There are times in every generation when God raises a voice, not to echo the comfort of the age, but to confront its idols. When I first read Sergio DeSoto’s The Gospel Manifesto, my spirit bore witness that this is such a voice and such a moment.
What Sergio has written cuts directly to the beating heart of Western Christianity’s most cherished idol: the counterfeit gospel; the golden calf forged in the fires of convenience, comfort, emotionalism, and decisionism. It is the chief idol in the idol factory of the modern religious heart. Under its shadow, millions have been lulled into a lukewarm stupor, convinced they are safe while remaining untransformed, unsubmitted, and unchanged.
Sergio smashes that idol with the precision of a theologian and the fearlessness of a prophet.
He names what few dare to name:
The modern “gospel” is not the Gospel of Jesus (Yeshua).
It demands nothing.
It forms no one.
It saves no one.
It strips the Church of urgency, blinds her to the realities of judgment, and makes hell seem distant, extinct, and irrelevant. In that vacuum, easy-believism comforts multitudes into a lukewarm abyss.
But what Sergio restores in its place is the Gospel that once turned empires upside down.
He retrieves the message Yeshua actually preached: the Gospel of the Kingdom, the Gospel of covenant, the Gospel of allegiance, the Gospel of Torah written on the heart by the Spirit, the Gospel that demands repentance and produces transformation, the Gospel that births sons rather than spectators.
His writing is Hebraic, apostolic, and unyieldingly clear.
And Sergio says what must be said: The reign of God has arrived.
Repent.
Return.
Be baptized into Jesus.
Be made whole—not by the restoration of Adam’s fallen seed, but by the New Birth into the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, thus entering His New Covenant.
This is not rhetoric. This is the Gospel.
Sergio’s exposition exposes the sickness of the modern message and prescribes the only cure: a return to Jesus' (Yeshua, and every Apostle) own proclamation. His words are surgical. His clarity is refreshing. His courage is rare.
As one who has preached the Gospel for more than four decades, I can say with conviction:
This manifesto is necessary.
It is timely.
It is true.
And it deserves to be heard in every pulpit in America.
I am thinking of confirming Sergio's work, a masterpiece of prophetic analysis and theological revelation, through an extended exploration of its covenantal, Hebraic, and prophetic force. Sergio, if you'd like to have that, I can email you that for your consideration:
Reader, I trust you will read this manifesto with an open heart.
Let it confront you.
Let it call you.
Let it awaken you.
And let it draw you back to the Gospel that saves, sanctifies, and makes whole.
It'd be an honor to help you serve, Doc. Whatever you need, just let me know, and thank you for taking the time to write this. I know it wasn't easy. I don't know what confirming my work means, but let's do it. :)
Regarding your exchange with @chrisbunton, I would like to say this. Neither sin nor Grace have any meaning apart from the individual believer undergoing them that any one (believer or not) may impose on another. When we come, by His Grace, to repent and believe, we enter into a personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. If we were not sinners, we could not be saved, if we were as Christ is, we would not need to follow the Way of sanctification. These reflect our reality as called out members of the church of Christ, the Bride of Christ. However, judgement - which is what both you and Chris are vigorously debating here - is not up to either of you, not now, not in future, not at the end before His Throne, it's not up to any of us. Why concentrate on applying judgement that does not belong to us? Both of you quote Scripture accurately and both of you speak truth yet you don't seem to be able to agree on what matters most: your salvation is personal and totally dependent on God's Grace as taught by and exemplified in Jesus. You do not know and will never know each other's sin, nor will you know the extent of God's Grace in each other's life, nor will you know the meanderings of each other's trail of sanctification. Only God knows that and only He will judge it. Let's love the Way, the Truth and the Life and each other in thought, word and deed. Let us enjoy God's Grace, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and the Love of Christ Jesus in our lives. Attempting to judge the other is not part of our remit, only God does that. There can be no judgement without accusation and we all know who the accuser is.
My apologies to both of you if this offends you or interrupts your encounter in any way that is not perceived as it is meant to be in Christ.
It’s nice indeed to have you both come together and discuss matters and learn. (Following Jesus) had a post I had read, and I loved it and it was titled.
The Bondage of Religious Deception
By Mike Gendron
Then I replied what sat upon the Throne of my Heart
(Good day and bless be you Father ABBA and thy son Christ and you thy Helper for bringing forth thy truth within this article of how we as truther’s should gather among ourselves and discuss your Holy word in such a principle manner that was spoken within so it keeps your integrity intact of the Holy God that you have always been and as well thy son.
Faithful Servant of Christ may you always continue thy work in Christ and God pure and be kept spiritual sound while doing it is never in vain especially if it turns the very Carnel rebellious heart of one individual to their Creator and obtain thy Lord’s promised Spiritual Heart of regeneration and start their walk and finish thy race as Paul. This article ABBA may you inspire many to ponder such so it helps to create building up of each and every one instead of tearing down or cause stumbling or divisions among your Holy people. This all includes me. Wayne Robert. One last request Father please provide a Spiritual red rose in the Ambassador here in and to all within this community and outside that are about to come.
The spiritual rose represents your Agape love that flows through our veins and straight to the marrow of our bones so as to generate our spiritual healing Ness you promised if we Thank You and give you Phrase and walk with you.) No credit to me but to the Father and Son only.
Bless be you if you continue to share and learn from each other and decide what you have gathered into thy holy presence and use what you learn and take it to the father and confirm with his word in the book but also mostly in the sacred place we listen. Bless be you both I have learned from the start go that Sergio Desoto had had this wonderful posture from the start when I read his posts. I stand before you also Collin for taking the same approach bless be you and your family this day and all that they have stood for about ABBA’s word and toward his sheep. Good day. Thank You ABBA and Jesus.
Sergio, thank you for writing this. There is real evangelical fire here, and much of what you are resisting deserves to be resisted. A “gospel” reduced to a transaction, a counted decision, or a vague reassurance that leaves a man unchanged is not the apostolic proclamation; it is a sedation. Your insistence that Christ calls us to repentance, obedience, and a concrete discipleship that actually remakes a life is a needed word in an age of therapeutic religion.
Speaking as a faithful Christian, I want to affirm the strongest parts and then offer a fraternal, careful clarification where your framing risks swinging from one distortion to another.
First, on the “counterfeit gospel” you describe: yes, if the message people receive is effectively “say a prayer, get a ticket, continue as you were,” then it is spiritually dangerous. Christ does not recruit admirers; He makes disciples. The New Testament is unambiguous that faith is living, obedient, and persevering — never mere mental assent. In that respect, your emphasis on “allegiance,” on teshuvah as a turning of the whole person, and on an obedience empowered by the Spirit is substantially convergent with Catholic teaching about grace bearing real fruit in holiness. 
Second, on your diagnosis: you are right to say sin is not only “legal guilt.” It is also corruption, slavery, and death. But from a faithful Christian standpoint it is important to hold together what many modern Christians separate: sin really does involve guilt before a holy God and also inward ruin within the human person. Salvation is not merely a pardon, and it is not merely a moral renovation; it is both justification and sanctification as a single divine work that truly forgives and truly heals — by grace, not by self-effort. When you write that “if sin is only guilt, forgiveness is enough; if sin is a disease, only transformation saves,” I would tighten that: the forgiveness that truly comes from Christ is itself transformative, and the transformation that truly comes from Christ presupposes real forgiveness and reconciliation. These are not competitors; they are facets of one saving mystery.
Third, the “sinner’s prayer.” I agree that it is not the biblical or apostolic sacramental entry point into Christ, and it can become a counterfeit substitute for conversion. But I would also be cautious about dismissing any act of contrition or crying out to God as though it cannot be a real beginning. In Catholic experience, a man’s first sincere “Lord, have mercy” can be the opening of grace, yet it must be followed by incorporation into Christ in the way Christ established: baptismal rebirth, persevering faith, repentance, and a disciplined sacramental life (especially confession and the Eucharist). In other words, the remedy for “decisionism” is not simply a more demanding decision; it is a fuller ecclesial and sacramental discipleship.
Fourth, Torah and the New Covenant. Here I want to speak plainly, because this is where many “Hebraic roots” presentations unintentionally drift toward a form of Judaizing. You rightly say Christ did not come to abolish but to fulfill, and you rightly appeal to Jeremiah’s promise of the law written on the heart. But Christian orthodoxy insists that the Mosaic law as a covenantal regime (especially its ceremonial and juridical prescriptions) is not binding on the baptized. The moral law endures, but it is transfigured in Christ and interpreted authoritatively within the Church, with the Decalogue and the law of charity at its core. “Torah-shaped” can be an acceptable poetic phrase if you mean the moral will of God fulfilled in Christ and poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit; it becomes a theological problem if it implies Christians are obligated to adopt Mosaic observances as a covenant marker, or if it blurs the decisive newness of the sacraments and the Church as the New Covenant people gathered from Jew and Gentile. (St. Paul’s warnings in Galatians are not about “cheap grace”; they are also about returning to the old yoke as though Christ were insufficient.)
