Bad worship songs: Praise (feat. Brandon Lake, Chris Brown & Chandler Moore) | Elevation Worship

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a good worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? We think an excellent worship song should contain as many as possible of the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody

Scripture quotes or coherent allusions to Scripture

• Doctrinal soundness
• Further, a worship song should not:
• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with today's song, Praise.

Video link.

Is God's wrath appeased or transferred?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves. 

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

-------------------

Social Security is not insurance: Faceborg conversation

A Faceborg friend posted this:

A conversation ensued:

Me: Not insurance.

The Doctrine of Original Sin and the Wrath of God - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------

The author promises but does not deliver a discussion about original sin and the wrath of God. In fact, aside from the very first sentence, he does not mention these at all.

We would infer from his presentation that he thinks that those who don't believe in original sin don't believe in sin at all. It is from this false dichotomy that the author goes on and on about things no true Christian would disagree with. 

But none of it is about the the subject.

We discuss original sin here.)

------------------

The Lord’s Supper is Not a Pot Luck - by Ryan Higginbottom

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

We would hope the author demonstrate his premise from the Bible but he doesn't. In fact, he only manages to quote one Scripture, though a relevant one. 

What is more important, however, is that the author is actually defending traditional church ceremony. He objects to the pot luck idea, not because it's unbiblical, but because it's not the solemn ritual in a church service.

He provides two reasons why a potluck can't be the Lord's Supper, but neither actually speaks to this. Both reasons are related to the spiritual nature of communion, not to a potluck. It seems the author intended to write another article about what communion means, rather than why a potluck doesn't cut the mustard (pun intended).

The NT does not contain a solemn communion ceremony, or in fact, any ceremony at all. Communion was a meal, with the whole church participating in fellowship.

The first mention of a meal after Pentecost is

Ac. 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

So the early church was particularly committed to eating together, praying together, fellowshipping together, and they wholeheartedly devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles. The emphasis is on community - being together. They probably communed nearly every day. This is much different than our contemporary practice, and it is our opinion that the church has suffered for not maintaining this practice.

Paul broached the subject of the Lord's Supper for the first time in 1Co. 10:16-17:

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Partaking of a meal together speaks to us being one body. The sharing of bread is symbolic of togetherness, unity, and a singular identity. Eating together means we belong together as the family.

This is a critical understanding, that communion is a representation of the body as one entity. It is with this understanding that we approach the author's quoted passage regarding the practice of communion and what our obligations are:

1Co. 11:20-30 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

Notice that this was a full blown meal, deemed "the Lord's Supper" (the author's quote omits this verse) ".Supper" is deipnon (δεῖπνον, ου, τό) From the same as dapane; dinner, i.e. The chief meal (usually in the evening) -- feast, supper. Clearly they were not just introspectively eating a little cracker and a tasting a bit of grape juice while sitting in a church building. The early church was eating together. It wasn't a sacrament, it was a time of regular fellowship together with a meal.

And we find out that the Corinthian church was in fact despising the Body (Jesus' sacrifice, and by extension, the Church body) by neglecting those who were there, and by getting drunk.

Next we read:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul was directly telling the Corinthian church what the elements mean. His Body, the church, was to remember the great sacrifice Jesus gave at the cross.

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 

"Whenever." Every time we eat together we must proclaim His death. Every time we eat together it is communion. Every time we eat together we must consider His body and blood.

28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Thus this examination is regarding not only His body broken for us, but also His Body the Church as well. And in fact are rejoicing over Christ's victory over death.

If we don't recognize the Body we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves. If we eat and exclude, diminish, or dishonor our brothers and sisters, we tear down the Body. It isn't about considering the state of our own souls in relation to unconfessed sin, it instead is about our regard for the Church and Jesus' sacrifice, as well as our care and honor for the Body!

Communion is the interaction of the body of Christ one with another in honor when it gathers together to eat. To dishonor the body (the church) is to dishonor Christ.

It seems clear that communion is more accurately represented by the church potluck than by the little cracker and splash of grape juice during a solemn church service. Communion speaks of a much higher purpose for the church than is currently practiced, a togetherness and unity of vision and purpose that far exceeds the ritual. 

------------------

Summary 2020 Presidential Election Fraud - By John C Wright

Found here. Important information.

--------------------------

Below is a report on the voter fraud in the 2020 Election campaign which recounts the voting irregularities and illegalities in one tidy summation. I reprint it here because it is being ignored or libeled by the press.

As best I know, no point-by-point rebuttal, answer, or explanation exists for these allegations.

