all evils," xviii 66. But it does not explain how God can release someone from all evils without then being evil Himself. If our lives really do violate righteousness (and they do) then for God to just say, "Its okay, I forgive you," means there is no real holiness in Him. Only Christianity offers forgiveness free (for us) at the cost of the death of God's Son, Jesus. His death is the sacrifice that pays the penalty I deserve so that God can forgive me without being unrighteous. Though Israel used to offer sacrifices, they don't any longer because they don't have a temple. Even if they did offer sacrifices, they would be animal sacrifices which cannot really take away sin but were meant to point to the perfect sacrifice, Jesus.

Finally, Christianity is the only religion that sees God as a triune being, one God but three persons, each person sharing the one essence of God. Only this view of God explains how God can be a God of love (He has been in a love relationship for all eternity and expressed perfect love), and only this view explains why we are so desirous of individual uniqueness and community at the same time.

Randall Johnson

Answer: Whenever some "new" gospel is discovered and the media reports on it, there is inevitably someone (scholar, religion teacher, etc.) who comments that this is a representative of a strand of Christianity that was prejudicially refused entry into the Christian Bible because of the protectiveness of those in power who felt their influence would be compromised. In truth, these were strands of false teaching that sought to use the Christian garb to couch their views so as to compromise the influence of recognized followers of the apostles. So yes, the leaders in place were being protective, but were being protective of their flocks.

None of these "new" gospels, like the "Gospel of Judas," were really written by the said disciples (of course, Judas would have had to write at the very end of Jesus ministry, when it became clear Jesus would be killed, and then just before he killed himself, if the New Testament evidence is to be believed at all). The Gospel of Judas was written some 150 years after Jesus and was not written by Judas. It purports that Jesus told Judas that he was doing Jesus a favor by having him killed because he was freeing him from the borrowed body of the man, Jesus, so that his spirit could gain the realms of sinlessness. Judas, in this Gospel, is the hero, and Jesus' favorite disciple, who has the special knowledge that the body is what hinders us from becoming righteous and how to get free from that bondage.

This is a strand of heresy that was circulating very early in the history of the church and was called "Gnosticism" because they taught there was special revealed knowledge (Greek, gnosis) that they were privy to that Christians needed to add to their concepts of salvation. Paul and John both denounce forms of this concept in Colossians and 1 John. The church early on realized how false and misleading this teaching was.

One of the tenets of Gnosticism was that the physical, material world was evil and the source of evil. Thus, the Son of God had to take on either a temporary body (as in the Gospel of Judas) or the appearance of a body (the apostle John seemed to be dealing with this view in 1 John 1). The way to deal with sin, therefore, took on two very opposing paths. One path was to deny the body. This is asceticism (restrict foods, pleasures, marriage, etc.). The other path was to indulge the body. After all, it was not permanent and did not affect the spirit. Paul argues against the ascetic view in Colossians 2 & 3.

The Gnostic religion was averse to the view of Christianity in its emphasis on resurrection. Why, according to the Gnostics, would our bodies need to be resurrected? They're evil. But that is not the view of Christianity. The body is an important part of who we are, created by God for eternal existence in its resurrected form. Gnosticism has thus always been antithetic to the main tenets of Christianity. Don't look for new Gospels to be discovered that overturn the truth of Christ. They don't exist.

Randall Johnson

Question: In your doctrinal statement in the section titled "Justification by faith and the imparting of the divine nature to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord," in #4 it says "The mode of baptism (sprinkling or immersion) is inconsequential." Why do you believe that the mode is inconsequential?

I have done some research and found that the Greek word "baptidzo" means "to immerse in water." I believe that baptism is an act of obedience that identifies me publicly with Christ. I think it should follow the example Jesus set in the Bible in Mark 1:9-10, "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." Verse 10 says "as Jesus was coming up out of the water," which obviously means He was immersed under the water.

The method of baptizing is also important because of what it means. Romans 6:3-4 talks about being buried with your old habits and sins and then raised to walk in a new life just as Christ was resurrected. Baptism by immersion is a symbol of dying to self and being raised to live in Christ.

It seems to me, based on the Bible, that we should follow Christ's example of baptism by immersion. I am just curious as to why you believe the mode of baptism is inconsequential.