Fifth, eternal life “now” versus “later.” I appreciate the insistence that salvation is not merely “where you go when you die.” Faithful Christian theology also insists that eternal life begins now as participation in the divine life (sanctifying grace). But we must not flatten the “already” and “not yet.” We are to hold with equal seriousness that judgment is real, that hell is real, and that heaven is not a metaphor for psychological wholeness but the beatific vision: definitive union with the living God. So I would keep your “begins now” emphasis, while refusing any implication that the eschatological stakes are secondary. People are not only “unrepaired”; they can be finally lost if they persist in mortal sin without repentance.
Sixth, tone — especially toward pastors and “systems.” Your zeal for truth is evident, and the prophets do speak sharply at times. Still, I would urge you to wield that sharpness with trembling, because many shepherds are not cynical “merchandisers”; they are tired men doing their best with imperfect formation inside confused ecclesial ecosystems. Many, if not most, have been poorly taught. Many are afraid. Some are complicit. A few may be holy. The spiritual work of mercy here is not to soften the call to repentance, but to admonish in a way that keeps open a door for conversion rather than foreclosing it with contempt. If the goal is restoration, then even rebuke should sound like it is aimed at saving a brother, not merely winning a case.
If I could re-state your core burden in faithful Christian terms, it would be something like this: The Gospel is the proclamation that Jesus Christ — true God and true man — has died for our sins and risen for our justification, inaugurating the Kingdom and the New Covenant; and that by repentance and faith, expressed and nourished through baptism, Eucharist, prayer, and obedience, we are forgiven, incorporated into His Body the Church, and actually made new by the Holy Spirit. The “cheap” version is any message that promises Christ without the Cross, forgiveness without repentance, grace without sanctification, communion without commandments, or heaven without holiness.
Finally, a word of encouragement and prayer. You clearly want people, especially the wounded and the spiritually homeless, to know that Christ does not merely excuse; He heals. Hold fast to that. And if you want this manifesto to build, not only to tear down, consider adding one concrete pathway for readers: What does repentance look like on Tuesday morning? What practices order a life toward holiness? Where does a man go when he falls? (From a faithful Christian standpoint: to confession, to the altar, to spiritual direction, to disciplined prayer, to the works of mercy.) Give the reader not only a trumpet blast but also a rule of life — because many are already convinced; they are simply untrained.
May the Lord grant you wisdom proportionate to your zeal, and charity proportionate to your clarity. I will pray that Christ gathers into full communion all who truly seek Him, heals those harmed by counterfeit assurances, and strengthens faithful pastors to preach the whole counsel of God without fear. 
There's a lot to unpack there, my friend, but I really appreciate you taking the time to read in common. It's things like this that encourage me to keep on plugging and I agree with what you're saying.
It's a lot to unpack in a single post, and there's a lot of subtopics that stem from this one idea, but the root of it is simple. There's so much more to the sacrifice and atonement than we give God credit for, and it's been packaged and resold as a cheap gift.
Thank you for taking the time, my friend. Be blessed. Shalom, shalom.
Well done Sergio, I especially applaud your patience in the comments. I can do that when speaking but not writing. This is hard times for bringing the true gospel to people for as it says "the end shall not come except there be a falling away first". But as your brother in Christ, keep up the good work.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.---John 5:24
Powerful takedown of the consumer-driven faith peddled in many American Evangelical churches…But. The next couple generation of Christians after the apostles (St Ignatius of Antioch, St Polycarp, etc.) all have critical elements of this “manifesto” present, but the also have so much more—most importantly, they already have a rich definition of “the church” and the sacraments, and these are absolutely essential to our salvation. You’re beating down the right path, but you need to cross the line into the Orthodox Church. This is the church of the apostles, the church the body of Christ Himself, established with specific leaders through the laying on of hands with their charism passed on to others, in an unbroken chain. The holy Orthodox Church is where one encounters Christ so that one can be transformed and be the kind of Christian we see in the first century being fed to lions while making the sign of the cross. Or having their tongue ripped out and enduring torture by apostate emperors, or stand firm in front of the firing squad of communist revolutionaries. This is the Orthodox faith—it is the home of the martyrs, and the saints. Blessings to you all!
Collin, I sincerely appreciate you reading and taking the time to comment. I’m with you on rejecting the consumer-driven faith model, and I respect the honor you’re giving the martyrs.
But can I ask a sincere question? Where in Scripture do we see Jesus establishing salvation as something accessed through an institutional system—jurisdiction, sacramental gatekeeping, and an “unbroken chain” as the defining proof of the Church?
I’m not trying to be difficult—I’m trying to understand, from the text. I look forward to your gracious reply, my friend. Blessings.
You’re operating from a closed authority loop: “The Church interprets Scripture; therefore Scripture can’t judge the Church.” Once that premise is in place, every Bible-based objection gets dismissed as “private interpretation,” and every request for textual authorization gets treated as illegitimate from the start.
That’s why we keep circling. We’re not really debating the text anymore. You’re defending the gate that decides what the text is allowed to mean.
Scripture in the hands of the church can judge errant branches of the church. But scripture alone cannot judge anyone. Scripture, as held and interpreted by a specific person or body in agreement, has the ability to “cut through bone and marrow.” I don’t really understand why this is a difficult concept, honestly, I struggle to see what is controversial about this. Any time you want scripture to judge something or someone, there will have to be a person employing it, saying “this is what the scripture means, and you are not in line with the scripture.” The question is, is there a body or a person who can be entrusted to employ scripture in a way that is faithful to its true meaning? For the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was no question—there was no other model. The ordained bishops of the church meeting in council (just like Acts 15) had the ability to bind mens’ consciences to what scripture means. Men were not free to disagree and form new bodies. That is called schism.
You are correct though, we are debating in circles at this point. Because if one holds that scripture is somehow an authority in itself, self interpreting and easily understandable by any who just try hard and smart and pious enough, Traditional Christians will never see eye to eye with that individual.
Collin, I’m going to be very direct, because you just re-stated the same leap again.
Of course a person has to read Scripture for it to be heard. Nobody thinks a closed book corrects people by osmosis. That’s not the debate.
The debate is your added claim: that bishops in council have the authority to bind consciences to what Scripture means in a way that settles meaning as final. That is not the same thing as “leaders teach” or “the church disciplines.” It’s a much bigger claim, and it’s exactly the claim you keep asserting without apostolic warrant.
And you’re also misrepresenting my view. I’ve never said Scripture is “self-interpreting and easily understandable by anyone who tries hard.” What I’m saying is what the New Testament assumes: Scripture has public meaning that can be tested, and the Spirit expects ordinary believers to discern enough to obey and reject error. That’s why the Bereans are praised for testing even Paul (Acts 17:11). That’s why we’re commanded to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). That’s why “even if we or an angel” brings another gospel, reject it (Gal 1:8–9). Those commands don’t require every believer to be a scholar. They require Scripture to function as a real standard that can correct teachers and communities.
And on the “1500 years” claim…John didn’t create some new model for the first believers, and neither did the apostles. The early ekklesia was not an institutional novelty. It was covenant community in Jewish soil, living inside the Hebrew Scriptures, gathering as an assembly, and recognizing elders as communal shepherds. When disputes arose, the New Testament template is Acts 15: collective discernment in the gathered community, testimony of what God is doing, and an explicit appeal to Scripture in context.
So even if you could argue that later centuries settled into one dominant structure, that still wouldn’t make it apostolic. It would make it their later interpretation and consolidation, not the original New Testament pattern. Majority history is not the same thing as biblical authorization. “That’s how it worked” is descriptive. You’re treating it as prescriptive.
So here’s the bottom line: I accept elders, councils, discipline, and the pursuit of unity. I reject the claim that a post-apostolic episcopal system has the right to make its interpretations of Scripture binding on the conscience as the final court. In Scripture, conscience is bound to God’s Word, and leaders are accountable to it.
At this point, we really are at first principles. If your starting axiom is “the church’s later institution is the final interpreter,” and mine is “the apostolic Word is the final standard that corrects even leaders,” we’re not going to converge by repeating ourselves. I respect you, but I’m not conceding that axiom.
Colin, The passage you used to claim it means the scripture “cuts through bone and marrow” is a error, albeit a very common error. So common in fact that many struggle to see the truth because they are so attached to the lie, it has become a part of their daily phrase-ology.
It started shortly after the printing press was invented and the 66 commonly agreed canon was bound into one book. Once bound the Bible (the word Bible comes from the root meaning library or collection, for example: bibliotech is French for library) was suddenly referred to as a single document when it is truly 66 seperate documents bound together (not into one)!
That subtle reference change made the use of “the Bible is the word of God” an easy phrase to use but an error. The BIBLE IS ‘The WordS Of God’ (EMPHASIS PLURAL).
For clarites sake The Scirptures ARE inerrant in the original autographs etc. Inspired, plenary etc..
A serious student reading “the word of God came to Zachariah in the wilderness “ does not believe a red letter edition KJV came waddling through the scrub brush in the wilderness ! No one thinks that. Further, a serious student reading John's letters recognizes that John always referred to Jesus as the Word of God!
