http://ichthys.com/ 
Sin, Guilt, and Salvation VI
Question #1:    
[omitted by request]
Response #1:  
Good to hear from you, my friend. Although I'm sorry to hear that you are still troubled and wrestling: Jacob wrestled too and was lamed for it – then he kept wrestling and was blessed for it. Like him, we should resist wrestling against the truth (as he first did) then hold on tight to the Lord ever after (as he did; see the link).

In a nutshell, salvation is not about knowledge – it is about faith. Salvation is all about trusting God, believing in Him and His truth. How much truth do we need to be saved in the first place? Only as much as a mustard seed's worth (Matt.13:31-32; 17:20). What if we didn't understand everything about salvation when we were saved? We were saved anyway. And no one understands everything about salvation when they are saved. That is impossible. In the Basics series, BB 4A: Christology is 220 pages single-spaced; BB 4B: Soteriology is 143 pages single-spaced. They both contain many verse citations as well. And it's not as if the rest of the Basics Series is not in many ways applicable to salvation-knowledge (the Trinity is discussed in BB 1, for example, the baptism of the Spirit in BB 5). I certainly didn't know or understand most of the information in these studies when I was saved at circa five years old. But I DO remember trusting God to deliver me from death. 

If a person affirmatively denies certain basic truths such as the deity of Christ, that is an obstacle to salvation (we see that plainly enough in the Bible; e.g., Jn.1:11). But if a person doesn't yet know or understand everything, that is not an obstacle to salvation. Salvation is about faith, not knowledge. The Holy Spirit, we must remember, is the Evangelist in chief. He is the One who makes the truth real to unbelievers who hear the gospel. He is God and can easily discern genuine faith from mere academic interest. He is clearly able to provide whatever is necessary to be saved to anyone who wants to be saved, anyone who is willing to believe – and it's all about that faith. Faith is often called in this ministry "free-will faith", because faith is the capacity that God has given us to respond to Him, to choose for Him. This is easy to do (for us, since Christ paid for it). Yet many refuse to do so. Why? Because faith is a response of obedience and trust, using our image of God to respond to God Himself, putting our hope and trust in Him to deliver us seeing as how we can't deliver ourselves from death. 

Arguing about the mechanics where the Bible doesn't delineate them is not profitable. What we can say for sure is that some are saved and some are not. What is the distinction? Believers believe, unbelievers do not believe (Jn.3:18). That means that believers have responded to God, to His truth, to His Spirit; believers have accepted things that cannot be proven empirically by trusting in God instead (Heb.11:1). And believers are saved as a result. How do we know we are saved? We know from the Spirit whom God has placed in us when we became one with His Son Jesus Christ.
(15) For you have not received a spirit of slavery [leading you] back to [a state of] fear [of damnation], but you have the Spirit who has entered you into God's family, in whom we cry, "Abba! My Father!" (16) For the Spirit Himself testifies to our spirit that we are God's children.
Romans 8:15-16

And since you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, "Abba, Father!"
Galatians 4:6
If we are saved – and we are, as the Spirit tells us – then what is the point of trying to peel the onion back to discover just how much we knew when we were first saved? Not only is this pointless in my opinion but it is also impossible (since we really don't know with complete specificity what we thought or believed yesterday, not with certainty, and certainly not many years ago) . . . and also dangerous: because such exercises of looking backwards of necessity hinder our forward progress. And the Christian life is all about moving forward, concentrating on making spiritual progress TODAY; not fretting about what mistakes we might have made yesterday.
(12) [It is] not that I have already gotten [what I am striving for], nor that I have already completed [my course]. Rather, I am continuing to pursue [the prize] in hopes of fully acquiring it – [this prize for whose acquisition] I was myself acquired by Christ Jesus. (13) Brethren, I do not consider that I have already acquired it. This one thing only [do I keep in mind]. Forgetting what lies behind me [on the course] and straining towards the [course] ahead, (14) I continue to drive straight for the tape, towards the prize to which God has called us from the beginning [of our race] in Christ Jesus. (15) So as many as are [spiritually] mature, let us have this attitude (i.e., of focusing on our spiritual advance and reward and not getting hung up on what lies behind: vv.13-14), and if in any matter your attitude is off-center, God will reveal that to you (i.e., assuming you are mature and are advancing as you should). (16) But with respect to the progress you have made, keep on advancing in the same way!
Philippians 3:12-16
I studied theology formally in seminary and also engaged in a survey of formal theology in preparation for writing the Basics series. I can tell you that there is very little profit in that either. The problem with traditional theology is the same as the problem with developing logical constructs and then attempting to apply them to the Bible. The Bible contains its own system of truth. Theology and logic (often working hand in hand) prescribe systematic categories, many of which do not even occur in actual scripture, and them attempt to jam the Bible into them. A theologian or logician comes up with a concept or a category and then interprets the Bible accordingly. How many angels can dance of the head of a pin? Approaching that as a theological problem, I can see scriptures which might be applied. Approaching it as a logical problem, I can think of arguments which might be deployed. But the fallacy of the approach is to be seen in the truth that this is the wrong question to be asking in the first place. Not only does the Bible not ask it or imply that it needs to be asked, but no serious Christian who wants to live for Jesus Christ would ever think to ask it. This example may be obvious, but it turns out that much of what traditional theology asks is similarly wrong-headed – because its questions come from the logical development of theological systems which are in fact extra-biblically derived. Do you want to know what a "dispensation" is? Then look to see what the Bible actually has to say about the issue; don't develop a theory / system and seek to plug into it all manner of things where it does not actually fit. 

The above is a long way of saying that I think you would have been a lot better off just reading Ichthys, putting the "bones" aside when you bumped into them (asking me about them if you had questions), but seeking to grow positively through the truth by embracing spiritual growth on every front, not tackling individual questions and issues from the past exclusively, logically, theologically.

Your Q1: Re: what is actually minimally required for salvation?

A1: Believing in God's provision for salvation, our Savior Jesus Christ, is all that is required to be saved.
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."
Acts 16:31
Your Q2 - Re: not knowing about everything about the deity and humanity of Christ at salvation. 

A2: The Spirit gave you sufficient knowledge to be saved and you were saved – and that is all that matters.
Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his"
2nd Timothy 2:19a NKJV
Your Q3a - Re: recognizing Christ's deity later on reading scripture.

A3a: This is the way it works for all believers; that is to say, we start with a little but then we are given more – at least for all those who are willing to grow. And for all who are willing to grow, there will be tests; the fact of tests does not in any way undermine the veracity of the truth. But the devil is always trying to detach believers from the truth. And he knows our weaknesses – like a penchant for needing things neat and tidy and logical – and he is very good at using others, misguided believers or Christians in name only, to attack our faith in the truth.
. . . in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.
2nd Corinthians 2:11 NKJV
Your Q3b - Re: 'problem' of not knowing of Christ's eternity at salvation.

A3b: I don't think we have a problem at all. God is God. If we have questions – about anything in scripture – there may be answers in the Bible or these may be available through ministries that teach (like Ichthys). But our questions do not overrule the truth nor can they be allowed to wrongly categorize the truth; false categorization is the original sin of all traditional theology. Believers who are not pastor-teachers by gifting (and also those who are but who are not prepared sufficiently to do their own research) need to read their Bibles, yes, but then also attend to a good teaching ministry, and wait patiently for answers rather than allowing questions to undermine their faith. Eventually, all our questions are answered – all the legitimate ones, that is, while the others fall by the wayside . . . IF we are advancing spiritually as we should be doing.
(1) The Word [Jesus Christ] existed at the very beginning, and there was reciprocity between the Word and God [the Father]. (2) This One both existed and enjoyed reciprocity with God from the very beginning. (3) Everything came into being through Him, and without Him, nothing has come into being which has in fact come into being.
John 1:1-3

(15) He (i.e., Jesus Christ; cf. v.13) is the exact image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (16) Everything in the heavens and on the earth was created by Him, things invisible as well as those visible – whether thrones, authorities, rulers or powers, everything was created through Him and for Him. (17) And He Himself is before everything, and everything subsists in Him (cf. Heb.1:3).
Colossians 1:15-17

[Jesus Christ] is the shining forth of [the Father's] glory, the precise image of His essence, the One who [in His deity] sustains the universe by His mighty Word.
Hebrews 1:3a
Your Q4a - Re: having more knowledge now but still wrestling with the truth.