Answer: I am in general agreement that immersion best represents the meaning of baptism for Christians. However, because I also believe that baptism is not essential for salvation (the thief on the cross did not need it, for example, and there are other exceptional situations when someone might not be able to be baptized, at least not by immersion, such as when a person is exceptionally ill or in a place where they would not be allowed to be baptized), it also seems unnecessarily combative and potentially disruptive to the unity of the body of Christ to insist that everyone believe in only one mode of baptism. Sprinkling has a long history of acceptance in the church and those who will argue its merit biblically (check out this article).

The most important thing is that we be baptized, if possible, and thus demonstrate our faith (the thing that actually saves us) in Jesus Christ. Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 that he was glad he baptized only a few of them, because Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Paul was not diminishing the value of baptism, but was showing the relative unworthiness of wrangles over how it was done (or who did it, in this case) as opposed to a focus on the gospel. He was able to separate baptism and the gospel. As Christians there are many things we may disagree on, but the essentials must be agreed upon. The gospel is the essential; baptism and its mode is not.

Randall Johnson

Question: I am confused about how God feels about the Jewish people. Are they going to hell?

Answer: As a people the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were chosen as the receivers of God's revelation of His will (the Law, it is commonly called) and made recipients of the promise (God's promise made to Adam and Eve that He would restore the kingdom through the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15, and the selection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through whom that seed would come…Jesus). Paul makes clear (Romans 9) that there was always a choice God made between Abraham's offspring. He did not make the promise with Ishmael, Abraham's first child through Hagar, but with Isaac, his son by Sarah. He did not make the promise with Isaac's son Esau, but with Jacob, even though Esau was the firstborn and Jacob got the birthright through treachery. From the divine perspective it was always God's selection that mattered. From the human perspective it manifested itself in who actually believed.

Paul wrestles with this issue in Romans 9-11 and points out that though Israel was God's chosen people they had rebelled in large part against God by rejecting His Messiah, Jesus. He concludes that at this time the vast majority are in disobedience, but that in the future there will be a major return to the Lord as He fulfills His promise to bless them. They will return by believing in Jesus as the Messiah.

Anyone who does not believe in Christ has chosen instead to remain apart from God. Though they may have a religious perspective, in their hearts they are choosing to worship God the way they want to worship Him, instead of the way He commands them to worship Him. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). This means that unless a person submits themselves to Jesus' lordship and salvation, there is no salvation available to them. Hell is the punishment they have chosen, the complete absence of God's presence in their lives, which is tantamount to torture (likened to a constant burning flame). Many, many Jews will eventually believe as the end of the ages comes to pass. But many will have perished, along with all others who refused to trust in God's provision for their forgiveness. God loves all the nations, as He has proved by sending Christ to die for all of us. He has a special relationship with the nation of Israel, but individuals within that nation must believe in order to be saved.

Randall Johnson

Question: When we reach heaven, will we join our spouse there, or is it "'till death do us part"? If we do join our spouse for eternity in heaven, what of the people who remarried after being widowed?

Answer: Jesus dealt with this question in a sense when he challenged the Sadducees about their denial of the resurrection. Actually, they began the discussion (Matthew 22:23-33) by relating a scenario of a woman who had seven husbands, all brothers, who had died after each had married her and not produced a male offspring. The Law of Moses commanded that the dead man's brother marry his widow if no male offspring were produced in order to carry on the name of the original father and secure the land inheritance. Their question for Jesus was, "Whose wife will she be" at the resurrection (assuming the resurrection is a reality, which we Sadducees deny)? They thought they had Jesus stumped or else defending a ridiculous doctrine.

Jesus answered that they were in error for not seeing the resurrection in the Scriptures and for miscalculating the power of God. And he made this statement, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (v.30). Apparently the angels do not procreate like the human race does, therefore they do not have the formal arrangement of marriage. And we will be like them at the resurrection in that we will no longer need the formal arrangement of marriage to protect our relationships and offspring.

The Bible does say that death ends the marriage bond (Romans 7:2) thus freeing the surviving spouse to remarry. Does this mean we won't have a special relationship with our earthly spouse or spouses at the resurrection (that is, in heaven or in the kingdom)? I don't think it means that. How could I not have a special relationship with someone I spent much of my life with and learned to love perhaps more deeply than anyone else on earth? Just as I expect to have a special relationship in the kingdom with my parents, children and other family members, I expect to have a special relationship with my wife. I will undoubtedly develop many more relationships in the kingdom than I did before and will have a new capacity for developing intimate friendships because of the absence of sin in my life. The kingdom will be a place for an unlimited number of relationships to grow and thrive, especially our relationship with Jesus.

Randall Johnson