You are jealous!

Melvin’s Note: Nothing like a detailed, well-reasoned defense of the pimps.

Bro Melvin:

Can you explain to me your interpretation of the “Orthodox Christianity thing.”

CC

Melvin’s Note: Not really a matter of interpretation. Creflo Dollar and Ken Copeland teach that Jesus had to be born again. This is in opposition to Jesus as God - now, then, always. They (and John Jenkins) say that Jesus’s death on the cross was not sufficient to pay for our sins. Since sin is spiritual, he had to suffer spiritually in Hell. The Gospel says the shedding of His blood paid for our sins. One is orthodox, the other is not.

The prosperity teachers natter on about us being the head and not the tail so we should prosper. Jesus said quite the opposite. The Word Faith pimps say we can speak reality into existence. Jesus says we will suffer for His name sake. One is orthodox, the other is not.

Orthodoxy - the one and only pure Truth, without any mixture or the least shadow of falsehood, lie, evil or fraud.

1) Whosoever will come after CHRIST, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow CHRIST!

2)For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that CHRIST DIED for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he WAS BURIED, that he WAS RAISED on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures!

3) For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach CHRIST crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, CHRIST the power of God and the wisdom of God.

4) And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except JESUS CHRIST and him crucified.

When did Pastor say, “Jesus’s death on the cross was not sufficient to pay for our sins. Since sin is spiritual, he had to suffer spiritually in Hell. ” **I haven’t heard such heresy spoken. Melvin’s Note: He tried to argue me down for the better part of six months. I finally asked him the following question: How could Jesus have been in hell for three days if He told one of the thieves that he would, that very day be with Him in paradise. His response almost floored me. He said: It depends on what the word “paradise” means. And whether he is actively preaching it now or not, he associated with those who do and helps them to prosper.

At FBCG, the recent heresy pertains to the blood of Jesus covering one’s present and future sins. The scriptures (my only authority) are clear:

“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there NO LONGER remains a sacrifice for sins,” Hebrews 10:26

The blood of Jesus was our “sacrifice”. If a born again Christian sins, that blood is no longer available to cover those sins. Verse 27 reveals he/she can expect judgment….. The bible has living examples as evidence:

In Acts 5:1-10, why didn’t the blood of Jesus cover the sins of Ananias and Sapphira? If it really covered our present and future sins, surely it would have covered their sins. Instead, God passed judgment on them.

In Acts 8:14-24, why wasn’t Simon’s sin automatically forgiven and covered by the blood of Jesus? (Simon was a born again, new convert.) Notice in verse 22, Peter commanded Simon to repent and seek forgiveness from God. **That proves his sin was not automatically forgiven. Also, notice the word “perish” in verse 20. That means Simon’s sin could have caused eternal punishment.

Let’s examine another scripture passage: “For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his OLD sins.” 2 Peter 1:9 NKJV; “past sins” NIV

The Greek interpretation for the word “old” is former or long ago. Hence, the blood of Jesus cleansed us from our former sins. We are accountable for our present and future sins. That’s why Peter warned the saints to add godly character to their faith AND diligently make their calling and election sure. 2 Peter 1:5-10. That’s also why most of Paul’s writings addressed sin and conduct of Christians.

The above text is just a small fraction of scriptures that disprove the heresy concerning the blood of Jesus. Nowadays, a theology degree nor minister’s license guarantees an accurate interpretation of scriptures. So Christians need to be more prayerful about the doctrine they hear in today’s churches. (Melvin’s Note: Go back and read some of the postings on salvation. Read the essay here. If you disagree with it, deal with the references presented before you begin a barrage of proof-texting. Finally, what happenes to you if you die before being forgiven for jaywalking, or being disrepectful to your spouse, or not working eight hours for eight hours pay, or telling a white lie, or …?)

“And how can they preach unless they are sent? …” Romans 10:15a

One has to be sent BY GOD in order to have a right to teach His word. Only then will they qualify for understanding and wisdom of God’s word. Melvin’s salvation teachings have proven otherwise. Therefore, God is not leading me to review his essay. (Oh yeah. You’ve made up your mind. Why be confused with the facts?) Instead, I recommend the following articles:

Melvin’s Note: Given that I have given a ton of time and space to this foolishness, it seems God is not leading me to provide yet another platform to harangue the readers. All who are interested, read some of the clumsy work in the “Once Save - Sometimes Saved” posting and the “Once Saved - Always Nattering On” posting.