The endnotes are extensive, and I hope were transferred here accurately. If not, please tell me.
Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States

“Out of fraud no action arises.”

Introduction
Georgia
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Michigan

Introduction

It has often been repeated there is “no evidence” of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won.

Ongoing investigations in the Swing States reveal hundreds of thousands of votes were altered and/or not lawfully cast in the Presidential Election. Joe Biden needed them. On Election Night Nov. 3, 2020, President Donald J. Trump was sailing to reelection with landslide leads in numerous battlegrounds.

REVIEW – ALEC RYRIE “UNBELIEVERS: AN EMOTIONAL HISTORY OF DOUBT” - by Tim O'Neill

Found here. An interesting commentary on faith from an atheist.

---------------------

Alec Ryrie, Unbelievers – An Emotional History of Doubt (William Collins, 2019) 262 pp.

We unbelievers are often mentioned in passing in histories of religion, but there are only a few works of history that focus on those of us who reject religion or who never held religious beliefs at all. This one is by a scholar who is a Christian, but one who strives to give a balanced and nuanced view of how various modern Western strains of unbelief arose and where they came from. Unusually, Ryrie focuses on the emotional rather than the rational roots of modern unbelief and the result is an interesting analysis that leads to some surprising people and insightful conclusions.

Bad worship songs: Gratitude - Brandon Lake

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a good worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? We think an excellent worship song should contain as many as possible of the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or coherent allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with today's song, Gratitude.

Video link.

Why the hell is Trump rising in the polls? (Why American capitalism is so rotten, Part 6) The real choice ahead - by ROBERT REICH

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

Dr. Reich has no idea why Trump is polling better than Biden. He cannot fathom it. Or, he does know but would rather keep to The Narrative, that is, the leftist talking points promulgated throughout the media every day. 

He spouts these leftist talking points with facility. There is almost nothing true in the below article. He makes no argument or refutation. He presumes his world view as he cites evidence that actually is contrary to his position.

Worst of all, he quotes Trump but does not comment, as if what Trump said was somehow offensive or incorrect, even though each of Trump's assertions are perfectly reasonable.

------------------------

We're All Muzzled Oxen Now. On pastoral salaries and the bigger picture - by RHYS LAVERTY

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

Almost 3700 words, and only two quoted (and misused) Scriptures. We deleted large irrelevant sections in order to distill the author down to his reasoning regarding pastoral pay.

The big problem, so common in Christianity, is investing the pastor position as being the titular head of the local church, with everyone else under him. This is unbiblical. There is nothing in the Bible that places the pastor in such a position.

It is from this flawed model the author develops his thesis. 

We should say that we are not opposed to those who are in the ministry being paid adequately. Rather, we are opposed to unbiblical church leadership.

--------------------

Why Is the Lord’s Supper a Means of Grace? Jonty Rhodes

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

We previously reviewed other "means of grace" articles ("Why preaching is a means of grace") ("Why is prayer a means of grace?") from the same website. In each case the explanations seem to make things more complicated. 

Such is the case for today's article. Not content to simply teach the Bible, these teachers create categories and doctrines and sub-doctrines, like "means of grace." However, such things are unnecessary and obtuse. Simply, "means of grace" is nothing more than the various ways God does things to our benefit.

Ironically, the author begins his article by complaining about how everyone is talking about being "Gospel-centered" when he thinks it isn't really that complicated. Yet he goes on to complicate things himself by giving an inscrutable title to a simple idea.

It takes the author five paragraphs to actually get to the topic promised in the title. He manages to quote a couple of related Scriptures, but for the most part this article is actually a Scriptureless explanation of his belief about his doctrine. 

His answer to the question is two-fold:

• Communion is an aide to remind us of Jesus' death
• Communion is a spiritual feeding

 These two things are what the author chooses to include, and he supplies a relevant Scripture that identifies each, but he doesn't tell us anything about how these are a "means of grace." He quotes no Scripture in support of how communion is a "means of grace." 

More importantly, there's more to communion as a "means of grace." For example, communion is (or should be) an actual meal, with the community, fellowship, and sharing that implies (1Co. 11:33). Communion shouldn't be a solemn ceremony in a church service; rather, it's a coming together with food in remembrance and celebration.

The author assembles his two items and affixes the label "means of grace." "Means of grace," then, is a obscuring expression that creates an arbitrary category used by certain theologians and teachers to describe concepts and semi-connected ideas derived from Scripture but not expressly stated in Scripture.  