A4a: As a believer, you are not required to parse every verse in the Bible. That is the job of a pastor-teacher. If you feel you have this gift, wrestling with scripture and with principles you've been taught is part of the process, but deconstructing one's faith-system is a dangerous business if it goes too far and too soon, even for those so gifted who are embarked on a serious course of preparation. I really feel it would be good to read the Basics series (link) and to try and accept the truth of what's in there, putting aside the bones until things start to fall into place – which I am confident they will if you have a little faith. dio kai in the Greek doesn't support the weight of meaning you are placing on it in Luke 1:35. This verse says that Jesus in His humanity will be called the Son of God; it doesn't say that He is not / was not the Son of God from all eternity – which indeed He was. There is no direct contradiction here. Jesus came into the world; He couldn't come into the world if He didn't exist as God before He came into the world.
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
John 6:38 NKJV
Your Q4b - Re: others considering such wrestling as heresy. 

A4b: Considered heresy by whom? The church-visible over the centuries and much more so today has been and now is largely composed of unbelievers. To the extent that those in the church-visible actually are believers, the vast majority of them are lukewarm, immature, and only marginal at best. If individuals in, e.g., the RC church were believers, why would they stay in that group? If individuals in, e.g., traditional, Calvinist, Baptist, charismatic, mega-churches, e.g., were interested in growing spiritually, why would they stay in those groups? Believe the Bible. Believe the Spirit. Believe the truth. Find a good ministry that is teaching the truth and stick with it – that is the way to grow.

1. You are saved since you believe in Jesus Christ. If you want to know more about the mechanics, please read BB 4B (at the link).

2. Re: worrying about all this: Don't worry in the first place (e.g., Matt.6:25-34)! The Christian life is about joy and peace – spiritual growth, progress and progression. It is about looking forward, not looking backward. Determine to move on. We all have "tics" which, if allowed to gain our attention, will do us no good in trying to solve because they are insoluble on their own terms; but all such concerns can always be dealt with, allayed, quieted through growth and application of the truth.
“Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."
John 14:27 NKJV
To reiterate, serious spiritual growth never happens through tackling "problems of concern" through fixating on them and applying logic and traditional theology. Spiritual growth requires embracing all of God's truth in scripture through a broad-based approach by attending to a good, Bible teaching ministry, hearing, learning, believing and applying the truth. Ichthys is at your service, my friend.

I do keep you in my prayers daily.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2:   
[omitted by request]
Response #2:  
It's my pleasure. 

As to knowing you're saved because God helps you but worrying you've slipped: Yes, you ARE saved; so worrying about how is not helpful; if you want to know about the mechanics, see the links previously provided. Engaging with false theologies really is a tangled web and doesn't do anyone any good. The more complicated traditional theology has gotten, the farther away from spiritual growth it has erred – to the point that many famous theologians of the present and past centuries probably were / are not even saved. Anyone can deploy reason and logic, but learning and understanding the truth of the Word of God requires faith. The ONLY way to fully "know" any of God's truth is to believe it. That is how the Spirit turns mere knowledge into "full-knowledge", Greek epignosis, the only "knowledge" that builds us up and brings us closer to God (see the link).

As to knowing a tremendous amount of truth: knowing is good, but only believing benefits a believer. For teaching to be beneficial, it has to be true AND believed. I might also observe that many if not most of the other genuine ministries out there of which I am aware while they do teach some truth, tend to be very basic, not providing the sort of solid food necessary for real spiritual growth (Heb.6:1); and most places layer on a lot of pablum . . . and not a little non-truth as well. That combination makes faith difficult and serious spiritual growth nearly impossible. Not to mention that there are far more "ministries" and "churches" in the world today which are not even genuinely of God at all.

1. To reiterate, salvation is about faith, not knowledge. If a person is willing to be saved, the Holy Spirit knows that; and the Spirit will give that person enough understanding of the truth of the gospel so as to be saved. When Paul and Silas say, "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31), they don't footnote that with a fifteen page explanation of the Trinity and the plan of salvation. I dare say, most Christians today do not really even understand what the blood of Christ, the spiritual death of our Lord for all sin, really is or means. What is needed to be saved is the will to be saved on our part by believing and the object of faith in whom we believe, our Savior Jesus Christ: God helping us when we want to be saved through Jesus Christ the One in whom we believe.

2. Once saved, a person is saved as long as said person believes in Jesus Christ. Even if it is just a matter of that mustard seed of faith being kept secure by the Spirit (1Jn.3:9). Only unbelievers are not saved (Jn.3:18). For a believer to become unsaved, i.e., apostasy, that requires the complete death of faith (see the link). Failure to grow, failure to pursue sanctification, that is to say, backsliding and sinning, often does lead to a believer reverting to the status of unbeliever. But again that is a very deliberate choice, not a matter of mere knowledge or lack thereof. It's not about knowledge; it's about faith. Apostasy in Greek is "rebellion", rejecting God's authority once accepted in the same manner of Satan and his followers. It doesn't happen accidentally. Our Lord tells us that tribulation, persecution, and testing are the prime reasons for apostasy (Matt.13:21; Mk.4:17; Lk.8:13); if a person starts to blame God for some disaster or personal loss, turning away from Him is often the result. But confusion over doctrinal points is never the cause of apostasy. Why not? Because if a believer is genuinely seeking the truth, the truth will be provided (Matt.7:7; Lk.11:9). It may take perseverance, it may take some humility in accepting things which otherwise one might not be willing to accept for whatever reason (and here I always recommend putting aside those "bones" until other things fall into place), but the questions will be answered for all who stick with it.

3. Walter Martin wrote a book on cults. I would not consider him the ultimate authority on what is "respectable". As to your statement, to the effect that respectable Christians being of the opinion that Jesus as the pre-incarnate Word existed in some mysterious form not fully understood, well, there are a lot of "respectable Christian" who are baby believers and who have no desire to grow spiritually. And most of the churches out there today in Laodicea are not providing much more than pablum making growth impossible. The ecumenical approach is to boil everything down to a sort of gruel which doesn't have much nutritional value but which will not offend anyone. Better is to search for truly good and nutritious teaching which will lead to growth. By the by, I'm sure that the vast majority of "respectable Christians" and like churches would want nothing to do with myself or this ministry and would disparage it given the chance. I don't care a fig for the opinions of the world, not of unbelievers and not of immature believers. I respect the Lord and His opinion.
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Galatians 1:10 NIV
3. As to whether these beliefs are incompatible with salvation, as explained above, a person only has to be willing to accept the Father's will in Jesus Christ to be saved. The details are provided later . . . to those who want them. A good many Christians are confused about a good many doctrinal principles. Entire denominations are built upon incorrect positions which they wear like a crown. You could spend a hundred years investigating their ins and outs and not draw an inch closer to the Lord. OR you could start reading Ichthys with some diligence and commitment, believe what you are taught, and grow in the peace and joy of Jesus Christ. A person can pick through the old vomit forever and not be helped by that (2Pet.2:22). It's much better to drink deeply of the truth of the Word from a good font of truth. As I always say, if Ichthys is not your cup of tea, there are some other places (such as Bible Academy – and I now also recommend Bible docs [see the links]), but I have to say that I don't think your present method is a good one. It's left you spinning your wheels and not taken you forward. At some point, you have to find a ministry to trust and commit to, believing what you are taught. Skepticism is good in the secular realm; spiritual growth requires believing the truth. 
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit."
Matthew 12:33 NIV
Find a good tree, eat and grow. It's just that simple – or hard.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:   
[omitted by request]
Response #3:  
Ichthys is not everyone's cup of tea. I always advise people not to church-hop because it leads to spiritual indigestion. If two are teaching different things or just in ways that are different and hard to see how they reconcile the net effect is for the believer to not believe either – or to believe the wrong instead of the right. I have seen this many times. Better to find the best tree FOR YOU and stick with it.