I challenge everyone to pray, fast, and seek God for the “correct understanding about salvation”. Regardless of what you’ve been taught, you really need to seek GOD about the doctrine of salvation. If you believe the wrong doctrine, that could ultimately hurt you! (And I challenge you to actually read and study the Bible, not simply pull verses randomly out of the air. You do yourself and those you may teach such a disservice!)

GT,

If you NO LONGER sin, you NO LONGER need Jesus. Remember, we must judge ourselves in light of GOD’s standard or Law. God requires perfect obedience, 100%, all the time. Jesus has perfectly kept the Law, lived a sinless life that YOU and I could not and still do not live, died a perfect death, rose again from the grave according to the scriptures. 1 Cor. 15

God is satisfied with the sacrifice of His son Christ’s death on the cross, therefore that sacrifice is sufficient for all sin (it has to be). Perhaps a good study of indwelling sin or remaining sin may be helpful in this case. You and I do not meet up to the standard. We have an imputed righteousness that’s been accredited to our account. We receive it by faith. May I suggest that you revisit Romans 4, in it’s entirety.

It’s not about little or big individual sin’s we commit: an “I don’t drink, chew and associate with those who do” type understanding of sin. It’s much more severe than that. If you fail at any point to keep one of the commandments, you fail to keep them all, thus guilty and worthy of God’s temporal and eternal punishment. I would recommend reading the Old Testament and reviewing God requirement of us.

I beseech you, do not lean on your own “sinless life”. ALL HAVE FALLEN SHORT! If we were to understand that passage in light of your argument, then none would enter into heaven. There is no one that is righteous. Look to Christ brother, when you stand before the Judge of Judges, please do not ask Him to look on what you have done (your sinless life). It will not meet up. I promise you.

I’ll exegete the passage of scripture in Hebrews in context you eluded to and post it.

If there is one bit of wisdom, one rule of thumb, one single skill I could suggest to all that can help in your Bible study/understanding, it would be simply, never read a bible verse again. Always read at least the paragraph in it’s entirety.

Since the context frames the verse and gives it specific meaning, this is the only way to fully understand what was being written to those who it was written to specifically. Remember, these were real people that these letters were addressed to, therefore they would be particularly familiar with the context at hand.

One basic rule of all communication is that meaning always flows from larger units of thought to smaller units, not the other way around. The key to the meaning of any verse then comes from the paragraph, not just from the individual words. Again, the numbers in front of the sentences give the illusion that the verses stand alone in their meaning. They were not in the originals, though. Numbers were added hundreds of years later. Chapter and verse breaks sometimes pop up in unfortunate places, separating relevant material that should be grouped together.

A little tip, if you will, ignore the verse numbers and try to get the big picture, then begin to narrow your focus. Next, begin with the broad context of the book. Who was this written to? What is the passage about in general? What idea is being developed? Step back from the verse and look for breaks in the narrative that identify major units of thought etc. Look for, what in the paragraph or group of paragraphs gives clues to the meaning of the verse.

Words have different meanings in different contexts, thus when we consider a verse in isolation, one meaning may occur to us. But how do we know it’s the right one? The only and best way to know should come from the surrounding paragraph(s).

Let’s consider Hebrews 10:

Who was it written to?

This epistle was written to the Hebrews, who were very familiar with the Levitical era(priest and sacrifices) (Read Lev. 16)and therefore the author sets forth arguments to draw them away from that mentality. He intends to get rid of the whole idea of the priesthood and sacrifice thing, etc. (Read Hebrews 10:1-6).

How does he do so?

He raises and exalts the priesthood of CHRIST so high, that he might commend His gospel to them, CHRIST is the one time sacrifice for all sin(Read Hebrews 10:7-18) .

10:26

Keep in mind 10:17, not that they would sin no more, however, because of CHRIST sacrifice he would “remember their sins no more” . Notice the sin being referred to here v26, is APOSTASY! From the description he gives it is sinning wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth and sinning wilfully against that truth of which they had convincing evidence.

“This text has been the occasion of great distress to some gracious souls, they have been ready to conclude that every wilful sin, after conviction and against knowledge, is the unpardonable sin, but this has been their infirmity and error. The sin here mentioned is a total and final apostasy, when men with a full and fixed will and resolution despise and reject Christ, the only Saviour, despise and resist the Spirit, the only sanctifier, despise and renounce the gospel, the only way of salvation, the words of eternal life and all this after they have known and professed belief in Christ and continue to do so obstinately and maliciously”.

