# The Fruit Police



## Larry Hughes (Feb 2, 2005)

I have a question.

Say there is a lady who has come to the pastor more than one time to be baptized into the church and the pastor tells her, “I see no fruit in your life and do not feel you’ve been saved so I will not baptized you.” To which the lady replies without argument, “I understand.” And keeps coming to the same church. Is that pastor right? Or has he just communicated to this lady in essence, “You must do something in order to purchase grace”? 

This is real situation.

Larry


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 2, 2005)

I would say the pastor is in error and going against the clear teaching of Jesus Christ.

It is not our responsibility to judge whether or not someone else is elect or not or "worthy" of Baptism.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 2, 2005)

Gabriel,

Thanks for the reply. I thought the same thing, I became so upset by it I had to ask others. The confusion this must be causing this individual.

Larry


----------



## turmeric (Feb 2, 2005)

A person who makes a profession should be baptised. It would be one thing if this lady were living in some open and heinous sin, but we're talking about someone who makes a profession and uses the means of grace. She should try another church. Maybe the Presbyterians who would say "Aren't you a little old for this?"


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

There is Scriptural mention of further examination with the Lord's Supper, but there is no such mention of anything beyond external covenant status through profession with baptism.


----------



## AdamM (Feb 3, 2005)

In the case of an adult seeking membership in the Church, a profession should be accepted at face value.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2005)

I don't know why you keep on going with hypothetical questions Larry. I have never experienced such a thing. These questions look like straw men to me. Something you set up, so you can tear it down easily.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I don't know why you keep on going with hypothetical questions Larry. I have never experienced such a thing. These questions look like straw men to me. Something you set up, so you can tear it down easily.



Jump to conclusions much?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 3, 2005)

Randy, he said it is a real situation. Furthermore, I don't see any attachment of this situation to another issue in any kind of straw-man fashion - it is simply about the relationship of fruit and profession to adult baptisms by the Church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2005)

It started of with Say there is this lady. Which I took as an implied person. I didn't read the last line. Duh. A dumb moment. In another thread we discussed a lot of Hypothetical situations. To me they tend to be straw situations. They are set up to knock down. Sounds like this lady needs to find a new church or get a life if she is real. It wouldn't be fair for us to judge the situation because we truly don't know the story, or the church. We only have a few lines of someones understanding about it. It sounds pretty complicated.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...


Not usually but I did this time. Sorry Larry. 
I am working on a headache and taking vicodin. They cut a big growth out of my left index finger. Sorry if I am a little short. 


[Edited on 2-3-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 3, 2005)

Randy,

No problem brother medical situations can make us short! Forget about it!!!

To clarify; this is definitely not a hypothetical at all. The situation, the pastor, is a very very close one to me (though not my own pastor) and I did not really want to mention his name. Not that anyone would know him, I just saw no profit in it. Plus, I didn't want to come off as impuning the pastor by name nor the church, but rather examining the situation/issue. Because he's otherwise a good pastor. This situation is not the first time. It just finally got to me.

But this is definitely not a hypothetical. And from some posts I've read on this site it is not the first time either. 

Another one I ran into my best friend who was talking with his pastor lamenting that he, in the past, thinks he baptized an unregenerate. Another pastor I had lunch with discussing an altogether other issue was trying to figure out how he could get a more regenerate church. This stuff is real, I'm not making it up. Its almost new calvinists that cannot handle it consistantly.

Again, based upon "fruit". My "say there was this lady..." - I apologize it was a bad sentence.