As to preaching and teaching not being mutually exclusive, while that may not be absolutely untrue, I have never actually seen traditional preaching and actual teaching of the Bible NOT be mutually exclusive. Since what you are suggesting is, as far as I have ever seen or heard of, a null set, it's only theoretical. Practically speaking, a church is either genuinely committed to teaching the truth in depth or it is not; where it is, sermonizing is absent; where it is not, that single motivational talk on Sunday morning is what passes for "teaching". Case in point: your attendance on them has not brought you peace . . . which comes with growth.

As to the charge that I was hesitant to answer your questions "head on": I answer questions the way I am led by the Spirit to answer them – not that I don't take full responsibility for what I say (anyone can be wrong about His guidance occasionally). The point is, the right answer to a question is not always to answer the question the way the person has phrased it. The right answer, it seems to me, is to give the person the answer they need, even if it is not the answer they want. This is what I always try to do (you can find plenty of examples of that in the gospels). I also always try not to say things that are not biblical or biblically based. Whenever traditional theology comes up, it is virtually impossible to give straight answers directly to these questions because the questions themselves, being theological (i.e., not biblical), usually have inherent in them many non-biblical assumptions so that a direct answer would necessarily involve itself in the same theological fallacies upon which the question is based. So I try to stick with the truth, even if that may seem so some "hesitant and indirect".

As to "sound ministries such as yours" teaching that unless you fully understand and believe the right things about Christ you can't be/are not saved: I hope you're not saying that this is what Ichthys is saying but only that Ichthys is a "sound ministry" – because this is not what I say (as the previous emails have, I hope, made clear). If so, I have to add that the other "sound ministries" you are referring to here are wrong on this point – so that I would question their "soundness". If that is not what you are saying, please reread the previous responses I gave you about what is necessary to be saved. I was very clear (or so I thought), about the fact that not very much knowledge is needed to be saved in the first place. Honestly, you can't really tell me that you had come up with an "Arian conception of Christ" before you were saved? More likely: you believed and began reading and started to wonder about this or that aspect of the truth. That is typical. The only way to avoid dangerous speculation is to be committed to a good teaching ministry from the start – but few of us fell into that right away. Usually we needed to have it made clear to us that we needed spiritual growth first – and that often only comes through "the school of hard knocks".

As to the sentiment "if you don't believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man, you cant be/are not saved" being "all over the place on Ichthys as well" – Cite me one place where I said that please. Of course, Jesus IS fully God and a genuine human being. But if I were giving an unbeliever the gospel, I wouldn't turn it into a theology lesson, even a correct one. I would explain that he/she could have eternal life simply by putting their faith, their trust, their belief in Jesus Christ. The Spirit uses that kernel of the truth to save all who are willing. The beautiful details and deeper truths come after one is saved. It's never backwards.

As to your questions, again, I've answered them as I've answered them and am not going to be pinned down to the constructs the questions contain when I disagree with those and see them as faulty.

What I've said: 1) this is about faith, not knowledge; 2) the Spirit knows who is ready to accept Christ and gives that person enough knowledge to do so, empowering the understanding of the "mustard seed" worth of truth; 3) no one has "full knowledge" of these issues when they are saved; 4) if someone later decides to deny the truth about Christ or any other truth it is not good; 5) but the seed of "faith in Christ" remains for all believers, that is, those who believe. If their knowledge if faulty, they need to get that straightened out. If they don't, they make themselves vulnerable; if they stop believing entirely, they are no longer believers (that is apostasy; see the link). Where individual believers are on this spectrum is something that is not possible for us to parse from the outside; and as your example demonstrates, it is also not possible often for the individual in question to do so with perfect confidence even for him/herself. What all such need is spiritual growth: find a source of truth . . . and start believing it. That is where confidence comes from, and peace and joy as well.
And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”
Galatians 4:6 NKJV
You are a believer. You know that because the Spirit tells you that – constantly. Arguing with Him about this is not profitable. My best advice: let go of this "bone", set it aside, accept that you belong to Jesus, accept that this is true even if you struggled with some points of truth about Him in the past, accept the truth now, and move on with a broad front approach to spiritual growth, not limiting yourself to this one issue: no matter how much you learn about this one issue, no one issue is capable of producing the growth that will bring you peace.
Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
John 14:27 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:   
[omitted by request]
Response #4:  
First, I'm actually glad to hear that you have found someplace to fellowship and grow. If you have found a place where you can do both of those things, that is a very rare development in Laodicea and not something to be taken for granted.

As to your request to work with you on this important issue, first, it is clear to me that you are saved, a believer in Jesus Christ. No unbeliever would speak as you speak, write what you write, affirm what you affirm, be concerned with what you are concerned with – impossible. So for me, that is the big one. And if you are saved – which you are – then the hows and wherefores of exactly what you knew and exactly when are not of anything more than academic interest . . . UNLESS you allow this little "rock in your shoe" to cause you terrible chronic pain and distress and hinder you from spiritual growth. Many people do that (with all manner of issues) for reasons I cannot fathom. But I'd like to see you happy and growing – not unhappy and floundering – for something that makes no difference to your own actual status: believer in Jesus Christ. 

I think you have misunderstood what I have said on this issue so I will try to keep this as short and simple as possible. All that is needed to be saved is a mustard seed's worth of faith. The Holy Spirit makes the gospel clear in ways we cannot empirically discern to any and all who hear the gospel. For those willing to be saved, He gives them enough to be saved. Understand. This is NOT about knowledge or information. This is about faith. This is about using the image of God to respond to Him by submitting to Him in the way He desires, namely, by honoring the Son, by accepting the Son, by believing in the Son.

If a person refuses to believe the Spirit, that person is not saved. If a person affirmatively denies certain things about the truth, that person is resisting the Spirit and salvation will not occur because the person does not wish it. But if a person WANTS to be saved and is thus willing to believe, that person will receive enough information to be saved. That is the way scripture puts things: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31).

After salvation, as believers, our job now is to grow in the truth, and there is nothing more precious than the truth about Jesus Christ, knowing all we can know about Him, His person and His work. The essence of that knowledge, even if it not fully articulated to us at the time (usually nowhere near fully articulated when we are first saved) is what the Spirit makes clear at salvation; the wonderful details follow after salvation . . . for those willing to grow spiritually. If a person affirmatively denies the deity of Christ, my conclusion would be that the person has never been a believer – not at all that they had a "knowledge problem" when presented with the gospel but that they were never believers in the first place because they were unwilling to submit to God the Father by believing in His Son (or that they chose to apostatize later).
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
1st John 2:19 NKJV
I honestly don't know anyone who, at the point of salvation, could explain the person and work of Christ in any detail – and sadly I also don't know many Christians at all who can do that (outside of this ministry). That is the problem with Laodicea.

God is able to save. God is able to make the smallest bit of truth sufficient where there is a willing heart. And God knows who belongs to Him and who does not (2Tim.2:19). It's not a question of knowledge – it's a question of faith. You have that faith, saving faith, as is obvious from all of our conversations. And that is what is really important – as long, as I say, you are able to get moving forward spiritually without being held up by this question.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:   
[omitted by request]
Response #5:  
OK, thanks for clearing that up, my friend. In terms of "finding a place", while it is important to avoid churches whose "doctrinal statements" do not convict them up front of being off in the weeds on important issues, in my experience and observation, just because one can find nothing glaringly wrong in such a document does not at all mean that there is any substantive Bible teaching going on; and if there is no substantive Bible teaching going on, then by definition the place is going to be chock-full of immature believers . . . with their immature believer problems and issues. So take care that not only such a place would not only not build you up but would also have the potential of dragging you down to their level. It happens.