The point of that verse is that there is no other name whereby men might be saved, once they reject CHRIST, there is no other sacrifice for their sins. CHRIST is the ONLY sacrifice! There remains no more sacrifice for the rest of the sins they will commit(falling short of the LAW), no other Christ to come to save them, once they sin against Him, that’s it. There were some sins under the law for which no sacrifices were provided, but yet if those who committed them did truly repent, though they might not escape temporal death, they would escape eternal destruction, for Christ would come, and make atonement. But now those under the gospel era who reject the ONE and ONLY sacrifice, that they may be saved by him, have no other hope.

Notice the similarity in Calvin’s commentary:

Those who sin, mentioned by the Apostle, are not such as offend in any way, but such as forsake the Church, and wholly alienate themselves from Christ. For he speaks not here of this or of that sin, but he condemns by name those who willfully renounced fellowship with the Church. But there is a vast difference between particular fallings and a complete defection of this kind, by which we entirely fall away from the grace of Christ. And as this cannot be the case with any one except he has been already enlightened, he says, If we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth; as though he had said, “If we knowingly and willingly renounce the grace which we had obtained, there remaineth no OTHER sacrifice”.

Amazed By Christ,

Alando

So the bottom line Alando, is that this Bible study thing takes work; prayerful work, but work none the less. It doesn’t just pop into your head as a result of a holy lightning bolt from the Holy Spirit. Well if I spend all my time doing this, how will I have the energy to get my PRAAAYZE on at church on Sunday?

Man’s wisdom is always questionable. I’m only interested in that which comes from God. Therefore, I don’t agree with Alando’s exegesis of this chapter nor his selection of commentaries. I read the chapter a few times, and I meditated on verse 26. During my review of the chapter, the Holy Spirit gave me another impression. ( Melvin’s Note: I begin to understand. “Comes from God” means whatever pops into your head after you think/pray/meditate on it for a few minutes. Riddle me this Batman: If you meditate and come up with one thing, and Alando meditates and comes up with somethinge else, which one of the results is “from God”? )

Hebrews 10 emphasizes the “one time” sacrifice for our sins. There is a “one time” application of the blood of Jesus (as shown in verses 18 and 26). If correctly interpreted, there is no “continuous covering by the blood of Jesus”. (see above comment by Gods Truth)

Verses 16-17—This text is referring to the “house of Israel”. Paul was reciting a prophetic word given by Jeremiah in Chapter 33:31, 34 of his book. God said he wasn’t going to remember THEIR former sins. **He didn’t say he was going to overlook their future sins.

Verse 18: “Now where there is remission of these, there is NO LONGER an offering for sin.” Since their sins were forgiven, no more sacrifices are available. In other words, the blood of Jesus won’t be re-applied if they sin again. (Melvin’s Note: So once I sin and lose my salvation, I can’t be saved again? Then it’s Once Lost Always Lost”? )

Verses 22-25—-Paul instructs the Christians on how to live their new life as provided through Christ. “Draw near to God……..Hold fast without wavering……..Be considerate of others…… Do good works………assemble together………” **In spite of the sacrifice, there’s a certain conduct God expects of those who are in Christ.

Verse 26 is connected with the preceding paragraphs (22-25) the last words of which suggest the warning of verse 26. In no way does this scripture specify a particular sin. **I disagree with the many claims of the sin being “apostasy” (especially in the sense of a renouncing of Christ). That’s unproven theological presupposition.

In verse 26, the word “sin” is translated from hamartano. This Greek word can be defined in 5 different ways. **I believe this text is referring to any Christian who lives a sinful life. This person is continuously sinning without remorse. If they follow Paul’s instructions in verses 22-25, they can avoid this situation.

Verse 26 reads, “………..there is NO other sacrifice that will cover these sins.” (New Living Translation) There’s no blood available to cover this believer’s sins. They will face the judgment mentioned in verse 27. (In 2 Peter 2:20-22, a similar warning applies to false prophets and false teachers.)

Verse 36 is a very important verse that’s often overlooked. It reads, “For you have need of endurance, so that AFTER you have done the will of God, you MAY receive the promise:” The auxiliary verb “may” reflects a possibility not a guarantee.

In verse 36, we see CONDITIONS must be met in order to actually receive the promise. As Christians, we must endure to the end by doing God’s will. This text runs parallel to what Jesus said in Matthew 10:24, “……But he who ENDURES to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:14, Mark 13:13) See Hebrews 5:9 and notice the word “obey”.

May God bless the readers AND doers of His word. (James 1:22-25)

Dear Melvin,

God loves us. So it’s not “once lost always lost”. That’s a rigid Armenian viewpoint. Neither is it “once saved always saved”. If Christians would pay less attention to denominational teaching, they would know this already.