A serious student also knows that just because John did that it doesn't mean other authors did too. But one thing a true student does recognize it that nowhere in the 66 books of the Bible does a single book refer to itself as the Word of God. Interestingly the passage you quoted on cutting bone and marrow, if you read the entire context has 2 remarkable observable points. 1. That is is able to discern. And 2. That the pronoun changes to HE in the next sentence.
Heb 4:12-13…”For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
The term the word of God: o logos o theos… has as the key word logos from which we get the modern word logic, and it certainly carries some of that meaning. Not all Greek words translate easily into English (English is a lousy language and I am qualified to say that because I was born there 😆) logos carries the idea of truth, fact, logic, idea, word, dogma… its incredibly interesting. I recommend reading (don't laugh) Wikipedia's entry on the word logos. It's well done and you may find it quite instructive.
Anyway, if you keep in mind that its a challenging word to translate and you remember that nowhere in the Bible oes it refer to itself as the Word of God you get quite an expansion of understanding. It challenged me!
I was adamant that ‘ TheWord of God’ was the Bible until I searched out every entry, really studied them with an open mind, and listened to reason.
There is only one verse that is equivacable, and that one in the midst of all the others left me with a strong conviction of my sloppy use of the term ‘Word of God’.
I encourage you to research it yourself. As I am sure you will find it beneficial, even if you draw a slightly different conclusion (-maybe you'll find 2 equivicable verses 😀)
Yes, I am actually familiar with that entire line—and as orthodox we very much believe Word of God refers to Christ. Usually we use the word “scriptures” to refer to the Bible. Thanks!
Hey, side note, and I’m not trying to start an argument. As you get to know me, you’ll see I’m very text-first.
In the Tanakh (Masoretic Hebrew), “the word of God” is God’s speech in action, what He says that carries authority, creates, commands, judges, promises, and accomplishes. So when people say “the Word of God is Christ,” that’s a New Testament/Christian theological usage tied to Logos language. In the Tanakh, “the word of YHWH” isn’t a personal title; it’s God doing things by speaking. If we connect it to Messiah, I’d say Messiah embodies and fulfills God’s word, rather than the Hebrew phrase literally meaning “Christ.”
And in John 1:1, the term is Greek (logos), not the Tanakh phrase devar-YHWH. In the Hebrew Bible, “the word of YHWH” usually refers to God’s spoken decree or promise that accomplishes His will. John draws on that creation/covenant backdrop and says God’s self-expression became flesh in Messiah (John 1:14). So John clarifies Messiah; it doesn’t redefine the Hebrew idiom.
Collin, I think you’re assuming the only way “qualified elders” can exist is inside a later centralized structure. That’s the part I can’t grant.
In the Hebraic frame, an “elder” is first a communal role. A recognized man of proven character and wisdom who helps shepherd, judge, and guard covenant faithfulness in the assembly. That’s the soil the New Testament grows out of.
And that’s exactly how the NT describes elders too. They’re recognized in local ekklesiai by observable qualifications and fidelity to the apostolic teaching (1 Tim 3, Titus 1). They’re not self-appointed, but they’re also not validated by an empire-wide chain. Their authority is real and accountable. They can be tested, corrected, even rebuked (1 Tim 5).
Qualified elders are qualified because they meet the scriptural qualifications and hold to the apostolic message, within the gathered community.
My question stays the hinge: where does the New Testament say a post-apostolic succession structure is what makes an elder “qualified” in the first place?
So who appointed the first non-succession elder? Where does scripture even hint that it’s ok that one would be appointed by someone who wasn’t appointed by succession? Do you realize what you’re suggesting? You’re suggesting that Paul’s plan for how Timothy would appoint elders would fail.
So someone from outside the chain of succession one day just decided, hmm, this isn’t working anymore. I think I’ll have to just start my own thing, my own thing that actually is
Faithful to the scriptures, unlike this other group. I hearby appoint myself to be an elder. And while I’m here, I’m also able to appoint future elders.
This is so anti biblical. It is a complete departure from the model set by Paul and Timothy. And the model attested to by every, literally every early christian. And yet you think it isn’t a heresy? Someone in your communion did this at some point.
It’s not a later czntralized structure. It’s the very self same process by which the scriptures show apostles passing their charism to qualified men. Yes they must be qualified…AND they must have hands laid on them by an elder in the church. There is no other way, either demonstrated in scripture, or attested to in church history. Demonstrate otherwise please.
Yes. I am debating the gate that decides what the text means—because a text does nothing on its own. Yes it is God breathed…and it is “useful”… useful means it is employed by people to achieve and to understand things. But it requires a human being to actualize it. Who is the human who decides how to employ scripture that we should submit to?
You’re assuming “unbroken succession” is what makes an elder valid. Scripture never says that.
Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus don’t hang validity on a chain. They hang it on qualification and fidelity to the apostolic teaching. Titus 1 goes straight from “appoint elders” to “here are the qualifications” and “hold firm to the trustworthy word” so they can correct error (Titus 1:5–9). That’s the standard.
And office isn’t self-validating in the NT. Elders can be rebuked (1 Tim 5:19–20). Paul publicly corrected Peter when the gospel was compromised (Gal 2). That means “hands laid” isn’t a magic shield. Fidelity is.
Also, stop with the strawman that I’m advocating self-appointed pastors. I’m not. I’m saying the community recognizes qualified men and holds them accountable to the Word.
Yes, humans read words. No one disputes that. But Scripture is still God-breathed and used for correction (2 Tim 3:16–17), and believers are commanded to test teaching and reject “another gospel” no matter who says it (Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8–9). That only works if the Word can judge leaders too.
Sergio, thank you for your response to my comment! Again, I want to emphasize just how inspiring and true to scripture I find your critique of easy belief-ism and the call to the life of loyalty and faithfulness in Christ as the path of salvation before us. Gets me fired up in the best way!
To answer your excellent question: I think it really comes down to what we think Christianity is—it seems to me modern Christianity (anything flowing downstream of the reformation) sees the faith as something we must be true to by finding it and building it out of our reading of scripture. There is a restorationist angle to this, almost an idea of archeology, like if we could just read scripture properly, then we will be able to build the proper church or practice or way. But this is backwards from the perspective of traditional Christianity (the Orthodox Church). Traditional Christians understand that our faith does not originate in holy scripture, but rather was instituted in men, in the apostles and early followers of Christ. He established the church. And absolutely you are right, we don’t find salvation in an “institution.” Rather, it is found in our being united to Christ, as members of his body, which is the church.
The Orthodox church is no mere human instutution—it is a divine-human organism of which we become part, and thereby find life and healing in Christ. But this body is visible, as are all bodies. It is also united in shared belief—all orthodox hold to the same faith “once delivered to the saints.” We find it wise to follow the lead of those who came one generation after the apostles—how did they understand the church, the bishop, the sacraments. St Ignatius literally said if you aren’t with the bishop you are not with Christ. The sacraments were within the established body, the established family. These are the normative means of grace and participation and of salvation. These are the physical means by which our God chooses to enact our salvation. We see this from the very beginning of the history of the church.
So, is the Christian life a way discerned by properly interpreting a book? Or is it a family into which we are adopted, with unified teaching, and a living tradition that includes the holy scriptures and more? We say the latter.
Does that make sense?
And as a post script, this is not to diminish scripture in the slightest. It is the very word of God and we hold to every single bit of it. It’s just a question of whose interpretation does one submit to?
It really is an interesting topic. I actually have family leaning toward an Orthodox view, so I’m not unfamiliar with it.
The simplest way I can say where I’m coming from is this: institutions built by men are still institutions built by men. I keep coming back to the pre-Constantine era, when the church functioned more like a community than a religious machine—and the Hebrew Scriptures were the guidebook.
And just so you know, I really do appreciate the dialogue—please don’t take my questions as adversarial. My honest question is: where do you see that institutional framework laid out as the way in the New Testament?
Ah, very interesting indeed about your family. My family and I all converted from being lifetime (very committed) evangelicals just a couple years ago. Many of my extended family who I love deeply and am extremely close with are quite baffled, and I get it. Our family had experiences that primed us to receive Orthodoxy, not least of which was living in a majority Orthodox country for a few years and meeting some of the most sanctified, serious, humble and beautiful Christian people we had ever encountered.
I hear what you’re saying about “institutions of men.” But I would just respond that we don’t believe the church is an institution of men. There are fallible men within the church, even wolves in sheep’s clothing, but the church is the mystical body of Christ, the bride of Christ. I have come to believe that the church, (mystically united to Christ), is a divine-human organism worthy of placing faith in, as there are promised made about the church that we can hold to—she is the “ground and pillar of the truth,” and “the gates of hades shall not overcome her.” There was a “faith once delivered to the saints,” not many faiths. St Paul encourages the Thessalonians to “hold fast to the tradition they received, by spoken word and written epistle.” And everyone, 100% of the early Christians we have record of, they all identified the church in the same way the Orthodox do today.
Apostolic succession is a biblical concept, and it is affirmed by the earliest Christians and for all of Christian history up til the reformation. St Paul told Timothy he had laid hands on him, and that he also must lay hands on trustworthy men. When did this chain end? The orthodox today and all early Christians knew that the chain never ended. The early church was conciliar, just like in Acts 15 when they gathered to address the judaising heresy, so the successors of the apostles continued to meet in council during the first millennium.
Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures and worship being the blueprint of foundation of early Christian worship, you are absolutely right. But it isn’t in the way the messianic Jews say. It’s how the Orthodox Church worships. There is outstanding book on this subject I think you’d appreciate—“Orthodox Worship: A living continuity with the synagogue, the temple, and the early church.” By Anstall and Williams.
Finally, my last thought would be related to what I said earlier—as Orthodox we don’t believe the NT is what lays out how every aspect of the church should be established. Rather, we think reading the men who immediately succeeded the apostles is a valid and important way to understand how they viewed the church, and what they learned from the apostles. The church that emerges in the immediate centuries after the apostles is the same body that continues into the post Constantine era, and while there are certainly changes, we don’t believe any of it contradicts scripture, and we believe this body, this family, this one church, which continues today, is the body established by Christ and that scripture’s promises regarding that body have always applied and continue to apply. I hope this is helpful in some way.
Seriously, thank you for taking the time to write all of that out. I can tell this isn’t a casual shift for you; it’s something you and your family have thought through and lived through. I respect that.
And I want to be very clear about my tone before I ask anything: these are genuine questions, not “gotcha” questions. I’m not trying to challenge your faith or talk you out of Orthodoxy. I’m not coming at you like an adversary. I’m trying to understand how you’re reasoning, because I value you and I value honest dialogue.
So if you’re willing to keep talking with me, here’s the core question I’m trying to get clarity on.
You said you don’t believe the Church is an institution of men, but a divine-human organism — the mystical Body of Christ — and in that sense “worthy of placing faith in.” I hear what you’re saying. But functionally, how does that operate in history without becoming a man-administered system?
Because the moment you have bishops making binding decisions, councils defining doctrine, a mechanism for determining “orthodox” vs “heresy,” and established liturgies/canons/jurisdictions/discipline, you do have a system. Maybe it’s a system you believe is guided by God — but it’s still carried out by men.
So my honest question is: if it’s not a man-made system, what is the objective difference between a “divine-human organism” and a human institution that sincerely believes it has divine protection? And connected to that: what’s the fail-safe when leaders are wrong — not just “wolves within,” but when the authority structures themselves drift or abuse power?
A few specific places I’d love your clarity:
When you say the Church is “worthy of placing faith in,” what do you mean by faith there? I can trust Messiah completely. But placing faith in an ecclesial structure feels like a category shift. How do you frame that without blurring the line between Christ and His people?
You cited “hold fast to the traditions… spoken and written.” I agree apostolic teaching wasn’t only ink-on-paper. But what’s the criterion for distinguishing apostolic tradition from later development? At what point does “this doesn’t contradict Scripture” become “this is binding with Scripture-level authority”?
On apostolic succession — I agree the concept exists. But does succession guarantee fidelity? In Scripture, holding office never automatically meant truth or purity. What’s the argument that a continuous chain equals a protected transmission of doctrine rather than simply a continuous chain of ordinations?
You mentioned early Christians identified the Church in the same way Orthodoxy does today. I get the point you’re making, but that’s a strong claim. Early sources aren’t perfectly uniform, and the early centuries show real disputes. So when you read the fathers, are they primarily witnesses to how things looked, or authorities that close the question?
I’m not trying to “win” anything here. I’m trying to understand the premise clearly — because right now it can feel like, “the Church is divinely protected, therefore the Church’s later form is trustworthy.” And I’m trying to see how you ground that without it turning into a circular argument.
If you’re willing, I’d genuinely appreciate your thoughts.
I’m happy to discuss, and thanks for your heart in all this. I hope I come across with the same generosity—ok I know I don’t haha…but to give a shot at your questions:
I suppose there are many many times when local bodies of the church have actually functioned for some amount of time, or at any given time, as an institution of men. Meaning, specific orthodox people and specific orthodox communities have failed to demonstrate all aspects of the true faith at times. But the overall church has been preserved in its theology and doctrine and in its structure and practice to be the true and one mystical body of Christ. The received wisdom of the church can be trusted as God given. The results of the ecumenical councils, the liturgy, the prayers, all that has been received by the whole Orthodox Church, and her communion of saints…yes, it is carried out by men, but it is divine-human. The divine keeps the humans moving in the right direction. The saints live the life of God. Just as the scriptures were written by men, with divine inspiration, so we believe the councils were executed by men with divine inspiration, and the liturgy was produced the same way, etc. Earlier you wrote “institutions built by men are still institutions built by men.” How about this, “books written by men are still books written by men.” False. Divine inspiration makes both the holy scriptures and the holy church more than just human products.
As for what is binding…I suppose the answer there is what is in the liturgy, what is in the hymns, what is in the creed, those things affirmed by ecumenical councils, and those things affirmed by the whole church. You are safe to follow these. And, we are bound by obedience to follow the bishops appointed over us. This is tricky because of course the very first thing as Americans we jump to is “but what if the bishop is a heretic!? What if they are corrupt?!” Well it might be better for your soul to humbly obey and pray, knowing God loves mankind and will judge you for your actions, while your bishop will be held to account for his heresy or error. Or…there is also the way of the saints and martyrs, who often took a holy stand against error. But 1) they were saints and better than me, and in a better position to judge than me. And 2) they made their principled stand, and then accepted the consequences, martyrdom, torture, whatever the case was. They didn’t just start a new denomination. They knew by faith that God would guide his true church through all.
Regarding faith in an institution. Yes, in one sense we have faith in the output of orthodoxy, the religion. The councils, the liturgy, the hymns, the universally accepted teaching/consensus of the fathers, etc. But on a larger scale, our faith in the church is actually one and the same as our faith in Christ. If the church is mystically united to Christ, if it is Christ’s very body, then our faith in Christ and in the church are one in the same. Granted, the individual members of the church are not worthy of our faith. But the sum total of the true church, the true body of Christ, absolutely. Those
Regarding succession: As orthodox, we know that a simple chain of transmission does not guarantee fidelity. Apostolic succession requires both—the laying on of hands by one who had hand laid on them, and back to the apostles…AND the transmission of the true faith. The Roman Catholics have criteria 1, but not criteria 2. They departed the faith by introducing many novelties and heresies. But criteria 1 is always required for apostolic succession.
As for the fathers, right you are, there were many disagreements and different approaches toward certain practices and doctrine…but not as major as you might think. And the ones who departed were often excommunicated—think Origin, and Tertulian who fell into heretical sects. Or Arius, who fell into heresy and almost pulled the whole church with him but for Athanasius and the council of nicea. (Of course these three are not saints to us.) The Holy Spirit preserves his church and the true church is marked not only by what every father taught individually, but more so by the consensus of the fathers, and that which is received by the church and withstands the test of time. This is an article of faith. That the family is still the family, and is protected—it is united to Christ and he preserves her.
One last thing, on an experiential level—it is so good for my soul to begin valuing obedience, and trusting in the church in a way I never have before (because the church was constantly innovating and even when it wasn’t, prayers were free lance and performative). When I go home from liturgy, I don’t find myself judging like I used to. Now I know I’m in the true church, it has been tested and approved over 2000 years. It isn’t some recent Bible college graduate’s attempt at a worship song, or the 1 hour long sermon of some puffed up (or maybe well intentioned but misled) preacher. I go home having partaken of the true body and blood of Christ, and my soul is at peace like never before and I’m being transformed like never before. So thankful that I found the fullness of Christ in the Holy Orthodox Church
Collin — I hear what you’re saying, and I respect the heart behind it. I’m also genuinely glad you’ve found peace and stability in the liturgy and community.
I just can’t get all the way to your conclusion, and here’s why.
For me, the “rule” has to stay Scripture-first. Not because I’m trying to be contrarian, and not because I’m trying to be “more Jewish” than anyone else — but because I’ve watched, over and over, how sincere men can drift, and then defend the drift by reading their later framework back into the text. Once a system exists, it tends to protect itself.
That “reading back into Scripture” issue is a big part of where I’m stuck. John 6 is a perfect example. The chapter explicitly sits in a Passover frame, and yet it’s often treated as if it’s mainly a later communion doctrine proof-text. I’m not denying the Table or the meaning of it. I’m saying the context matters: Passover, Exodus, covenant, manna, and Messiah as the true bread from heaven. When we flatten that into “this is simply about the Eucharist as the essential mechanism,” it feels like theology is driving the reading instead of the text driving the theology.
And that ties into my broader question: what did the church do before 300 AD? Before Constantine. Before councils had empire behind them. Before a formalized clerical system could enforce “received” outcomes.
When I read the New Testament, the earliest Jesus-movement is unmistakably Jewish in soil and shape: they’re worshiping the God of Israel, reasoning from Torah and the Prophets, and following Messiah as the promised King. Even when Gentiles are brought in, the logic is “grafted in,” not “replacement.” That matters to me because it suggests the early community wasn’t guided by a later institutional center of gravity — it was guided by Scripture, the Spirit, and covenant life.
So when you say, “The councils, liturgy, hymns, and episcopal obedience are what keep you safe,” I’m not denying those can be beautiful or beneficial. I’m saying I don’t see the New Testament making those things the boundary line of salvation or the defining proof of “the true Church.” I see Messiah as the boundary line. Repentance, faithfulness, love, endurance, and obedience to His teachings as the marks. And leaders as servants within the body, not a gate the body must pass through to be “real.”