Blessings,

Larry

PS: Meg, I'm a little slow and just got this today, "Maybe the Presbyterians who would say "Aren't you a little old for this?" Funny!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 3, 2005)

What I’ve ran into lately has caused me great pause. I've run into three recent pastors who are SB and Calvinistic (I would argue inconsistently so). Great guys, let me say that up front. And let me say I am merely analyzing this and NOT trying to accuse anyone. It is not people but teaching I'm attempting to look at and I don't know any other way to analyze it than simply discuss it. Of these; one has refused baptism to someone coming multiple times due to the pastor's "lack of seeing fruit" and "feeling they are not saved". To this the person seeking has not left or rebelled but merely replies, "I understand". Another pastor in a general discussion was trying to figure out how to arrive at a more regenerate church, which confuses me since this is forbidden and attributing to mere men what God alone can do. And a third was lamenting with a friend of mine (not in my presence) that he had in the past actually baptized someone whose later fruit (whatever that means, it usually is left very subjective and nebulous) seem to show that he was not regenerate (as if such can be directly detected, you'd think people would remember Judas and Simon Magnus). This is a deeply disturbing trend to me. Because at my own conversion it was very sudden and admittedly 24 hours early I denied Christ, what measure of fruit did I have beyond my profession? Furthermore, sanctification had just begun.

This seems to be a dangerous albeit small trend I'm experiencing from those opening up to Calvinism but maintaining the whole regenerate church on earth thinking. It seems to lead to hyper-calvinism. When I analyze it - the "regenerate church on earth thinking" seems to at least lean and lead into a Hyper-Calvinistic direction.

My meager analysis: If some of the key components to Hyper-Calvinism are a tendency to emphasize the hidden will of God (e.g., seeking/emphasizing the baptism of the elect and regenerate only) over the revealed will of God (e.g., repent, trust and believe in Christ ALONE); eternity over time (e.g. the true body of Christ Vs. the earthly administration of the church body); and inward examination for election over external faith toward Christ - then a regenerate church on earth and connected baptism of regenerate only can only lead that way in its logical conclusion. Now, you may say but this is not what we do. But think about what the hearer hears. Because the emphasis (if not explicitly - implicitly) is always on election and regeneration in terminology such as “believers only meaning truly elect“, “really saved”, “I don’t think x-person is saved because of this or that fruit”. The language is at a minimum implicit in our way of speaking as to earthly church membership and by extension baptism.

The one pastor I’ve mentioned used "fruit" as a criteria. But this seems to be in reverse. Does one produce fruit first in order to obtain grace? Think about it, again we hardly think what we are communicating to the hearer. One tells someone that, "you cannot be baptized because you seem not to be saved (implying rebirth/regeneration) because you have no fruit that "I" see." What has one just communicated to that person? Let's give the benefit of the doubt and let us say that the person really and truly is not regenerate (though in reality we cannot nakedly detect this). What has just been communicated to them? You are a sinner, turn and look to Christ alone? No, the receiver of such would have to conclude from such language that there is something "I must DO, some work, in order to be saved (receive grace)" - the exact opposite of the Gospel. It is flip-flopping the Gospel so as to make it absolutely unrecognizable from any other religion on earth. Martin Luther, bless the Lord's powerful wielding of him, seems to be so very right about this issue.

Beyond profession are we to look for fruit for entrance into the church? I understand it in the context of the church for discipline and such, but before? We are not talking about gross rejection here and doctrine off the mark. "Knowing them by their fruit" seems to presume that they are already within the visible church for examination because why in the world would someone be looking for fruit in the external unregenerate? Seeking fruit (again beyond profession) in order to assure regeneration (by extension election) in order to baptize someone into the church seems to be the very essence of hyper-Calvinism. It seems that this has merely moved the seeking of election within the church doors - whereby we indeed 'do missions' externally but then bar the door of grace at the point of baptism. We promiscuously 'do evangelism' "not knowing the elect" but then only allow them into the faith at the point of baptism by "knowing the elect".

Would we present the Gospel the way that many seem to present baptism? Does this not present the Gospel of grace freely, then at the point of baptism we say, "hold on a minute didn't you read the fine print, you must be examined before the Sanhedrin". We are so clumsy. If one had examined me just after conversion I would have been scared to death and probably ran, not from Christ but from the church. Because at that point all I saw was my great need and my great fear of myself and a great Saviour. Being a former truly irreligious person, not growing up in the church I had no "churchy" language, knew very little of the terms I now know and my language would have been the best that an irreligious unchurched person could produce.