Again, I concur that there is no need for someone to have a detailed understanding of the theology of salvation in order to be saved. In defense (somewhat) of people and places who say the sort of things you report, if that is actually what they are doing, this is probably a defensive measure to ward off any idea that long time Christians can, say, not believe in the deity of Christ and really be saved. Only God knows who is saved and who is not, but when it comes to truly important points of truth surrounding the "Author and Ender" of our faith, believing things that are wrong or refusing arrogantly to believe things the Bible teaches is not a good sign. Now a GOOD Bible teaching ministry will make such things clear so that all who resist the truth will be likely to leave. Then we have a 1st John 2:19 situation where we don't need to be concerned about the salvation status of those who have left the fellowship because they didn't want to hear the truth in the first place.

Your concern on this issue is not the practical one above; rather it is a theological one based upon a personal experience in reaction to questionable teaching which has "caught in your craw" so to speak. My old mentor used to compare these sorts of issues to bones in fish which are best put aside so that the meat can be eaten without such distress. It is good advice. If a person sticks with a good ministry long enough, all (important) questions are eventually answered. On the other hand, focusing on a few bones and neglecting the meat results in slowed growth and much distress.

I am happy to accept that the Spirit's evangelizing is perfect. And that, since God wants all to be saved (1Tim.2:4) and since Jesus died for all (2Cor.5:14-15), that the Spirit will bring salvation about from even minimal information . . . whenever the person receiving the gospel is truly willing to be saved. The details can come later (they certainly should).

What we are really talking about here is the state of knowledge of people after the fact, often long after the fact. Here as well I am happy to accept that there are many believers who are very much ill-informed about the facts of that blessed salvation. That is a dangerous place to be. And for all who buy into or even flirt with heretical positions, that is an even more dangerous place to be. Because if a person ends up rejecting Christ – as denying important things about Him has a tendency to prod a person to do – salvation can be lost, after all: apostasy (see the link).

But again, I don't find it productive to hyper-analyze our personal salvation experiences because we human beings are far from perfect in our memories, and it is also impossible for us to really put our present "know a lot of truth" selves back into our "know consciously very little to nothing" shoes of many years ago. Better we should be glad we are saved NOW, and do everything we can to grow up spiritually and help others do likewise.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:  
[omitted by request]
Response #6:  
No worries on no immediate reply, none at all.

I typed your quote into the Google search for Ichthys and got zero results for "you must believe that Jesus paid for your sins in order to be saved". That didn't surprise me, because as I have tried to explain many times now, that is not the way I put things.

In short, I agree with you that one doesn't need a lot of knowledge to be saved. One only needs to be willing to be saved. The Spirit is capable of taking a very wimpy gospel presentation and even one with serious errors in it, distilling out the essential truth, and giving the willing person all that's needed to be saved. That is what happened for you. That is what happened for me. That is what has happened, I would conjecture, for most people who have been saved in the history of humanity.

I have said these things before.

Where I would find a problem is with a "believer" who has been one for some time who claims things contrary to the gospel. As John says about that:
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1st John 2:21-23 NKJV
As this passage affirms, the truth is all important. Positive believers after being saved pursue the truth. Believers who are not positive put themselves in spiritual jeopardy. If they get to the point of fighting against the truth, they need to beware lest their faith dies out (apostasy), and if they somehow hang on in the middle between truth and lies, the sin unto death is a likely possibility (see the link).

Here's what we know: 1) You were saved then; 2) you are saved now; 3) you have no intention of abandoning your faith in Jesus Christ; 4) therefore it makes no sense to continue to torture yourself over this question – especially since you don't seem to be actually reading and assimilating my answers to you. I don't mean to offend; I'm only trying to help you.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #7:   
[omitted by request]
Response #7:  
As to many claiming you weren't saved because you didn't fully understand Christ's deity at first, they would be wrong (as explained); there is no biblical basis for making such a statement. As I explained in the past, salvation is about grace and faith: God provides and we believe. The Father provided the Son and we believe in Him for salvation. If we don't understand everything about the mechanics, that doesn't change His grace or our faith in Christ. It's not about knowledge; it's about trusting God. God is not a merciless stickler for rules. God is Love. Jesus died for our sins. God wants ALL to be saved (1Tim.2:4); He is not looking for ways to keep us from being saved through legalistic technicalities. People who think like that know nothing about Him.

Most people are saved on very limited knowledge – because the Spirit doesn't need much in order to bring us to new birth / birth from above. The Spirit needs our willingness to come to God the Father in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the object – the One IN WHOM we put our faith; faith is the means we have been given to embrace Him. The details for almost everyone come later. That is because it is pretty difficult to imagine someone gaining all of the knowledge that is in, say BB 4A and BB 4B together (links) and not coming to salvation – unless they are so hardened against it that they are unlikely to accept Christ in any case.

It's not about information; it's about belief.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:   
[omitted by request]
Response #8:  
On the passages you provide, I don't find any contradiction between them whatsoever.

On your statement, to the effect that either one has to understand that Jesus had to atone for our sins in order to be saved or not, you then follow by saying that scripture cannot be broken. The latter statement is obviously true (Jn.10:35). But I don't know of any scripture which states what you state in your "either/or". I certainly don't see that in any of the passages you cited.

God can't be put in a box. The Spirit can use whatever information He wishes to bring someone to saving faith – whatever truth He wishes to use in all manner of gospel presentations. As mentioned before, some are saved with little knowledge, some with more, none with complete knowledge.

But it is not a matter of knowledge. It's a matter of responding to the Spirit in faith.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:  
Hello Bob,

Can you tell me what you understand the word "planao" to mean? The root word "plane" seems to mostly be translated as "deception or delusion". While "planao" in many places is translated along the lines of "to be deceived". Yet in other places "planao" is translated as "to go astray".

Does the word "planao" necessarily carry with it the idea of being deceived, or can it simply mean for one "to go astray" as it is translated in some places?

Thank you Bob,

In Jesus.
Response #9:  
In terms of planao, the root means "wander, err, go astray". The English word "planet" comes from this root because, unlike the stars which follow a pattern in the sky, the movement of the planets is, to the untrained astronomer, very erratic. If a person is caused to go astray, err, wander through the agency of someone else, that would qualify as deception – and that is where those translations come from and that is the primary usage of words from this root in the New Testament. I'm not clear as to there being many place in the NT where this morpheme means simply "to stray" without the idea of deception (the thing/person in the background causing the straying) being involved, but here is one place:
“What do you think? If someone has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, won’t he leave the ninety-nine on the hillside and go and search for the stray?"
Matthew 18:12 CSB
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:   
Thank you. Got it. I did notice this word being used primarily for deception as you point out, but other instances seem to be a very different meaning, such as in:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV

Yet, in cases like Matthew 18:12 like you pointed out, it seems to plainly mean “to stray” or “go astray” of ones own initiative, and not necessarily deception caused by another.

Examples:

Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. Hebrews 5:2 KJV 

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; James 5:19 KJV

Would such examples be in line with Matthew 18:12 as you referenced, or would these carry the idea of deception in the Greek?

“Delusion” and go “astray/err” seem to be very opposite spectrums.
Perhaps the translation is based on context?
In Jesus,
Response #10:
I don't like the KJV's (or most other versions) translation of 2Thes.2:11; I translate their "strong delusion" as "empowerment of error". Keep in mind that deception is a passive concept when applied to an object, so English translators have to wrestle with what is possible in our language and what is actually said in Greek (or Hebrew). Plane is "wandering", often as a result of being deceived, but there is often not an easy way to say that. So it's not that we are dealing with any special wrinkle of meaning; all of these words mean pretty much the same thing: being on the wrong path . . . regardless of whether the agent that brought that wandering about is named.

That's what I see behind the putative difference in your examples; all the ones you give are instances of where there is no agent of deception named. "I am caused to wander" = "I am deceived [by whomever]" is the passive concept (delusion if you wish); vs. "I am wandering" = no agent other than myself named although no doubt there is bad influence that helped lead to my wandering.