I’m open to being sharpened, but this is my honest hang-up: I don’t see Jesus instituting a salvation-access system that requires later councils and institutional succession to validate it. I see a family, centered on Messiah, anchored to Scripture, and guarded by the Spirit — long before the post-Constantine world made “church” feel like an empire with paperwork.
I really do appreciate the dialogue, and I’m not treating you like an adversary. If you can show me in the text where Messiah or the apostles lay out that later institutional framework as the authoritative line, I’ll read it carefully.
And you are still supposing the Bible gives us the church…it doesn’t. The church gave us the Bible and it can only be understood within the Spirit led life of the church. The very family, the very church that has existed since the beginning. The one that hasn’t been schism’d away from.
Collin, I hear you, but that statement is exactly the circular move I’m pushing back on.
Yes, the ekklesia existed before the NT canon was finalized. But the earliest “church” didn’t create its Bible. It inherited the Hebrew Scriptures from Israel and lived inside them. And when the New Testament shows the ekklesia resolving a major doctrinal dispute, the template is Acts 15. That was the pre-Constantine community, Jewish in leadership and framework, dealing with Gentiles being grafted in. And the resolution wasn’t “you can only understand Scripture inside our later institution.” It was collective discernment, apostolic witness, and an explicit appeal to the written Scriptures as the measuring rod. James literally grounds the decision in the prophets.
So I’m not denying the Spirit-led life of the community. I’m saying the New Testament’s own model is that the Spirit leads the community through the Word, not around it, and not above it.
Also, “unschism’d away from” can’t be the definition of the true ekklesia, because the apostolic era itself had serious internal disputes, corrections, and boundary-setting. Unity matters, but unity in Messiah and the apostolic gospel, not unity as a self-authenticating institutional claim.
So here’s the hinge question again, now sharper: if Acts 15 is the New Testament pattern for how the Spirit-led ekklesia handles disputes, where does the New Testament teach a later shift to your claim that only the “unschism’d” institution can interpret Scripture correctly, and that Scripture can no longer function as the judge of the community?
Acts 15 shows how the apostles and elders settled a dispute by Scripture and the Spirit. It doesn’t grant later councils apostolic-level authority or place their interpretations beyond correction by the Word.
I don't understand, what difference does it make which way you interpret when it is all made up anyway. One person's view is as valid as another. Someone explain?
If you’re confident I’m demanding more than God does, just open the Bible and show me where Jesus saves people He does not also command to repent, obey, and follow Him.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.--- John 5:24
You condemn yourself and others by having a works based doctrine. We turn to God and confess Jesus as our Lord. You have turned into slavery for life, instead of being set free.
It’s not works based. But your “works” naturally follow your faithfulness to Christ and what he’s called us to become, a new creation. Dead to old self without Him.
When we truly abide in Christ, we stop sinning, perhaps not entirely but we transform like Sergio explained.
You cannot tell me, you are saved but continue to sin and your life represents the sameness it did before you accepted Him.
Romans plainly teaches that you cannot mix works with grace.
Do you sin?
Yes, you do.
According to James, if you try to keep the whole law and fail on one point you have broken the whole law. That means your little sins you allow are just as bad as murder.
Stop acting like you are saving yourself, or not sinning.
This notion is false. You sin, in thought and deed. In omission and commission.
I can tell you that i am saved and continue in sin, because that is a fact, and what the Word teaches.
Yes, we change. Yes, we grow. But you and I are still sinners saved by Grace. You are not better than anyone.
Look at the parable of the pharisee and the sinner praying. Luke 18:9-14
Chris — I’m not preaching self-salvation. I’m saying what the text says: grace saves, and the saved are commanded to repent and follow.
John 5:24 is true. But you’re isolating it from the same Jesus who says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15), “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11), and “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). Paul agrees: we’re saved by grace for obedience (Eph 2:8–10), and grace trains us to deny ungodliness (Titus 2:11–14).
James isn’t your escape hatch. James is warning against selective obedience and hypocrisy not giving permission to settle into ongoing rebellion. And Romans doesn’t teach “saved and continue in sin” as a lifestyle; it explicitly asks that question and rejects it: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means” (Rom 6:1–2). If someone claims Christ while making peace with sin, John calls that a lie (1 John 2:3–6; 3:6–10).
So no I’m not saying believers reach sinless perfection. I am saying the Bible does not describe salvation as “I’m saved, therefore I continue in sin.” It describes salvation as deliverance from sin’s dominion, a new heart, and a life of repentance and obedience flowing from faith.
As for Luke 18: I’m not the Pharisee boasting in myself. I’m the man who knows he needs mercy and because I need mercy, I refuse to turn grace into a permission slip to stay the same.
Nothing convinces me more of of how pernicious mainstream Christianity has become than its ability to cause its adherents to reach the opposite conclusion of a Bible text than that which the inspired author is making. Not just wrong…opposite.
James 2:10 is the quintessential example. The “if-you-break-ONE-law-you-break-them-all” was not an arguement to despair, followed by license to jettison the law altogether due to it being an impossible standard.
James’ point was…don't break the ONE.
The ubiquitous Christian read is “not only can I break one, I need not worry myself about breaking any of them” because, what the hey, “if I break one, I break them all.”
No wonder James' couches his comment on preparing us for [the] judgement. At least someone is. Christianity, as commonly understood, is not.
Jesus stood against the pharisees, religious leaders who were ‘Saved” in the covenant but demanded obedience to the law for salvation.
Paul stood against pharisees who demanded the same thing.
John plainly states in 1 John that you sin. If you say you don’t, you are a liar, and the Word (Jesus) is not in you.
You fight so hard against people who pray to receive Christ, and trust God to save them. People who fail and sin, but have nothing else but Jesus Christ and His promises to save them.
You pat yourselves on the back that you are so perfect, like the pharisees, and cannot even see your own wickedness.
You say John 5:24 is true, but I isolate it?
There are tons of verses that say the same thing. Are they isolated too?
Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, John 3:16,
Do you sin?
Yes you do.
So, you don’t love Jesus. (John 14:15)
For people who believe in works, they must keep from sinning to prove they love Jesus.
But, I don’t have to do that because I am a sinner, saved by His grace. I don’t lie and claim to love Him while sinning. I’m not saved by loving Him.
You say “Go and sin no more.” ignoring the fact that she probably sinned again.
Do you sin?
You say “You call me Lord Lord,”
But, ignore the fact that the people in the verse are relying on their mighty works. Not the Lord’s grace. And He said “Depart from me I NEVER KNEW YOU. because they never confessed Him as Lord or turned to Him or trusted in His grace. They trusted in works.
Paul plainly says in Romans that if you mix grace with works you destroy God’s grace.
I just don’t understand why believers want to act like pharisees.
The Pharisees are plainly shown as an enemy to Christ. People who obey the law and think it proves their holiness or salvation. While ignoring that it is the promise of God that saves them.
You Might try reading Philippians 2:12 where Paul says they should “work out their salvation…”. Believe what you want but, no one is instantly saved, no matter what you’ve been told. Those who have been Baptized, have been “justified” by their faith, but that’s just the beginning. Salvation is a journey of faithful obedience to God, abiding in Christ’s teachings and His commands, seeking union with the Father. If one rejects God, there is no salvation. If one’s “faith” has produced no fruit/works of obedience, they must not have really believed and Christ will say, “I did not know you”. When true believers face God’s judgement, it won’t be for sinning, Christ already made that sacrifice. The true believers will be judged on their faithfulness.
'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" is talking about sanctification, not earning or keeping or holding onto your salvation.
We get saved, and have the Holy Spirit. God works with us to break us and mold us into who He wants us to be. We are already saved. But, He has begun a work in us and will finish it. That is the work, referred to in the verse. Not salvation itself, but working with God within your salvation.
You cannot mix grace and works. It destroys God's Grace. (Romans 11:6)
It seems to be a similar discussion. But, since the participants are from denominations with questionable views. I cannot say for sure. The Roman catholic church and the Protestant churches which come from it, hold views which taint the real Gospel.
I spent 20 years in the Independent Fundamental Baptist church. During that time, I was taught that salvation comes by grace through faith, and that once saved, always saved. I fully agree with both of those truths. However, I was never taught to honestly examine my faith or question the condition of my salvation. As a result, I spent two decades living in unrepentant sin, believing that grace alone was enough. I honestly believed that I was a carnal Christian (100% carnal & 100% Christian), and while grace is indeed sufficient for salvation, what I lacked was obedience and evidence of a transformed life. Eventually, I came to realize that I wasn’t truly saved as there was no fruit of salvation in my life. Today, I still stumble, but I am quick to repent and strive to live in accordance with God’s moral law, not to earn salvation, but as the natural outworking of it.
Boy, you sure check off all the boxes. Good job. Well written.
And It sounds like you are sooooo proud of your ability to obey.
Oh you stumble sometimes....rarely I'm sure.
So, proud of your ability to be Holy Holy Holy.
Am I right?