Again, I'm not speaking of the obvious gross evidence that one does not have minimal doctrine. But I fear that such a communication to someone seeking to join the body of Christ is nothing less than a gospel that is no gospel at all and does nothing less than obscure Christ from their sight. 

Do all believers only churches do this up front? Well, not Armenian ones for certain, they usually catch you with the deadly loop of rededications, aisle walking, alter calls, pray the prayer, have you given all your heart…etc. Others, non-Armenians, do not for the most part explicitly, but the emphasis on the timing ALWAYS leads there in the conscience of the believer. Hence the fruit of re-baptisms. Anytime men attempt to purify the church on earth, even passively, it is dangerous. Not to the unregenerate, but to the regenerate, the smoking flax, the babes in Christ, the weak, the scared to death sent inward upon themselves.

That’s usually the first two questions one is asked upon changing membership: 1. Were you immersed and 2. Were you baptized as a believer?

And to reemphasize, I’m just trying to examine and understand. No one should get angry over seeking or understanding the truth. 

Blessings Always,

Larry 

PS: Gabriel, your attending Southern in Louisville. That's my old stomping grounds. I grew up in and around Louisville. We just recently moved toward Frankfort due to jobs. We might have to hook up some time if you want.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 3, 2005)

> Larry said:
> *PS: Gabriel, your attending Southern in Louisville. That's my old stomping grounds. I grew up in and around Louisville. We just recently moved toward Frankfort due to jobs. We might have to hook up some time if you want.*



Sure thing!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 3, 2005)

I want to say something but I will wait until tomorrow when my head is a little clear. It is nothing negative. I like your avatar Gabe.


----------



## future expatriate (Feb 5, 2005)

One would think that a pastor would understand that sanctification is not instantanious. 

I don't think that anyone doesn't object to his withholding baptism, and I would like to know why he hasn't started some form of discipling in order to--to put it crudely--raise the "fruit points" of the lady in question so that she may recieve the visible means of grace, or, since he seems to think that she needs it, convert her. To give his explaination and then let her walk away is negligent.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 6, 2005)

Sorry I haven't posted. They basically cut off my left fingers top knuckle. I had a growth that wouldn't quit bleeding. I am still taking something fot the pain which has actually increased. Man, you just don't realize how much you use your fingers until you don't have the use of one. 

Before we serve up preacher on a platter it would be nice to have the Pastors side of things. I am for baptizing anyone who wants to be baptized. Especially if they understand its significance. But something is lacking here. That is the Pastors side of things. I trust Larry and see his frustration. But lets also remember what the scripture says.

1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 

I am not accusing you of doing any wrong Larry. You only mentioned a situation. I am just trying to be cautious about piling on the Pastor when I don't know the situation. I may not baptize someone if I sense a bit of insencerity. The Pastor may know something he is not at liberty to reveal. He may just be a jerk. But I would advise some caution about judging the situation without talking to the Pastor first. 

Be Encouraged brother, Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 6, 2005)

P.S. What do you think of John the Baptists requirements.

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 
*Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: *
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 
Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 6, 2005)

I think John the Baptist's baptism was different than that of Christians.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think John the Baptist's baptism was different than that of Christians.



Gabe, Shouldn't there be some recognition of repentance though?


----------



## gwine (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> ...



You and Randy certainly have a valid point in that there should be something in a person's life that shows repentence. Lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

However:

1 Sam 16:7 For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.

I wonder how far we can go in letting a pastor decide when a person is ready, though. Maybe there needs to be something like what my wife and I did: several meetings with the pastor then an interview with the Session.

I'm wonder if John the Baptizer baptized some that should not have been.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Lack of evidence is evidence of lack.



That's an interesting way of stating that.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 7, 2005)

I know a Reformed Baptist pastor who would refrain from baptizing anyone until he had seen some fruit. I used to get monthly updates from this pastor and just about every one of them had an update on so and so who was so close to the kingdom. My thing about this is that he allowed that person to the table and the person was there every time the doors opened. He had even professed faith in God and gave testimonies on how he was struggling with different things.