I am keeping you in daily prayer, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:  
Thanks Bob,

That's all very insightful. The info. about the origin of the word planet was interesting.
I think I understand, I just have one more follow up question on this.

Based on that understanding, I can see why certain contexts are translated as “deception”, (though it seems “led astray” would be more accurate), but examples such as James 5:19 and Hebrews 5:2 seem to imply “if someone goes out of the way/astray”, implying ones own action/will as opposed to “being led astray/lacking some responsibility” (or at least purposely ambiguous to accommodate both scenarios), at least that's what it seems to mean in English.

Is my understanding implied or a possibility in these cases in the Greek, or does the Greek imply more of a mistake/being deceived here too?

(I think a simple way to rephrase this question is can “plane/planao” be a straying of ones own will/initiative as opposed to a being led astray/deceived, or would that be stretching the Greek meaning?)

The prayers mean very much to me.

In Jesus,
Response #11:  
I'm happy to take these verses one at a time. As a preliminary, however, it must be said that people are only deceived because they want to be deceived. That is to say, there is no "innocence" that in any way removes the issue of the absolute responsibility of the person who is deceived for the actions they take. Eve didn't even have a sin nature when she was deceived by the devil. But she was judged for her sin despite the fact that she was definitely deceived (cf. 2Cor.11:3; 1Tim.2:14). Eve wanted to "be like God/gods", and was willing to forget the truth of the warning from God – to be deceived by the serpent's protestations that she "would not die" (which was of course a lie) in pursuit of that lust (n.b., Adam did the same and didn't even have the defense of being deceived . . . so he blamed Eve and God for giving her to him). 

So is it ever when someone is deceived: we are still responsible. So there is deception and there is going astray; mostly the NT uses apatao and related words for the former idea, and plan- words for the latter idea. Since this is a conflict about truth and choice, the necessity for those with the image of God either to accept the truth or reject it and give themselves over to lies instead, going astray and being deceived are mostly two sides of the same coin. Everyone who goes astray, a little or a lot is still responsible for their actions, just as much as if they choose for the lie out of complete understanding of the consequences (as Adam did).

So in terms of James 5:19 and Hebrews 5:2, the former which is about a believer wandering from the truth, the latter which is talking about the community of faith wherein everyone sins even so, I would agree that there is personal responsibility involved in the "straying". My issue here is that I don't know of any case whatsoever where there is no such responsibility. Even "sins of ignorance" under the Law required sacrifice. Jesus had to die for every sin, even ones which are committed by people who don't know they are sinning and who don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. 
There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
Proverbs 14:12 NKJV
All sin is sin; all sin is an act of free will; all sin had to be atoned for in order for us to be saved. Whether we sin like Eve, being deceived about the wrongness and consequences of what we are doing, or like Adam, in cognizance of both, it's still sin – and we are still responsible for it. Blessedly, since Jesus died for all sins, either way we believers have been forgiven when we accepted Christ – and are forgiven thereafter when we confess. But it is a trap to be led to think that if we are deceived we are somehow relieved of the responsibility for our wrong-doing as a result; that in itself is a great deception of the evil one. 

Sinning is always "a mistake", regardless of how aware we are ahead of time of the damage we do to ourselves by engaging in it. When we sin, it is always because we want to sin; when we are deceived, it is always because on some level we really wanted to be deceived. Accepting responsibility for everything we think and say and do is fundamental to serious spiritual growth.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12:   
Hello Bob,

I am very aware of what you are saying, only I would add that though all sin is sin and needed to be atoned for, the consequences in an individual's life will be different and God will deal differently with someone who has some degree of ignorance in wrongdoing as opposed to someone who with full understanding quenches their conscience in order to do so.

I asked my question in a rather vague manner as I didn't want to open up a broad issue, but let me put it in a more direct way so that you understand what I mean.

[omitted]

God is very kind, and loving, and patient, and longsuffering, and merciful. That said, the Scriptures seem to give many examples of believers caught up in sin, who are either struggling or acting hypocritically and trying to have it both ways, but there are few examples and far between of those who completely get off the path and are counted as believers. It seems to be that God will longsuffer as long as you don't completely get off the path, and putting it otherwise seems to be stretching or getting philosophical compared to the examples we have in Scripture.

James 5:19 seems to say "if someone leaves the truth and another brings them back...", this seems to imply someone who has gotten off the path of fellowship with other believers and with God, as opposed to someone who is walking crookedly in the truth.

Hebrews 5:2 seems to make a distinction between "the ignorant and those who are out of the way" in contrasting someone who doesn't know better at least to an extant, and someone who has gotten off the path with full knowledge.

Those 2 verses seem to be among the only Scriptures that imply hope for someone who completely gets off the path. Most examples in the OT and NT, and in the Epistles, seem to be again, of struggling believers and believers who are walking hypocritically, for these categories there seems to be a storehouse of mercy, but Scripture doesn't have many hopeful examples of those who completely get off the path in the sense of breaking fellowship with believers and with the Lord to pursue a wrong course, again as opposed to walking crookedly but not completely breaking off fellowship wherein the Scriptures seem to leave little to no hope.

You might say when someone engages in wrongdoing they have gotten off in their heart, which is true, but such who are kind of lingering in the middle are not the same as those who completely walk off the path to pursue a wrong course.

While I know you usually can't build a doctrine on a verse or 2, the 2 I've presented seem to mean exactly what I'm saying, only I noticed that the same word is usually translated as deceived or led astray, implying falling into a trap or something as opposed to willfully going completely off course. I just want to be sure that the way I'm interpreting them is really what they're saying as it seems to clearly be in English.
Response #12:  
I'm a little bit confused and I don't want to add to my confusion (or yours) by answering regarding something I'm not sure of. When you say, for instance, "they seem to be among the only Scriptures that imply hope for someone who completely gets off the path", I have multiple problems with this which probably means I'm not understanding exactly what you are saying. Our God is a God of infinite mercy. Without His mercy, we would all be lost.
The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love. He will not always accuse, nor will he harbor his anger forever; he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear Him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. The life of mortals is like grass, they flourish like a flower of the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more. But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD’s love is with those who fear Him, and his righteousness with their children’s children—with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.
Psalm 103:8-18 NIV
Biblically speaking, there are believers and there are unbelievers. Believers are saved; unbelievers are not (Jn.3:18). Believers sometimes do revert to the status of unbelief. That is apostasy (link). That is a total loss of faith. I personally am agnostic about whether or not such a person, someone, that is, who has stopped believing in Jesus completely, could or would ever come back to the faith. Theologically, I don't see anything that would prevent it nor do I know of any verse that says it's impossible (we have free will as long as we are here on earth), but anyone who goes that route has to harden their hearts against the truth they once accepted so completely that it does seem at the very least highly unlikely that they would then come back after completely denying Christ.

There are plenty of believers who go on a "prodigal son" "far journey" away from the Lord. How far, how long, what this consists of, what brings them back, whether or not they come all the way back, etc., are variables in individual cases, but as along as said person is a believer, they are saved. Now if in the course of this estrangement from the Lord said person begins to involve him/herself in gross sin which brings serious reproach to Jesus Christ, increasing divine discipline will have as its purpose the person's reform; if said reform is not forthcoming, the "sin unto death" is the result, absent repentance (link). But such believers, albeit not having any great reward to look forward to, are still saved. That is why Paul says at 1st Corinthians 5:5 that he is handing the incestuous believer over to Satan, "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus".

In terms of atonement, only Jesus Christ can atone for sin – and He did, dying for all sin on the cross. We believers may be disciplined for our sins, but we never "make it up to God". Nothing we can do can ever atone for even the smallest sin. If we are punished "less than our sins deserve" (Ps.103:10), well, that is just a measure of the merciful God who made us.

In terms of scriptural examples, I find these in scripture of believers in every situation covered above.