So, proud.....
I'm reminded of Isaiah, a prophet of God. He probably obeyed perfectly. I mean he was chosen and used mightily by God.
But, when he entered God's presence, He cried out "I am undone!! I am a man of unclean lips, from a people of unclean lips!!"
No pride. He saw the truth of his wretchedness. Truth that he was not aware of.
And that's what i am saying. i don't care how obedient you think you are. Or how perfect you believe you are being. You aren't.
It's only by Jesus and the Holy Spirit that you can even lift up your eyes toward God.
James said that if you try to keep the law and fail on one point you have broken the whole law.
So, when you say "I still stumble" You should actually say '"I broke the whole law." It's not a stumble. It is wretched sin. And the fact that you do not realize that, is the problem I am speaking of.
I break God’s law every day. I have sinned grievously against a holy and righteous God. Left to myself, I am unclean, and my righteousness is nothing more than filthy rags before Him. Scripture is unmistakable: “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). This is not a comparison between myself and my neighbor, as though moral ranking could justify anyone. The standard is not man. The standard is God Himself.
The moral law is not arbitrary. It reveals the very nature and character of God. “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12). When the law exposes my sin, it is doing exactly what God intended it to do: showing me who He is and who I am not. Like the prophet Isaiah, I must confess, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5). The law does not exist so that I may reshape God into my preferences, but so that I might be reshaped into His image.
Therefore, I come as clay, not as the potter. “But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand” (Isaiah 64:8). I am not attempting to redefine righteousness or lower God’s standards to ease my conscience. I am submitting myself to be molded by Him, conformed to His will, His holiness, and His truth. As Scripture declares, “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20).
The apostle Paul understood this posture well. Even after his conversion, he did not exalt himself. Instead, he wrote, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). Paul did not deny the law or excuse his past. He acknowledged that the law revealed his sin, yet he rejoiced that grace triumphed through Christ. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Romans 5:20).
This is the heart of true repentance and faith. Not self-righteousness. Not comparison. Not tradition. But honest submission before a holy God, confessing our sin, trusting in Christ alone, and allowing the Spirit to conform us into the image of the Son. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16).
My thing is that there are TONS of Christians who are just like the pharisees in Jesus day.
They are Soooo obedient.
They love Jesus and even sing songs to prove it.
But, the Bible is clear that many will stand before him on that day, and be surprised because they missed it. They were so focused on being good and obedient, they missed Jesus and missed that He is the only way. HE IS the straight way. Not obedience. We do not obey.
Pharisees like to use this verse to prove that other people won’t be saved. You know, those people who follow the prosperity gospel…
But, this verse actually condemns works.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”—- Matt. 7:21-23
Notice they relied on their works. Not on their relationship with Jesus, because they never really knew Him.
The Bible is full of verses speaking of people surprised when they stand before Him and being lost.
I’m trying to prevent that and get people to realize they are only saved by Christ, not by works. Its simple, but sooooo hard. To just give it to Him, and trust Him.
There are times in every generation when God raises a voice, not to echo the comfort of the age, but to confront its idols. When I first read Sergio DeSoto’s The Gospel Manifesto, my spirit bore witness that this is such a voice and such a moment.
What Sergio has written cuts directly to the beating heart of Western Christianity’s most cherished idol: the counterfeit gospel; the golden calf forged in the fires of convenience, comfort, emotionalism, and decisionism. It is the chief idol in the idol factory of the modern religious heart. Under its shadow, millions have been lulled into a lukewarm stupor, convinced they are safe while remaining untransformed, unsubmitted, and unchanged.
Sergio smashes that idol with the precision of a theologian and the fearlessness of a prophet.
He names what few dare to name:
The modern “gospel” is not the Gospel of Jesus (Yeshua).
It demands nothing.
It forms no one.
It saves no one.
It strips the Church of urgency, blinds her to the realities of judgment, and makes hell seem distant, extinct, and irrelevant. In that vacuum, easy-believism comforts multitudes into a lukewarm abyss.
But what Sergio restores in its place is the Gospel that once turned empires upside down.
He retrieves the message Yeshua actually preached: the Gospel of the Kingdom, the Gospel of covenant, the Gospel of allegiance, the Gospel of Torah written on the heart by the Spirit, the Gospel that demands repentance and produces transformation, the Gospel that births sons rather than spectators.
His writing is Hebraic, apostolic, and unyieldingly clear.
And Sergio says what must be said: The reign of God has arrived.
Repent.
Return.
Be baptized into Jesus.
Be made whole—not by the restoration of Adam’s fallen seed, but by the New Birth into the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, thus entering His New Covenant.
This is not rhetoric. This is the Gospel.
Sergio’s exposition exposes the sickness of the modern message and prescribes the only cure: a return to Jesus' (Yeshua, and every Apostle) own proclamation. His words are surgical. His clarity is refreshing. His courage is rare.
As one who has preached the Gospel for more than four decades, I can say with conviction:
This manifesto is necessary.
It is timely.
It is true.
And it deserves to be heard in every pulpit in America.
I am thinking of confirming Sergio's work, a masterpiece of prophetic analysis and theological revelation, through an extended exploration of its covenantal, Hebraic, and prophetic force. Sergio, if you'd like to have that, I can email you that for your consideration:
Reader, I trust you will read this manifesto with an open heart.
Let it confront you.
Let it call you.
Let it awaken you.
And let it draw you back to the Gospel that saves, sanctifies, and makes whole.
With honor and profound respect,
Dr. Wendell Hutchins II
It'd be an honor to help you serve, Doc. Whatever you need, just let me know, and thank you for taking the time to write this. I know it wasn't easy. I don't know what confirming my work means, but let's do it. :)
I agree with you completely, Wendell. What a delight it was to read it.
Regarding your exchange with @chrisbunton, I would like to say this. Neither sin nor Grace have any meaning apart from the individual believer undergoing them that any one (believer or not) may impose on another. When we come, by His Grace, to repent and believe, we enter into a personal relationship with God through Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. If we were not sinners, we could not be saved, if we were as Christ is, we would not need to follow the Way of sanctification. These reflect our reality as called out members of the church of Christ, the Bride of Christ. However, judgement - which is what both you and Chris are vigorously debating here - is not up to either of you, not now, not in future, not at the end before His Throne, it's not up to any of us. Why concentrate on applying judgement that does not belong to us? Both of you quote Scripture accurately and both of you speak truth yet you don't seem to be able to agree on what matters most: your salvation is personal and totally dependent on God's Grace as taught by and exemplified in Jesus. You do not know and will never know each other's sin, nor will you know the extent of God's Grace in each other's life, nor will you know the meanderings of each other's trail of sanctification. Only God knows that and only He will judge it. Let's love the Way, the Truth and the Life and each other in thought, word and deed. Let us enjoy God's Grace, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and the Love of Christ Jesus in our lives. Attempting to judge the other is not part of our remit, only God does that. There can be no judgement without accusation and we all know who the accuser is.
My apologies to both of you if this offends you or interrupts your encounter in any way that is not perceived as it is meant to be in Christ.
The sinner's prayer is the welcome mat to the Church of False Hope.
Easy believe-ism adds souls to the institutional church, but not the Kingdom of Heaven.
Amen
Thank you for having the courage to speak about this. There's a lot in your post that parallels what Bonhoffer said about true discipleship, so I've posted about it at https://thomasjefferycarter.substack.com/p/is-there-a-difference-between-a-believer?r=1up3ap
I loved your article, and you're right. Bonhoffer nailed it. 100% agree!
Yessir! I've seen the same thing. Keep going, brother!
Excellent!
Nicely articulated manifesto….
Very plain , understandable language....
Even a child can grasp this simple message of TRUTH ....
https://open.substack.com/pub/bridgetograce/p/from-surrender-to-shortcut?r=5h8n5b&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
How the Sinner’s Prayer, “Faith Alone,” and Once-Saved-Always-Saved Quietly Rewrote the Gospel
It’s nice indeed to have you both come together and discuss matters and learn. (Following Jesus) had a post I had read, and I loved it and it was titled.
The Bondage of Religious Deception
By Mike Gendron
Then I replied what sat upon the Throne of my Heart
(Good day and bless be you Father ABBA and thy son Christ and you thy Helper for bringing forth thy truth within this article of how we as truther’s should gather among ourselves and discuss your Holy word in such a principle manner that was spoken within so it keeps your integrity intact of the Holy God that you have always been and as well thy son.
Faithful Servant of Christ may you always continue thy work in Christ and God pure and be kept spiritual sound while doing it is never in vain especially if it turns the very Carnel rebellious heart of one individual to their Creator and obtain thy Lord’s promised Spiritual Heart of regeneration and start their walk and finish thy race as Paul. This article ABBA may you inspire many to ponder such so it helps to create building up of each and every one instead of tearing down or cause stumbling or divisions among your Holy people. This all includes me. Wayne Robert. One last request Father please provide a Spiritual red rose in the Ambassador here in and to all within this community and outside that are about to come.
The spiritual rose represents your Agape love that flows through our veins and straight to the marrow of our bones so as to generate our spiritual healing Ness you promised if we Thank You and give you Phrase and walk with you.) No credit to me but to the Father and Son only.