----------------

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair - updated 3/18/24

Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

---------------

Hear Ye, Hear Ye. 

This is a milestone. After 9 months of work, working Wednesdays and Saturdays, I am proclaiming the body shell's rust repair to be ended. Finished. All done. Completed. 

It's been an arduous journey.

I entered into this knowing it would involve many difficult deep-dive repairs. But even though I've done much of this sort of work before I was still not prepared for how difficult this car would be. This is a major pitfall of the car hobby: Even knowing it will be hard, it's always harder than you thought.

Given this, I am quite literally surprised that I didn't screw it up to the point of making it junk. Or kill myself. Or even experience a serious injury. I succeeded in every single task. The car came out solid, square, and everything lines up. 

In the very first episode I invoked Jesus' help, and He did.

This first punch list is largely complete:

In episode one I outlined my strategy for working on the car. Stage One was body shell repairs. This is the stage I'm proclaiming as complete. Stage Two is the repair of the bolt-on sheetmetal repairs. Which means I have moved on to stage two.

Actually, I have been doing some Stage Two repairs already, like the passenger and driver door and the trunk lid. In particular, the door repairs were necessary in order to properly fit the quarters and the floor pan.

I've also been doing some Stage Three repairs (bodywork) in many of the episodes, but really just rough-in bodywork. There's a subsequent episode for the finish bodywork.

In this episode I'll be addressing the last of the Stage Two repairs The fender patch panels, fender dents, and the repairs to the inner fenders. 

--------------------------

Bad worship songs - All Hail King Jesus - by Jeremy Riddle

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a good worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? We think an excellent worship song should contain as many as possible of the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Scripture quotes or coherent allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness

Further, a worship song should not:

• contain lyrics that create uncertainty or cause confusion
• be excessively metaphorical
• be excessively repetitive
• imply that Jesus is your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with today's song, All Hail King Jesus.

Why Is Preaching a Means of Grace? - by Paul Levy

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

This is a very confusing presentation. The author does not believe in contemporary prophecy, yet he will assert that the Pastor's preaching is in effect prophesying. He also suggests that God is speaking all the time if we would listen. This is very odd talk for a cessationist.

He also confuses the preaching of the Gospel with Bible teachers. He acknowledges that Jesus is the Word, but then talks about how it is necessary to preach the Word, i.e., the Bible. 

He talks about Jesus casting out demons, healing the sick, and preaching the Gospel, but glosses right over the power ministry part and goes straight to His preaching. 

It won't be until the third to the last paragraph that the author finally gets to the topic mentioned in the title. "Means of grace" is an obfuscating phrase, which is simply the various ways God works. That's it. So God might use sermons to edify or save people, which makes sermons a "means of grace." 

Theologians and others seem to love to complicate things. Besides "means of grace," they use words like soteriology, immanence, regeneration, and impassability, as if these things explain God more clearly. 

We are frankly tired of trying to dissect these obscure and obtuse explanations of doctrines that are themselves in need of explanations. The Gospel is simple. Living a Christian life is simple. The Bible is simple. This is not to say these things aren't deep or rich or demanding, but rather, they're not complicated.

-------------------

1967 Pontiac Lemans budget build - episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair - updated 03/08/24

 Episode one, introduction.

Episode two, trunk panel install part one.

Episode three, trunk panel install part two.

Episode four, door rust repair.

Episode five, tail light panel and rear crossmember.

Episode six, passenger quarter panel.

Episode seven, driver's quarter panel.

Episode eight, floor pan and rockers, part one.

Episode nine, floor pan and rockers, part two.

Episode ten, frame repair and prep, body drop.

Episode eleven, radiator core support and miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode twelve, trunk repair and more miscellaneous rust repair.

Episode thirteen, fender and inner fender repair.

Episode fourteen, panel prep and block and prime.

I am getting really close to my goal of making this derelict disaster of a body into a rust free, solid car that is ready to build. It was my 6 month goal to weld in all the replacement panels and drop the body back on the frame, but that actually took seven months. That was Stage One.

I have completed the repairs to the small rust areas, grinding welds, and the preliminary body work over the welded seams. These have added an additional 3 months. 

My next goal was to have a completed, primed, and undercoated body at 12 months. This would be Stage Three, if you remember our build plan described in episode one.

Imagine if I'd bought a solid, no rust car (not exactly easy to find, I admit). A no-rust car would mean skipping that year of rust repair. By comparison, a year of work put into a no-rust car might have made it into an actual driver.