In terms of Hebrews 5:2, these two categories both (deliberately) do not treat "high handed" sin because this verse is meant to reflect the terminology one finds in the Law regarding sacrifice, that being the purpose of Paul in writing this letter, namely, to turn the Jerusalem believers away from falling back into legalism (i.e., this verse is not a doctrinal treatment of sin which can be disentangled from the immediate or broader context). The verse does, however, through Paul's thoughtful consideration, manage to cover the subject in a perfect way, referring to sins we know are sins and sins we didn't realize were sins – in other words, "all sin".

In terms of James 5:19, when you say, "this seems to imply someone who has gotten off the path of fellowship with other believers and with God, as opposed to someone who is walking crookedly in the truth", here too I don't see anything in the language or the use of planao to indicate that what we have here can be so carefully defined. Someone who "wanders from the truth" is a prodigal son who may be a long way off or a little way off, through arrogance or ignorance. The English word "wander" is softer in tone than planao, so that is unfortunate. Anyone who helps any believers back from turning away from the truth, a little or a lot and for whatever reason, is doing the Lord's work.
Remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error (plane) of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
James 5:20 NIV
As I say, I'm not clear about the categories your are constructing, but what I have written about that above is how I see the biblical breakdown of these matters. More about much of this at the link in BB 3B: "Apostasy and the Sin unto Death".

I am and will continue to keep you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:   
Thank you Bob,

I pretty much understand and agree with all you are saying, only I don't believe someone who loses their salvation can regain it, I don't believe that's Scriptural, but that's not my concern.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I think you answered my question, but basically what I am saying is I see a difference between a believer who is somewhat walking with the Lord yet playing with sin and someone who, as you put it, "has gone to a far country", so my point was that James 5:19 seems to talk about someone who willfully got up and "went to a far country", and Hebrews 5:2 seems to talk about both someone ignorantly caught up in error and someone who willfully got up and "went to a far country".

I just wanted to be sure that this is what they mean in the Greek by verifying that "planao/plane" can be used to describe someone who willfully "goes into a far country". Because in these contexts someone who "planao" seems to mean that.

[omitted]

On another note, I indirectly came across something you wrote on James 4:6 by chance, and it shook me up because I truly believe that the Holy Spirit has given me that verse on multiple occasions in very specific moments to encourage me that even though we fall short and really mess up, "but he giveth more grace", and this definitely fits the context of what James is speaking about.

You say that its really saying that "His grace is greater than the temptation to sin" so I looked and saw that the Greek word usually is translated as "greater". Can this still also simply mean that "but he giveth more grace" as in "He yet gives more grace even when we mess up and fall short" in the Greek?

Much, much thanks for the continued prayers.

In Jesus,
Response #13:  
Being out of fellowship with the Lord is the "death" which the prodigal son parable relates. However one reads the parable, the son is a son before, during and after the experience.

On James 5:19, please re-read. I'm pretty sure I said that it's not really possible to categorize that specifically (same goes for Hebrews 5:2). Basically, the Bible speaks of believers and unbelievers; of believers in fellowship and out of fellowship . . . but in the case of the latter it doesn't break levels of this wrong path / right path, probably because anyone out of fellowship, a little or a lot, has the ability and opportunity to be restored instantly; that doesn't mean of course that there is not sometimes residual damage. As one believer who had been an alcoholic reportedly once said, "The Lord gave me a new heart, but He didn't give me a new liver".

In terms of applying things to ourselves, I have seen believers do a lot of damage to themselves by "applying" a verse or two that bothers them to themselves . . . wrongly. Why do they do this? It has to do with the evil one being adept at using misplaced guilt against us all (his favorite weapon). Better to engage with good Bible teaching, forget the past, move forward spiritually, and leave the evaluation to the Lord. We can't change yesterday. But we sure can mess up today . . . by fretting over yesterday. No one requires you to evaluate yourself yesterday. The Lord will do that, at the judgment seat of Christ. We are all apprehensive about that (2Cor.5:11), but the solution to this is to do what we should be doing today, not neurosing about what we may have done yesterday.
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
1st Corinthians 4:5 NIV
As to James 4:4-6, here is how I translate and explain the passage (explained at the link):
(4) You adulteresses (i.e., immoral people of both sexes)! Do you not know that friendship with the world is inimical to God? Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world establishes himself as an enemy of God. (5) Or do you assume that the Scripture (i.e., Gal.5:17) says to no purpose "The Spirit" which dwells in you "sets its desire against" [such] envy [emanating from the sin nature, a situation rampant among you (as is evident from the examples given in verses 1-4)]? (6) But [God] "gives grace [which is] greater" [than all these temptations] (i.e., in the provision of the Spirit which resists the flesh). That is why it says, "God opposes the arrogant, but He gives grace to the humble".
James 4:4-6
In the context, the grace is greater than the pressures of the world and the sin nature (and the evil one). I would say that fits every believer's situation perfectly. The grace He gives is "greater" than all of our needs or any of our challenges. What could be better than that?

It's very good to read the Bible, but as I have often had occasion to remark, even a genius believer cannot be expected to understand and correctly interpret enough scripture to grow spiritually without the help of a teaching ministry. The more one tries to DIY or rely on a multiplicity of teachers, the more confusion rather than edification is usually the result. As I also often say, Ichthys is not everyone's "cup of tea", but for the sake of growth and peace, it's always best for any believer to find that one place that is safe and helpful – and stick with it (rather confusing him/herself with the other never-successful method).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:   
Thanks Bob,

You definitely answered my question, I just want to re-cap as this is so important to me:

Basically as a Greek word “planao” can be used and is used in the sense of all the scenarios we’ve discussed and is not confined to meaning a scenario caused by deception or another, but can mean to willfully stray on ones own initiative, and in the case of James 5:19 and Hebrews 5:2 this is true as it is purposely ambiguous in order to cover different scenarios?

In Jesus,
Response #14:  
My pleasure.

On the first paragraph, while I don't necessarily disagree with anything in the recap, this is not the way scripture would ever put things. Eve sinned. Eve was deceived. Adam sinned. Adam allowed himself to deceive himself based upon the machinations of the deceiver. Jesus had to die for every sin. And we are responsible for every sin we commit. All sin is the result of some deception or other. Even if there is no direct deception, when we sin we are operating on false assumptions that are part of the devil's system – like we will be better off for having sinned than not (something which is NEVER the case). 

So again, while the verb/morpheme covers a lot of ground, that doesn't mean that the categories you are constructing actually exist, biblically speaking. I don't find anything useful in them; in fact I think it could be very potentially damaging to suggest that someone is "OK" because they were highly deceived whereas someone else is "Guilty!" because they were not obviously deceived. Whatever we do wrong, we do "willfully" to one degree or another; whatever we do wrong, we also do wrong "in ignorance", deliberate or otherwise, of the import and consequences of what we are doing. 

Clearly, some sinning is worse than other sinning, worse for us and others, worse in terms of the discipline it brings. Clearly, some things we do wrong we do in greater immediate cognizance of the wrong we are doing than is the case in other things. However, there must be a reason why these "categories", obvious enough to us all, are not laid down as such in scripture and why sins are lumped together as "sin" in many places in the Bible without any such categorization (e.g., Gal..5:19-21). And the reason is because sin is sin, we are responsible for all the sin we commit, but Christ died for all sin, so that we are forgiven all the sin we commit when we confess (1Jn.1:9). On balance that is GREAT news: we don't have to worry about categories – we just confess, repent and forget (or at least that is what we should do). 

James 5:19 envisions any believer who has gotten off the rails, so to speak, a little or a lot in the way he/she is living their life; Hebrews 5:2 puts things the way it does for two reasons: 1) because it is talking to Jewish believers who were wrongly headed back to legalism and so Paul is dealing with them in legal terms (these two words hearken back to the sacrifices of the Law and specifically to the Day of Atonement when all sin was atoned for), and 2) because there is another category the Bible does mention, the ultimate category of the sin unto death whose flip side is apostasy (see the link). That was what the Jerusalem believers were flirting with.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:   
Hello Bob,

I would argue that Adam was not deceived but chose to sin (1 Timothy 2:14), yet of course all sin is sin, all sin needed to be atoned for, and everyone is responsible for their actions, I understand this very well, (though I am sure degree of knowledge and motives play a role in level of accountability/responsibility which I think Scripture clearly teaches).