Remember, what God said in 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward US, not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to REPENTANCE.”

In this book, God used Peter to write born again Christians. Chapter 3 starts out warning the saints about false teachers. Peter encourages them to hold to the commandments they’d been taught. Then he gives a brief reminder of the end of the world and the coming of Judgment Day. In verse 9, God is expressing His patience and willingness to wait for more people to repent. So they won’t “perish”. Those who “perish” will end up in hell, right?

In Acts 8:14-24, Simon was told to “repent” from his sin. Why? It was NOT covered by the blood of Jesus. Melvin, just think for a minute. Why would Simon need to repent IF his sin had been “covered” by the blood? In verse 22, Peter told Simon what to do to keep from perishing. God gives US the same type of instructions in 1 John 1:9.

“If we CONFESS our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Notice the forgiveness and cleansing doesn’t come until AFTER we’ve confessed our sin. In other words, our sins are not automatically forgiven or covered by the blood of Jesus.

Study Revelations 2 through 3. Jesus rebuked 5 of the 7 churches. He warned them to “repent”. Notice He did NOT say, “Oh, don’t worry about your sin; It was covered by my blood.” Instead, Jesus warned them to “repent”.

In Revelations 3:1, Jesus told the Sardis church they were spiritually “dead”. In verse 2 Jesus said, “I have not found your works perfect before God.” In verse 4, He said only those who had NOT defiled their garments were worthy to walk with him in white.

Notice what Jesus said in verse 5: “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.” So the inverse of this text means: Jesus will remove their names from the book of life IF they don’t repent.

Revelations Chapter 2 thru 3 is really a picture of God’s judgment upon the church. IF Christians understand it, they’ll know their future sins are NOT “covered by the blood of Jesus”.

Everyone who’s sitting in a denominational church really needs to humble themselves before God. Pray that he’ll open your eyes to recognize any false doctrine that’s taught in your church.

Monitor,

I appreciate your point of view, however, your disagreement is not with me, it is with scripture itself. In other words what you are insuating is that 1) either you have obtained sinless perfection(NOT)and 2) you do not have a clear understanding of what God requires of us, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION/SINLESS PERFECTION/100% ALL THE TIME!

GOD is absolutely HOLY and cannot look upon sin my friend, HE does not grade on a curve or give credit for good effort or intentions or desires to want to do right. How many times did Adam and Eve sin? ONCE, it shows the severity of how GOD views sin my friend. Apart from the imputed righteousness of CHRIST we don’t stand a chance. PLEASE READ ROM. 4 AND GAL. 4 IN IT’S ENTIRETY.

Lastly, I invite you to seriously do your exegesis over again. Who is this written to? Why is it important to know who this was written to? Who is it about? What is the author trying to set their attention to? CHRIST and PERSEVERANCE.

Oh, pay close attention to verses 12 & 14 seemingly you skipped over those. Also verse 17 is a continious thought over into verse 18. Notice how the conjunction, NOW, connects them together and he say’s, “when sins have been forgiven” STOP! When were the sins forgiven/sacrificed for? He tells you in verse 12. Listen to what he is saying, once this sacrifice takes place, there will no longer need to be ANOTHER sacrifice. The old covenant priest offered sacrifices day by day, over and over again, thus, look back at verse 11, the sacrifices of the priest did not remove sin, it only atoned for sin, in other words covered over it.

Now verse 12, CHRIST is the ONE TIME sacrifice good for ALL TIME. Can you say future is included in ALL TIME?

Finally, verse 38 makes a clear contrast between those who persevere and those who apostate. The righteous man shall live by faith IN CHRIST and not in keeping the law. CHRIST did that and out of placing faith in CHRIST the works that you are trying to make happen, actually happen naturally. That is the fruit of faith IN CHRIST. It’s as natural as you going to the bathroom, you don’t have to work at it. THE GOSPEL MOTIVATES!!!

The apostate pulls back from his once “professed” faith, simply because that’s what it was a profession. A profession never saved anybody, it is the gift of faith given to sinners that save. Anyway, it’s clear that the man in verse 38 is who is being referred to in verse 26, because that’s what happens, he turns away or shrinks back from what he “professed” to believe.

*Apostasy is the mark and the brand of those in whom God takes no pleasure, and it is a cause of God’s severe displeasure and anger. God never was pleased with the formal “profession and external duties and services of such as do not persevere”. He saw the hypocrisy of their hearts then; and he is greatly provoked when their formality in religion ends in an open apostasy from religion.