However, the purchase price of a no-rust car might be in the neighborhood of $8,000 to $10,000, while my car was a fraction of that. Essentially, I have spent a year and several thousand dollars to get to the same point. I'm ahead in the money but behind by a year (although my time is free to me).

As mentioned in other episodes, the work I've done has been very difficult. So, has it been worth it? Well, regarding the time spent, I'm really in no hurry to get the car finished. The challenge of making these difficult repairs has been rather satisfying. And the transformation is substantial. So the answer is, in the end it has definitely been worth it, but I will never, ever, do this again.
---------------

WHO DID JESUS DIE FOR? - by Steve Kneale (Q and A)

We evaluated the author's article here. The original article is found here.

We posted a couple of questions on Mr. Kneale's blog, and he answered. The purpose of our post is to examine his replies, which are filtered through his doctrine. This is the nature of deception, that a person interprets the Bible through his doctrine when it should be the other way around. 

Our commentary in bold.

-------------------

WHO DID JESUS DIE FOR? - by Steve Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

This author is completely unable to quote Scripture. He can quote a theologian, but not a single word of the Bible appears in his teaching. How can one teach about the Bible without quoting it?

His intent is to defend the Calvinistic teaching called Limited Atonement. His approach is to use logic (flawed) and not the Bible. 

For this reason we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We would further assert that this doctrine, like much of Calvinism, simply doesn't matter. Did Jesus atone only for the Elect? We don't need to know this to live a life of obedience, worship, holiness, service, or generosity. It's irrelevant knowledge, it's doctrinal hairsplitting to no purpose.

We will boldly state the Five Points of Calvinism do not matter.

We asked the author a couple of question, and he answered. We dealt with his answers in another post.

-------------------------

THE PRESUMPTUOUS PROPHETS OF 2024 - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

More Bad Bible Teaching from this author. She will contradict herself, she fails to quote relevant Scriptures, and she cannot manage to make a coherent case for the cessation of the prophetic gift.

---------------------

What Is the Prayer of Faith? - by Sinclair Ferguson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

We have commented on the author's writings several times in our blog. We have not been impressed. He is often superficial, sometimes obscure, and frequently simply wrong. He is a cessationist, so he actually doesn't believe that prayer can yield supernatural results.

He intends to explain a verse in James. Astonishingly, he never quotes the verse he's trying to explain! That verse is 

Ja. 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

Though this verse is the focus of the author's article, it's not even all James has to say about prayer. Yet the author doesn't quote any of those verses either. Or any other verses about prayer.  Or even, any complete Bible verse at all.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------

1962 Chevy stepside build - retrospective

I built this truck in the early 2000s. It had a somewhat rough, though complete body. The truck had been modified/revised/hotrodded by someone who owned a hammer and a bigger hammer. But it was generally intact and complete, and not too many of these trucks are around, so to me it was worth saving.

It had a 350 small block and TH350 when I got it, but it was a hack job install. The motor was installed with a single front mount at the timing cover and chains were bolted to each head to keep it from rocking side to side. The trans mount was 3 pieces of angle iron "welded" together. And the stock rear end was toast.

Defining Discernment - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

We cannot figure out why people think Dr. MacArthur is a stellar teacher. We have rarely read anything written by him that would indicate this. 

Today's article is another sorry example of Bad Bible Teaching. 

-------------------

Misinterpreting propitiation - FB conversation

A FB friend posted this:

Alan Caplin

So. When we leave this earth, what happens to our “unrepentant” sin?
THIS was my very FIRST question 25 years ago when I left Judaism and joined a church. And 100% honest truth be told, I was freaking out that I’d drive past some seriously smoking hot looking lady - have some thoughts my wife wouldn’t approve of - and then get hit by a car, die, and have never said “sorry” to God.

The pastors and bible teachers said that God is good and gracious - and that God would handle it. He’d forgive that lust because He loves me. My question was - how?

But I assumed I was wrong for about 20 years. I was even a pastor for a bit - and I left when I couldn’t stomach some of the things we were teaching people.

In reality. All sin on the body of Christ. All. Not some. ALL. Hebrews 9:26-28 clearly says Jesus entered heaven once. He doesn’t jump on and off the cross each time we sin. Jesus doesn’t enter heaven over and over like the Levite priests entered the Holy of Holies.

Once. Done. Our High Priest had a final and perfect performance on the cross.

Hebrews 9:26-28 also says Jesus ALREADY dealt with sin ONCE and will return not to deal with sin, but to bring salvation for those who wait. Sin has been put away.