Also, when you say that even sin without direct deception is "operating on false assumptions which are part of devils system etc.", that is a deep statement, and I'm not sure I agree with that, at least not fully, I think it would depend on how you define that and what angle this is looked at from, if somebody decides to quench their conscience or the Spirit and go and sin because they want to, that is different than being really weak in a difficult situation and "slipping", the latter person is more responsible/accountable whether a believer or non-believer... I'm just commenting as this is going in a different direction than my concern.
I also understand that when something true is resisted/rejected, there is nothing else to replace it other than a flood of delusion and falsehood, this is something I understand extremely well and have spent MUCH breath preaching to others and warning about repeatedly, to both saved and unsaved.

[omitted]

All that said, please Bob, I beg you, let me put this question to you a last time, and I hope you can meet me where I am without putting it in a systematic theological context. I know I sound paradoxical in many things, maybe I'm off in my thinking, maybe I'm right in the angle I need to look at it from right now, but its where I am and I know its an utmost important key to me, even if it may not make sense to you:

Strongs has "planao" 39 times
- 26 times as deceive/seduce
- 13 times as go astray/err (or something along those lines where the English word seems to imply, or at the very least definitely include ones own action as opposed to someone elses influence). Since the majority of the time it is translated and in context to mean "led astray/deceived", I just want to be sure that the other times the word itself can clearly mean "to go astray" as opposed to "to be led astray".

The definition from Strongs says :
to cause to stray, to lead astray, lead aside from the right way
to go astray, wander, roam about
metaph.
to lead away from the truth, to lead into error, to deceive
to be led into error
to be led aside from the path of virtue, to go astray, sin
to sever or fall away from the truth
of heretics
to be led away into error and sin

Based on the Greek word planao, can I honestly read James 5:19 as
1 - "Brethren, if any of you do GO ASTRAY and deviate from the path of truth by your own choice to quench the Spirit and deviate...and another convert him...",
or does it have to be
2 - "Brethren, if any of you be LED ASTRAY and slip up, by succumbing to weakness or falling into being seduced...and another convert him...

All I want to know, is simply, can planao mean:
1 - "to go astray"?
Or does it have to mean
2 - "to be led astray/deceived"?

Just a simple "it can mean 1" or "it has to mean 2" will make a WORLD of difference to me on so many levels.

In Jesus,
Response #15:  
Yes, it's very true that Adam knew what he was doing and that Eve was the one deceived. But on the other hand, no one who disobeys the Lord REALLY understands "what they are doing" – because if they had the full consequences and understanding fully digested in their hearts, they wouldn't do it. God allows those with His image to harden their hearts a little or a lot in order to do what they really want to do. Pharaoh was given an exceptional measure of such ability so as to disobey God to an unprecedented and extraordinary degree (link). Satan became arrogant and that arrogance blinded him to the point of thinking he could actually disobey the Lord with impunity and win a rebellion. So, yes, there is sinning in knowledge with a high hand, but even here unless a person has in some way corrupted him/herself in terms of understanding, the consequences rightly understood would be too fearful to dare to do so. If David had seen fully in his heart at that moment what would happen for murdering Uriah (and committing adultery with his wife), does anyone think he would have gone through with it? But in lust and fear he blinded himself to the consequences. That is the self-deception that the whole world system of Satan provides.

There is proportionality in God's response to our behavior of course. 
The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Luke 12:47-48 NIV
But this proportionality is never expressed to suggest that "small is OK"; it is always expressed to suggest that "big has really terrifying consequences". Also, scripture, while it has a great deal to say about sin (cf. the entire study at Ichthys: BB 3B: Hamartiology at the link), we never ever see it giving us any sort of "scale of sins" in the Bible – along the lines of, e.g., "the seven deadly sins" of deluding and delusional Roman Catholicism. There is a reason for that. While some sins and some sinning is clearly worse than others (e.g., 1Sam.15:23; 1Cor.6:18), all sin is sin so that the penalty for every sin had to be poured out on our Lord on the cross, and no doubt for this reason scripture doesn't produce a scale or categorize in terms of severity as religions have sought to do.

As to being the "worst", here's what I find in scripture:
(15) The saying is true and worth careful consideration: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am among the foremost of them". (16) But it is for this very reason that I was shown mercy, that is, so that in me first and foremost Christ Jesus might demonstrate the full measure of His patience [toward unbelievers] as a pattern for those who are [likewise] going to believe in Him for eternal life.
1st Timothy 1:15-16
Jesus Christ came into the world not to save the righteous but us sinners, not to save sheep that were not going astray but us strays. We all have a lot to regret. I have a lot to regret. And it's the rare believers associated in any way with this ministry who doesn't have a lot to regret about "before". But regret does no good – unless it's as an impetus to make the most of the time remaining to move forward.

No one gets "complete closure" on this side. That sort of reverse perfectionism only hinders us from moving forward. We all have to learn to live with an imperfect past – all of us. Our job as those who NOW belong to Jesus Christ and who NOW are committed to following Him as we should is to do just that, NOT fixate on a yesterday which can never be altered. By doing the latter we are only guaranteeing that we are not going to be doing what we ought to be doing TODAY. And it is TODAY that the Lord has made and given to us to follow Him therein.
This is the day that the LORD has made;
let us rejoice and be glad in it.
Psalm 118:24 ESV
Planao means "to cause to wander" in the active voice, and "to wander [oneself]" in the middle/passive voice; it is middle/passive in James 5:19. Grammatically speaking, all middle/passives generally assume an agent or instrument, whereas in the active voice the subject is producing the action. In terms of what this means biblically and the translations you suggest, as mentioned, I am very wary of reading too much into this one, very common verb (and I stand by everything I wrote you before).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:  
Hello Bob,

You wrote:
“…to wander [oneself]" in the middle/passive voice; it is middle/passive in James 5:19. Grammatically speaking, all middle/passives generally assume an agent or instrument…”

Earlier, you wrote: Someone who "wanders from the truth" is a prodigal son who may be a long way off or a little way off, through arrogance or ignorance. The English word "wander" is softer in tone than planao, so that is unfortunate. Anyone who helps any believers back from turning away from the truth, a little or a lot and for whatever reason, is doing the Lord's work.

I am left extremely frustrated and confused. I reread your replies, and feel I still don't understand.

A prodigal son telling his Father plainly “I'm going astray” does not assume an agent or an instrument. 

Those erring due to Jezebel seducing them to commit fornication assumes an agent or an instrument. I just simply want to know if planao can cover a self imposed decision to deviate.
Does the sheep in Matthew 18:12 have to gramatically be planao by Jezebel, or can there be no Jezebel, and the sheep decides of himself “I want to deviate from the herd and stray that way” - is it still planao? Or is it no longer planao since there is no Jezebel seducing.

Thank you for your time.

In Jesus,
Response #16:  
I honestly don't see anything whatsoever the least bit contradictory between the two quotes. I think, as I've implied a few times, that you are reading way too much into these words. 

As to "A prodigal son telling his Father plainly “I'm going astray” does not assume an agent or an instrument", that doesn't happen in the parable and I'm not sure what it means or would mean in real life. To go back to Adam and Eve, what we have is relative ignorance of sin (Eve) and relative cognizance of sin (Adam); but Eve had been told and even tells the serpent the truth before he convinces here through temptation to have a go; and Adam, though he knew it was wrong, did it any way out of pressure from his wife and fear of losing her. So to some degree they both "knew"; but to some degree they both also "didn't fully realize" the consequences of their actions. Adam allowed himself to deceive himself out of the pressure of the circumstances; Eve was deceived by the serpent (i.e., the devil). 