Amazed By Grace,

Alando

Again, do not trust in your filthy rags(good works), I promise you, they will not meet the requirement brother. You can twist scripture all day and night, but you and I know that there is no comfort in thinking that you have perfectly kept all GOD commands, which is SIN. Go back and read again in the OT what GOD requires of us, Exodus 20, then flip to the NT and see how Jesus kicks it up a notch, Matthew 5.

Monitor,

Unless we are misunderstanding one another, I agree with mostly everything you said from the 4th paragraph on down with the exception of the Revelation passage. There is NO salvation without repentance. We reject any preaching that suggest such. In that case, you are correct, we are not automatically forgiven in the sense of universal atonement. Prior to repentance we are enemies of God fit for destruction, so yes, we must repent at that moment when God draws us to Himself through His word.

Secondly, as it relates to Christ sacrifice, once for all time, this is referring to pre and post salvation sins. I want to make it very very clear, a person MUST recognize their state before GOD, repent of their sins and place their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for salvation.

Third, I suggest reading on through Revelation into chapter 20, “do not add to or take away from this book” and pay attention to the consequences. The scripture does not say anything about removing a name from the book. Your making it say what it does not say, that’s called eisegesis, reading into the text what’s not there, I don’t care how logical it seems or inversed, if that is a word.

Lastly, I’m not sure what the denominational statement has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that those who invest time learning the original languages, sound doctrine, biblical theology OT/NT, systematic theology, grammatical syntax, historical context, hermeneutics, in essence fulfilling II Tim. 2:15 are denominational?

**WARNING** Be careful with those “impressions”.

Monitor, I know it’s not the quick and easy nor does it sound spiritual, but do the work man, study, pull out your Greek manuscript since I noticed you translated a few words, rolls up your sleeves and go to work. Grab a commentary or two(reliable one and compare) humble yourself, there are men who have given their life to exegesis. Anytime you come up with a different understanding of a basic passage that almost everyone throughout church history and modern theologians has agreed on(as you did with the Hebrew passage), it’s probably best to get rid of your understanding from the “impression”.

I’m sorry Rev. 22:

Melvin,

I think the change in the picture is just keeping up with the times. The old picture is the “bling bling” era, and now it the white tee era. Its a hip hop thang you wouldn’t understand!!

Monitor, if you are really saying that Jesus’ death on the cross paid the infinite price required for my sins - up to the point that I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I believe you have a problem.

Here is what you appear to be saying:

1. Jesus’ death on the cross paid for my “pre-salvation” sins

2. Jesus’s death on the cross did not pay for my post-salvation sins.

3. My sins after I accepted Jesus Christ are of no less magnitude than the sins I committed before I accepted Jesus Christ.

4. Since Jesus’ death only paid for my pre-salvation sins, then either I have to do something that will pay for those sins, or God has to overlook the sins, or I am permanently lost once I sin as a Christian.

5. The payment for my sins (since you say it is not once lost always lost) does not, according to you, come from Jesus’ payment. His payment only paid for the pre-salvation sins. So it must come from something I do.

6. If it comes from something I do, then it must be works related.

But we know salvation is by grace and not by works. Therefore it can’t be a result of something I did/thought/felt/anything else. Am I missing something here?

Melvin

Melvin you are really beginning to lose your mind. People have a right to change their picture on their website without having someone like you saying something about it. You take things a little too far sometimes. Like I said before, MIND YOUR BUSINESS and GET A LIFE!!!!

(Melvin’s Note: Glad you’re looking at the rest of the site. Keep going. You will find it interesting. )

It’s posts like this one that completely convince me that your agenda behind this entire site is not to reveal any church misteachings or untruths, but to vent your anger and resentment towards Pastor Jenkins. You claim to be doing your Christian duty, as according to the Bible, but tell me, what Christian purpose does posting pictures of Pastor Jenkins and his wife and making remarks about their attire serve?

(MN: It’s the overall consideration of a lack both of substance and supposed humility. I good question would be “Why were they dressed like Nigerian prince and princess? Is that consistent with the idea of Godly humility? Shouldn’t the Gospel impact all areas of our lives? How was this shown with the prince and princess pictures?

By the way, shouldn’t you be concerned about the fact that John brings in people who deny the Trinity and is “mentored” by a man denies the Trinity? Why are you looking at and trying to kick up a fuss about comments on their clothing? Can’t you deal with issues of substance? Are you too busy telling me that you can see into my heart to actually pay attention to the issues [bad doctrine]? )