Can we be disobedient - yes.
Can we do stupid destructive things - yes.
Can we destroy our lives - yes.
Can we harm people we care about - yes.
Can we grieve God - yes.
Can we sabotage plans God has for us - yes.

NT sin is bad. John calls sin wrong-doing and lawlessness. At the root, sin is the fruit of our unbelief.
But the fact remains that ALL sin is paid for. In fact, Jesus was the FULL propitiation or final payment (emphasis added) of sin for all mankind both “our sin” and the unsaved world (1 John 2:2).

Yes. “Behold the Lamb who takes AWAY the sin of the world!” John 1:29
The sin of my unsaved friends and family is paid for as equally as mine.
All. Sin. Once. Done.

So, if all sin is paid for (emphasis added)- why aren’t all people saved? Good question.
Upon BELIEF we like Abraham are credited back as righteousness. See both Romans 4 and Galatians 3. This righteousness or right standing is for those who believe - Romans 3:22.
Sin isn’t a barrier to God. The unbelieving heart is! Hebrews 3:12.
Sin has been dealt with, but God is constantly working on our unbelieving, distant heart.

Back to the opening question.
Any verse talking about losing salvation is spoken to either unbelieving Jewish people - again Hebrews 3:12 - or to false teachers and false prophets who Jude says are unbelievers and never were saved nor have the Holy Spirit.
Nobody in these categories LOST a gift that was freely given.

Jesus says that He came to do the will of the Father and that will is to lose not one given to him and not one snatched from His hand.
For one to be lost. That makes Jesus a liar. And it means He has revoked gifts and calls that cannot be revoked.
Further Hebrews 6 makes it clear this was a covenant cut between God and Jesus - to make sure that WE can’t mess it up. If we were included as a party of the contractual covenant, we’d have to maintain our salvation and make sure that WE don’t mess it up.

How would it be possible that someone would be saved at 18 go through a life of abuse, rape, beatings, and overall hell and then lose her salvation because she had period of doubt - but someone on their death bed carries that salvation football just 2 feet? This makes salvation based on works. Not by grace through faith.

God doesn’t force us to carry HIM from goal line to goal line, HE CARRIES US to the end zone. Folks. That’s grace.
The thief on the cross was justified without good works, tithing, being good, being an elder, etc. Saved simply because God is good and this man believed.
Your spirit is perfect, yet your soul is being transformed. Your spirit is saved, your soul is being saved and working out its salvation.

Beyond initial repentance, we repent to maintain our heavenly relationship, to break off what’s entered through our disobedience, and to right the wrongs between us - not to be cleansed of sin. That was already done and dealt with.

Cats lick themselves to stay clean. Sons are clean simply because of what was promised. John 15:3

9 comments
***

Me: Jesus didn't pay for our sin, He paid for us.

Shane: Rich, He certainly did make propitiation/atonement for our sin…
”And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.“

BIBLE.COM

I John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. | New King James Version (NKJV) 

Me: Shane, agreed. But "propitiation" doesn't mean "paid for," it means to appease or turn away wrath.

Shane: Rich, the word propitiation also occurs in Hebrews 2:17: “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

Here the expression “to make propitiation” means to put away by paying the penalty.

Shane: "Now Paul tells us in Romans 3:25 that God set Christ forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith. We are not told to put our faith in His blood; Christ Himself is the object of our faith. It is only a resurrected and living Christ Jesus who can save. He is the propitiation. Faith in Him is the condition by which we avail ourselves of the propitiation. His blood is the price that was paid." -- MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments (A. Farstad, Ed.; pp. 1689–1690). Thomas Nelson.

Me: Shane, I don't mean to dispute, I have such great respect for you. However, the idea that Jesus paid for our sin is not found in the Bible. There is no verse that tells us that Jesus paid for our sins, or that the sacrificial animals of the OT paid for the sins of Israel.

The spilled blood is the effective agent of forgiven sin: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Hebrews 9:22) This is a sacrificial transaction, not a financial or legal transaction.

The definition of propitiation you provided is the Calvinistic perspective, which I cannot accept. Every source I consulted agrees with my initial statement that propitiation is the appeasement or turning away of wrath:

https://biblehub.com/greek/2434.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/2433.htm

https://biblehub.com/greek/2435.htm

Me: Here's a more detailed analysis from my blog: https://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2022/03/did-jesus-satisfy-our-legal-obligation.html

MOUNTAINMANTRAILS.BLOGSPOT.COM

Did Jesus satisfy our legal obligation? Did He pay our debt?