In terms of planao, which is not used here in the Greek translation (apatao is what we find in the LXX, but they are synonyms), this would be active voice with the serpent as the expressed agent in deceiving Eve (Gen.3:13); in terms of Adam, when God renders judgment on him "because you obeyed your wife" (Gen.3:17), listening to her out of arrogant fear and allowing himself to forget and suppress the consequences of disobedience: if he really knew he WOULD immediately die on eating, would he have eaten? So on the one hand we CAN say that "Eve was deceived and Adam was not" but on the other hand, Eve was not completely unaware of the truth nor was Adam free from self-deception. In any case, the truly important point is that BOTH were guilty – and both forgiven through the blood of Christ represented by the skins with which the Lord clothed them (the so-called protoevangelium).

In terms of your next paragraph, I don't really understand it. This isn't the way I interpret scripture. Give me a verse and I'm happy to talk about it. Ask me about a principle and I'm happy to explain it. But hypotheticals based upon what words might mean in situations which don't occur in scripture isn't something I feel comfortable interacting with. There's too much room for misunderstanding for one thing (which this discussion demonstrates).

Keeping you in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:   
[omitted]

Thank you for the prayers.

In Jesus,
Response #17:  
Given how much heartache people experienced as a result of bad decisions, can we really, honestly say that they would do the same again, knowing what they know now? Even if they had a lot of knowledge, if it were really a case of a believer operating in response to epignosis, they likely would have realized the import of what they were doing before suffering the divine discipline which turned them around. It's the rare believer nowadays who doesn't have a similar experience/story. The prodigal knew what he was doing. How did David not know what he was doing? But they, we, do it anyway? That is the deceptiveness of the sin nature, coupled with the temptations of the evil one acting on our relative ignorance and appealing to our arrogance. Which makes taking care in this world so very important.
Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
2nd Corinthians 7:1 NKJV

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
Philippians 2:12 NIV
If multitudinous factors go into adjudicating difficult earthly cases (and they often do), how is that we think we can resolve heavenly ones into simple A or B? God knows and we have to trust Him. If He brought us back from the brink, then we didn't do it on our own. So it is best not to trouble ourselves all on our own initiative. This is also the evil one working on us. Rather, we should resist him by focusing on the truth and on doing what the Lord wants us to do today, not fixating on yesterday. Do we believe? Yes. Then we are believers. Whatever happened between yesterday and today is then of no further consequence . . . unless we let it continue to be a stumbling block. That is merely tripping ourselves up. This is also deception (the evil one working with our sin nature) and self-deception (we are letting it happen).

Written in Christian love and continuing prayer for your peace and growth in the Lord.

Bob L.
Question #18:   
[omitted] 
Response #18:  
I fear that you have been conflating the teachings of Ichthys with something/someone else.

When you say, "I had read in your satanic rebellion series that “there was no way of forgiveness for satan because there is no way to atone for what he had full knowledge of", I don't ever remember writing anything exactly like this and I couldn't find it when I looked to see if I were wrong about my remembrance. I was not. In fact, of course, in SR 5, I describe the creation of mankind as God's "last olive branch", an essential offer to the devil and his followers to see that they were entirely wrong about their assumptions and giving them an opportunity to return. 

Has God EVER not honored the desire of any of His creatures to return to Him? I can't find that in scripture, and it would seem absolutely incompatible with His character if He ever did so. The problem is not God; the problem is the hardness of heart of those with the image of God who, like the devil, will never and would never repent if still in full possession of their free will. That is what Hebrews 10:26 teaches as well: no possibility of reconciliation . . . ABSENT repentance. Because this is all about free will. That is why Christ died also for the sins of those who would reject Him – they were given a full and fair chance as long as they drew breath.

Why would Christ have died for the sins we commit every day (and we all sin every day, just, one hopes, less and less dramatically as we grow) . . . if there were no hope? Thinking like that is, when you think about it, just a little insulting to the Lord. Instead, I commend gratitude . . . and letting go of the past with the purpose of moving forward to glorify Him.

Here's some links on Hebrews 10:26:
No, Hebrews does not teach that you lost your salvation.

Hebrews 10:26 again

Does Hebrews 10:26 teach loss of salvation?
On Number 15:30, the form is imperfect; the only other way to express a conjugated verb in Biblical Hebrew is with the perfect; that would have mean here "did" as opposed to the general "does". So this is essential general condition with the imperfect function akin to the subjunctive in other ancient languages (a normal function of the Hebrew imperfect).  So there is no basis for assuming "ongoing presumptuous sin" from the verb form here.  Most translations render this as a one time event, and that is a correct reading of the grammar.  E.g.:
‘But the person who does (i.e., not "keeps doing") anything presumptuously (lit., "with a high hand"), whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people.
Numbers 15:30 NKJV
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:  
[omitted]
Response #19:  
On the quotation, if you read the context you will see that this is my gleaning from the situation what Satan was thinking – and I hope that it doesn't shock you to hear that Satan was wrong in what he reasoned. So SATAN's idea that reconciliation was impossible was wrong – as the entire history of mankind and the reconciliation made possible for us by the cross shows. Satan misjudged God's character entirely. Anyone assuming that he/she can never be reconciled to God through Christ is making the same mistake of reasoning Satan made (albeit for different reasons and from different motivations – being deceived by the evil one to accept his original false reasoning).

Re: "I understand “high handed sin” as in Numbers 15:30 to be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". You are free to construct whatever theology you wish. However, in the teaching of this ministry, the blasphemy against the Spirit, the so-called unpardonable sin, is the sin of rejecting the gospel, of refusing to turn to the Lord to be saved, of calling the Spirit a liar, so to speak, when the gospel is given (link).

Re: "What I'm trying to understand is, how only sins of ignorance, “shagagah/shagag”, can be forgiven". Not sure where you get that since the Bible assures us of God's mercy, Christ's propitiation of all of our sins, and of our forgiveness when we confess:
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1st John 1:9 NKJV
Also:
I acknowledged my sin to You,
And my iniquity I have not hidden.
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,”
And You forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah
Psalm 32:5 NKJV
David is talking about his sin in having an affair with Bathsheba and murdering her husband to cover it up. If that's not high-handed sin, I don't know what is – especially seeing as how David was a prophet and not in any way ignorant of God's Law.

As I mentioned at some lengthy, ignorance and cognizance are relative things. No one who sins is ever completely ignorant if deceived (Eve certainly wasn't since she was lecturing the serpent on the matter seconds before succumbing), and no one who sins is ever completely cognizant (Adam certainly wasn't since if he realized all the implications in full, he wouldn't have done it – he starts blaming Eve just as soon as the Lord begins to grill him). What matters, really matters are two points: 1) regardless of the level of ignorance or cognizance we all have free will and are all 100% responsible whenever we sin, so that absent God's intervention, the most ignorant sin would still result in condemnation; and 2) Jesus Christ has already died for every single one of our sins so that we believers are forgiven just as soon as we confess (divine discipline is, of course, another matter).

The Law was a system of shadows designed to point to greater things. Going back to it to complicate matters which are made crystal clear in the New Testament is always fraught with the potential for error (I've seen that many times). If you want me to opine about why the system of sacrifices is what it is I would say that the Lord was giving the Israelites good reason and great help in staying away from sin. Period. As Paul later shows at length, anyone looking at the Law objectively would realize that they can't fulfill it and so are condemned by it – and that is the point, namely to show the need for a Savior (not some sort of parsing out of bad verses worse sins and using the Law to justify sins "we" don't find that bad – this is what the Pharisees did, after all).

One last thing to consider about Leviticus etc.: how much sacrifice do you imagine would have be necessary if the Israelites even actually attempted to do so every time they sinned? If anyone of them determined to make a sacrifice each and every time he/she, say, had a hateful or otherwise sinful thought, they would never ever leave the temple – and would run out of sheep very quickly.

There is much about the Law that can only be understood by studying the New Testament. Take my advice and focus on the latter rather than the former.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/