I just didn't get what that pastor was waiting for. But, he told me that he wants to see genuine fruit before baptizing someone.

I don't know if this is an isolated case and I am certainly not lumping all RB's into this because I'm pretty sure Pastor Phillip wouldn't do that. However, by the nature of how baptism is viewed by some, I would say it makes logical sense to me, if one's view is that the person must be a believer otherwise it's sin, then fruit is a prerequisite. Is this not the logical conclusion?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JonathanHunt (Feb 7, 2005)

The problem with waiting for fruit is simple. How much fruit is required? Who decides?

It simply isn't quantifiable, is it?

We should baptise upon profession of faith, providing that the person has a clear testimony and understanding of their conversion, and that there is not obvious sin in the life.

As I think has been said a million times before, if we waited until we were 100% sure that anyone was saved, we would never baptise anyone...



JH


----------



## pastorway (Feb 7, 2005)




----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "As I think has been said a million times before, if we waited until we were 100% sure that anyone was saved, we would never baptise anyone...'
> 
> And that's the logical outcome fo your position



While I of course disagree with the Baptist position, I honestly think you're misrepresenting it in this case. They don't believe it is biblical to only baptize those we can be certain are elect - they simply believe that the only people it is biblical to presume are elect are those with a profession of faith.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I know a Reformed Baptist pastor who would refrain from baptizing anyone until he had seen some fruit. I used to get monthly updates from this pastor and just about every one of them had an update on so and so who was so close to the kingdom. My thing about this is that he allowed that person to the table and the person was there every time the doors opened. He had even professed faith in God and gave testimonies on how he was struggling with different things.
> 
> I just didn't get what that pastor was waiting for. But, he told me that he wants to see genuine fruit before baptizing someone.
> ...



KC,

I don't think so. This would be true in a context in which there is no church discipline. In a very real sense, there is no harm in baptizing someone upon a credible profession of faith (as opposed to a profession that is a lie. If the person shows himself not to be a believer, then he is disciplined. That is what these pastors should be exercising.

A proper credobaptist position is to baptize those who profess. When that profession is false, they are covenant breakers.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ask them who we are commanded to baptize: Disciples alone.
> 
> Ask them to define disciple: Elect.
> ...



Maybe it's just me, but when I was a baptist, I would never have said #2. It's a truism that none knows the elect.

I realize that a professor is not the same as the elect. That is what I count on. Otherwise church discpline makes no sense n a Calvinistic baptist context.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 7, 2005)

Also - let's try and not make this a baptism debate thread. Okay.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> Also - let's try and not make this a baptism debate thread. Okay.
> ...



Agreed.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were accounts of Presbyterian ministers doing the same thing as the inital post. This is a misunderstanding of discipline.


----------



## gwine (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> KC,
> 
> ...



And isn't how we join the local church? We give a credible confession of faith and there is no outward sin in our lives. That's how we came into the local OPC church. If later we are found to be in sin and unrepentent, then we would (and should) be disciplined.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

*Elect = Disciple*



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ask them who we are commanded to baptize: Disciples alone.
> 
> Ask them to define disciple: Elect.
> ...



I have never thought that disciple was defined as Elect. Maybe someone who is elect is a disciple or a disciple is someone who is elect but I wouldn't say every disciple is included in the New Covenant nor would I say that every disciple is elect. 

How do you define disciple?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

Another thing. Didn't Jesus tell us we could tell a tree by it's fruit. He must have believed we could discern some things about another teacher or person if he said this to us.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

Define disciple for me Paul. Simple task. Not Malones. I haven't read Malone. Was Judas considered a disciple?


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 7, 2005)

Randy,

in my opinion, the term "disciple" would include anyone who is being discipled. That includes my infant daughter. And, yes, per the scriptures Judas was a disciple.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 7, 2005)

Arghhhhhh...another baptism, disciple, new covenant debate......maybe this time we will settle it forever.