Bless be you if you continue to share and learn from each other and decide what you have gathered into thy holy presence and use what you learn and take it to the father and confirm with his word in the book but also mostly in the sacred place we listen. Bless be you both I have learned from the start go that Sergio Desoto had had this wonderful posture from the start when I read his posts. I stand before you also Collin for taking the same approach bless be you and your family this day and all that they have stood for about ABBA’s word and toward his sheep. Good day. Thank You ABBA and Jesus.
That's the servant's heart right there, thank you for sharing. That's beautiful.
Sergio, thank you for writing this. There is real evangelical fire here, and much of what you are resisting deserves to be resisted. A “gospel” reduced to a transaction, a counted decision, or a vague reassurance that leaves a man unchanged is not the apostolic proclamation; it is a sedation. Your insistence that Christ calls us to repentance, obedience, and a concrete discipleship that actually remakes a life is a needed word in an age of therapeutic religion.
Speaking as a faithful Christian, I want to affirm the strongest parts and then offer a fraternal, careful clarification where your framing risks swinging from one distortion to another.
First, on the “counterfeit gospel” you describe: yes, if the message people receive is effectively “say a prayer, get a ticket, continue as you were,” then it is spiritually dangerous. Christ does not recruit admirers; He makes disciples. The New Testament is unambiguous that faith is living, obedient, and persevering — never mere mental assent. In that respect, your emphasis on “allegiance,” on teshuvah as a turning of the whole person, and on an obedience empowered by the Spirit is substantially convergent with Catholic teaching about grace bearing real fruit in holiness. 
Second, on your diagnosis: you are right to say sin is not only “legal guilt.” It is also corruption, slavery, and death. But from a faithful Christian standpoint it is important to hold together what many modern Christians separate: sin really does involve guilt before a holy God and also inward ruin within the human person. Salvation is not merely a pardon, and it is not merely a moral renovation; it is both justification and sanctification as a single divine work that truly forgives and truly heals — by grace, not by self-effort. When you write that “if sin is only guilt, forgiveness is enough; if sin is a disease, only transformation saves,” I would tighten that: the forgiveness that truly comes from Christ is itself transformative, and the transformation that truly comes from Christ presupposes real forgiveness and reconciliation. These are not competitors; they are facets of one saving mystery.
Third, the “sinner’s prayer.” I agree that it is not the biblical or apostolic sacramental entry point into Christ, and it can become a counterfeit substitute for conversion. But I would also be cautious about dismissing any act of contrition or crying out to God as though it cannot be a real beginning. In Catholic experience, a man’s first sincere “Lord, have mercy” can be the opening of grace, yet it must be followed by incorporation into Christ in the way Christ established: baptismal rebirth, persevering faith, repentance, and a disciplined sacramental life (especially confession and the Eucharist). In other words, the remedy for “decisionism” is not simply a more demanding decision; it is a fuller ecclesial and sacramental discipleship.
Fourth, Torah and the New Covenant. Here I want to speak plainly, because this is where many “Hebraic roots” presentations unintentionally drift toward a form of Judaizing. You rightly say Christ did not come to abolish but to fulfill, and you rightly appeal to Jeremiah’s promise of the law written on the heart. But Christian orthodoxy insists that the Mosaic law as a covenantal regime (especially its ceremonial and juridical prescriptions) is not binding on the baptized. The moral law endures, but it is transfigured in Christ and interpreted authoritatively within the Church, with the Decalogue and the law of charity at its core. “Torah-shaped” can be an acceptable poetic phrase if you mean the moral will of God fulfilled in Christ and poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit; it becomes a theological problem if it implies Christians are obligated to adopt Mosaic observances as a covenant marker, or if it blurs the decisive newness of the sacraments and the Church as the New Covenant people gathered from Jew and Gentile. (St. Paul’s warnings in Galatians are not about “cheap grace”; they are also about returning to the old yoke as though Christ were insufficient.)
Fifth, eternal life “now” versus “later.” I appreciate the insistence that salvation is not merely “where you go when you die.” Faithful Christian theology also insists that eternal life begins now as participation in the divine life (sanctifying grace). But we must not flatten the “already” and “not yet.” We are to hold with equal seriousness that judgment is real, that hell is real, and that heaven is not a metaphor for psychological wholeness but the beatific vision: definitive union with the living God. So I would keep your “begins now” emphasis, while refusing any implication that the eschatological stakes are secondary. People are not only “unrepaired”; they can be finally lost if they persist in mortal sin without repentance.
Sixth, tone — especially toward pastors and “systems.” Your zeal for truth is evident, and the prophets do speak sharply at times. Still, I would urge you to wield that sharpness with trembling, because many shepherds are not cynical “merchandisers”; they are tired men doing their best with imperfect formation inside confused ecclesial ecosystems. Many, if not most, have been poorly taught. Many are afraid. Some are complicit. A few may be holy. The spiritual work of mercy here is not to soften the call to repentance, but to admonish in a way that keeps open a door for conversion rather than foreclosing it with contempt. If the goal is restoration, then even rebuke should sound like it is aimed at saving a brother, not merely winning a case.
If I could re-state your core burden in faithful Christian terms, it would be something like this: The Gospel is the proclamation that Jesus Christ — true God and true man — has died for our sins and risen for our justification, inaugurating the Kingdom and the New Covenant; and that by repentance and faith, expressed and nourished through baptism, Eucharist, prayer, and obedience, we are forgiven, incorporated into His Body the Church, and actually made new by the Holy Spirit. The “cheap” version is any message that promises Christ without the Cross, forgiveness without repentance, grace without sanctification, communion without commandments, or heaven without holiness.
Finally, a word of encouragement and prayer. You clearly want people, especially the wounded and the spiritually homeless, to know that Christ does not merely excuse; He heals. Hold fast to that. And if you want this manifesto to build, not only to tear down, consider adding one concrete pathway for readers: What does repentance look like on Tuesday morning? What practices order a life toward holiness? Where does a man go when he falls? (From a faithful Christian standpoint: to confession, to the altar, to spiritual direction, to disciplined prayer, to the works of mercy.) Give the reader not only a trumpet blast but also a rule of life — because many are already convinced; they are simply untrained.
May the Lord grant you wisdom proportionate to your zeal, and charity proportionate to your clarity. I will pray that Christ gathers into full communion all who truly seek Him, heals those harmed by counterfeit assurances, and strengthens faithful pastors to preach the whole counsel of God without fear. 
There's a lot to unpack there, my friend, but I really appreciate you taking the time to read in common. It's things like this that encourage me to keep on plugging and I agree with what you're saying.
It's a lot to unpack in a single post, and there's a lot of subtopics that stem from this one idea, but the root of it is simple. There's so much more to the sacrifice and atonement than we give God credit for, and it's been packaged and resold as a cheap gift.
Thank you for taking the time, my friend. Be blessed. Shalom, shalom.
Well done Sergio, I especially applaud your patience in the comments. I can do that when speaking but not writing. This is hard times for bringing the true gospel to people for as it says "the end shall not come except there be a falling away first". But as your brother in Christ, keep up the good work.
Tell that to the thief on the cross.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.---John 5:24
Powerful takedown of the consumer-driven faith peddled in many American Evangelical churches…But. The next couple generation of Christians after the apostles (St Ignatius of Antioch, St Polycarp, etc.) all have critical elements of this “manifesto” present, but the also have so much more—most importantly, they already have a rich definition of “the church” and the sacraments, and these are absolutely essential to our salvation. You’re beating down the right path, but you need to cross the line into the Orthodox Church. This is the church of the apostles, the church the body of Christ Himself, established with specific leaders through the laying on of hands with their charism passed on to others, in an unbroken chain. The holy Orthodox Church is where one encounters Christ so that one can be transformed and be the kind of Christian we see in the first century being fed to lions while making the sign of the cross. Or having their tongue ripped out and enduring torture by apostate emperors, or stand firm in front of the firing squad of communist revolutionaries. This is the Orthodox faith—it is the home of the martyrs, and the saints. Blessings to you all!
Collin, I sincerely appreciate you reading and taking the time to comment. I’m with you on rejecting the consumer-driven faith model, and I respect the honor you’re giving the martyrs.
But can I ask a sincere question? Where in Scripture do we see Jesus establishing salvation as something accessed through an institutional system—jurisdiction, sacramental gatekeeping, and an “unbroken chain” as the defining proof of the Church?
I’m not trying to be difficult—I’m trying to understand, from the text. I look forward to your gracious reply, my friend. Blessings.
So which elders would be qualified to handle such a dispute later? Self appointed ones?
You’re operating from a closed authority loop: “The Church interprets Scripture; therefore Scripture can’t judge the Church.” Once that premise is in place, every Bible-based objection gets dismissed as “private interpretation,” and every request for textual authorization gets treated as illegitimate from the start.
That’s why we keep circling. We’re not really debating the text anymore. You’re defending the gate that decides what the text is allowed to mean.