Taking from the familiar paedo defensive passage parable strategy (PDPPS)

Jesus in John 15 said, "8By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples." 

Disciples, who are proved to be such, bear fruit. 

Phillip


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

I also believe someone who is a disciple is one who is following by choice, they have to own it for their own. I also don't believe Judas was ever a New Covenant Member. Nor Could he have been. So just because someone is a disciple doesn't make him a New Covenant Member.

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

Now it is settled. See how easy that was Phil.

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 7, 2005)

why does everything have to be a baptism debate?? why??


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I realize that a professor is not the same as the elect. That is what I count on. Otherwise church discpline makes no sense n a Calvinistic baptist context.



Fred, I of course agree with your first two sentences, but I don't see how the last one follows - I say that because surely even the elect and the regenerate are to be expected to need discipline as well, until their sanctification is complete.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

This is the thread for arguing/discussing baptism isn't it?

Hopefully a parent/child relationship is a little different than teacher/disciple relationship. You do understand the difference don't you Paul? Hopefully your child does follow you and what you teach her. Hopefully it isn't forced although at times we must force a child for their own protection. Try forcing a disciple.

And concerning baptizing the unconverted, no. But the responsibility lies more on the recipient. Just as it does in the communion supper.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Yes, Chris, but the ultimate form of discipline is excommunication. So that is the mechanism for "checking to see for fruit." The point is that examination of fruit is an outcome of the disciple process, not a pre-requisite.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 7, 2005)

It is the logical outcome of the 'believers only' position. 

Randy, your warning about accusation is well taken however that was not my intention here - that is why no specific names and no specific church at all.

It was the communication that she had no fruit that was the problem as the logical outcome of the 'believers only' position. It is one thing to say to someone (regenerate or unregenerate), "You don't show fruit so I don't think you've been saved or can be baptized into the church". That entire statement is repugnant to the Gospel for it says you must purchase grace. And it is all together different to take that same person to the Law which says you are devoid of anything and in a state guilty wrath toward a holy God, then take them to the Gospel. Preach/teach that rather than waste time doing something one cannot yet pretends to do (detect regeneration) and let the word of God do what it alone can do.

For goodness sakes the very term fruit means the 'result of' or 'effect of' and NOT the 'cause of'. Of what is fruit the effect of? Of works, of itself? No, faith and grace, that is what produces fruit not the other way around. Why is that so hard to grasp?

John Calvin: The Sophists, who make game and sport in their corrupting of Scripture and their empty caviling, think they have a sublte evasion...For, according to them, man is justified by both faith and works provided they are not his own works but the gifts of Christ and the fruit of regeneration (Institutes 3.11.14).

John Calvin: But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Galatians 3:11, 12. For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Romans 10:5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith (Institutes, 3.11.14).

John Calvin: I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz., that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves. Will they produce to us one passage which declares that begun newness of life is approved by God as righteousness either in whole or in part? But if they are devoid of authority, why may we not be permitted to repudiate the figment of partial justification which they here obtrude? (Antidote to the Council of Trent, 1547).

J. Gresham Machen: A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands (What Is Faith?, 1925).

It is what is proclaimed and taught that is the problem!

Blessings,

larry

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2005)

So, just because you teach someone that makes them a disciple?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 7, 2005)

It necessarily follows that if some disciples fall away that not all disciples are elect, otherwise John Wesley was right.

John 6:

60Many therefore of <his disciples>, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that <his disciples> murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 <<But there are some of you that believe not>>. <<<For Jesus knew>>> from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of <his disciples> went back, <<<and walked no more with him>>>.
67 Then said Jesus unto <<the twelve>> (includes Judas at this junction of time, who Jesus knew in verse 64), Will ye also go away?

It seem very clear.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So, just because you teach someone that makes them a disciple?



Many discples just have faith in themselves and of themselves that cannot produce fruit of endurance. They have an intellectual adherance to the gospel but no God-given faith or repentance.

Excellent post, Larry. Scripture alone.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 8, 2005)

I am locking this thread as it is way, way off topic.


----------