Scripture in the hands of the church can judge errant branches of the church. But scripture alone cannot judge anyone. Scripture, as held and interpreted by a specific person or body in agreement, has the ability to “cut through bone and marrow.” I don’t really understand why this is a difficult concept, honestly, I struggle to see what is controversial about this. Any time you want scripture to judge something or someone, there will have to be a person employing it, saying “this is what the scripture means, and you are not in line with the scripture.” The question is, is there a body or a person who can be entrusted to employ scripture in a way that is faithful to its true meaning? For the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was no question—there was no other model. The ordained bishops of the church meeting in council (just like Acts 15) had the ability to bind mens’ consciences to what scripture means. Men were not free to disagree and form new bodies. That is called schism.
You are correct though, we are debating in circles at this point. Because if one holds that scripture is somehow an authority in itself, self interpreting and easily understandable by any who just try hard and smart and pious enough, Traditional Christians will never see eye to eye with that individual.
Collin, I’m going to be very direct, because you just re-stated the same leap again.
Of course a person has to read Scripture for it to be heard. Nobody thinks a closed book corrects people by osmosis. That’s not the debate.
The debate is your added claim: that bishops in council have the authority to bind consciences to what Scripture means in a way that settles meaning as final. That is not the same thing as “leaders teach” or “the church disciplines.” It’s a much bigger claim, and it’s exactly the claim you keep asserting without apostolic warrant.
And you’re also misrepresenting my view. I’ve never said Scripture is “self-interpreting and easily understandable by anyone who tries hard.” What I’m saying is what the New Testament assumes: Scripture has public meaning that can be tested, and the Spirit expects ordinary believers to discern enough to obey and reject error. That’s why the Bereans are praised for testing even Paul (Acts 17:11). That’s why we’re commanded to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). That’s why “even if we or an angel” brings another gospel, reject it (Gal 1:8–9). Those commands don’t require every believer to be a scholar. They require Scripture to function as a real standard that can correct teachers and communities.
And on the “1500 years” claim…John didn’t create some new model for the first believers, and neither did the apostles. The early ekklesia was not an institutional novelty. It was covenant community in Jewish soil, living inside the Hebrew Scriptures, gathering as an assembly, and recognizing elders as communal shepherds. When disputes arose, the New Testament template is Acts 15: collective discernment in the gathered community, testimony of what God is doing, and an explicit appeal to Scripture in context.
So even if you could argue that later centuries settled into one dominant structure, that still wouldn’t make it apostolic. It would make it their later interpretation and consolidation, not the original New Testament pattern. Majority history is not the same thing as biblical authorization. “That’s how it worked” is descriptive. You’re treating it as prescriptive.
So here’s the bottom line: I accept elders, councils, discipline, and the pursuit of unity. I reject the claim that a post-apostolic episcopal system has the right to make its interpretations of Scripture binding on the conscience as the final court. In Scripture, conscience is bound to God’s Word, and leaders are accountable to it.
At this point, we really are at first principles. If your starting axiom is “the church’s later institution is the final interpreter,” and mine is “the apostolic Word is the final standard that corrects even leaders,” we’re not going to converge by repeating ourselves. I respect you, but I’m not conceding that axiom.
Colin, The passage you used to claim it means the scripture “cuts through bone and marrow” is a error, albeit a very common error. So common in fact that many struggle to see the truth because they are so attached to the lie, it has become a part of their daily phrase-ology.
It started shortly after the printing press was invented and the 66 commonly agreed canon was bound into one book. Once bound the Bible (the word Bible comes from the root meaning library or collection, for example: bibliotech is French for library) was suddenly referred to as a single document when it is truly 66 seperate documents bound together (not into one)!
That subtle reference change made the use of “the Bible is the word of God” an easy phrase to use but an error. The BIBLE IS ‘The WordS Of God’ (EMPHASIS PLURAL).
For clarites sake The Scirptures ARE inerrant in the original autographs etc. Inspired, plenary etc..
A serious student reading “the word of God came to Zachariah in the wilderness “ does not believe a red letter edition KJV came waddling through the scrub brush in the wilderness ! No one thinks that. Further, a serious student reading John's letters recognizes that John always referred to Jesus as the Word of God!
A serious student also knows that just because John did that it doesn't mean other authors did too. But one thing a true student does recognize it that nowhere in the 66 books of the Bible does a single book refer to itself as the Word of God. Interestingly the passage you quoted on cutting bone and marrow, if you read the entire context has 2 remarkable observable points. 1. That is is able to discern. And 2. That the pronoun changes to HE in the next sentence.
Heb 4:12-13…”For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”
The term the word of God: o logos o theos… has as the key word logos from which we get the modern word logic, and it certainly carries some of that meaning. Not all Greek words translate easily into English (English is a lousy language and I am qualified to say that because I was born there 😆) logos carries the idea of truth, fact, logic, idea, word, dogma… its incredibly interesting. I recommend reading (don't laugh) Wikipedia's entry on the word logos. It's well done and you may find it quite instructive.
Anyway, if you keep in mind that its a challenging word to translate and you remember that nowhere in the Bible oes it refer to itself as the Word of God you get quite an expansion of understanding. It challenged me!
I was adamant that ‘ TheWord of God’ was the Bible until I searched out every entry, really studied them with an open mind, and listened to reason.
There is only one verse that is equivacable, and that one in the midst of all the others left me with a strong conviction of my sloppy use of the term ‘Word of God’.
I encourage you to research it yourself. As I am sure you will find it beneficial, even if you draw a slightly different conclusion (-maybe you'll find 2 equivicable verses 😀)
Yes, I am actually familiar with that entire line—and as orthodox we very much believe Word of God refers to Christ. Usually we use the word “scriptures” to refer to the Bible. Thanks!
Hey, side note, and I’m not trying to start an argument. As you get to know me, you’ll see I’m very text-first.
In the Tanakh (Masoretic Hebrew), “the word of God” is God’s speech in action, what He says that carries authority, creates, commands, judges, promises, and accomplishes. So when people say “the Word of God is Christ,” that’s a New Testament/Christian theological usage tied to Logos language. In the Tanakh, “the word of YHWH” isn’t a personal title; it’s God doing things by speaking. If we connect it to Messiah, I’d say Messiah embodies and fulfills God’s word, rather than the Hebrew phrase literally meaning “Christ.”
And in John 1:1, the term is Greek (logos), not the Tanakh phrase devar-YHWH. In the Hebrew Bible, “the word of YHWH” usually refers to God’s spoken decree or promise that accomplishes His will. John draws on that creation/covenant backdrop and says God’s self-expression became flesh in Messiah (John 1:14). So John clarifies Messiah; it doesn’t redefine the Hebrew idiom.
Collin, I think you’re assuming the only way “qualified elders” can exist is inside a later centralized structure. That’s the part I can’t grant.
In the Hebraic frame, an “elder” is first a communal role. A recognized man of proven character and wisdom who helps shepherd, judge, and guard covenant faithfulness in the assembly. That’s the soil the New Testament grows out of.
And that’s exactly how the NT describes elders too. They’re recognized in local ekklesiai by observable qualifications and fidelity to the apostolic teaching (1 Tim 3, Titus 1). They’re not self-appointed, but they’re also not validated by an empire-wide chain. Their authority is real and accountable. They can be tested, corrected, even rebuked (1 Tim 5).
Qualified elders are qualified because they meet the scriptural qualifications and hold to the apostolic message, within the gathered community.
My question stays the hinge: where does the New Testament say a post-apostolic succession structure is what makes an elder “qualified” in the first place?
So who appointed the first non-succession elder? Where does scripture even hint that it’s ok that one would be appointed by someone who wasn’t appointed by succession? Do you realize what you’re suggesting? You’re suggesting that Paul’s plan for how Timothy would appoint elders would fail.
So someone from outside the chain of succession one day just decided, hmm, this isn’t working anymore. I think I’ll have to just start my own thing, my own thing that actually is
Faithful to the scriptures, unlike this other group. I hearby appoint myself to be an elder. And while I’m here, I’m also able to appoint future elders.
This is so anti biblical. It is a complete departure from the model set by Paul and Timothy. And the model attested to by every, literally every early christian. And yet you think it isn’t a heresy? Someone in your communion did this at some point.
It’s not a later czntralized structure. It’s the very self same process by which the scriptures show apostles passing their charism to qualified men. Yes they must be qualified…AND they must have hands laid on them by an elder in the church. There is no other way, either demonstrated in scripture, or attested to in church history. Demonstrate otherwise please.
Yes. I am debating the gate that decides what the text means—because a text does nothing on its own. Yes it is God breathed…and it is “useful”… useful means it is employed by people to achieve and to understand things. But it requires a human being to actualize it. Who is the human who decides how to employ scripture that we should submit to?
You’re assuming “unbroken succession” is what makes an elder valid. Scripture never says that.
Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus don’t hang validity on a chain. They hang it on qualification and fidelity to the apostolic teaching. Titus 1 goes straight from “appoint elders” to “here are the qualifications” and “hold firm to the trustworthy word” so they can correct error (Titus 1:5–9). That’s the standard.
And office isn’t self-validating in the NT. Elders can be rebuked (1 Tim 5:19–20). Paul publicly corrected Peter when the gospel was compromised (Gal 2). That means “hands laid” isn’t a magic shield. Fidelity is.
Also, stop with the strawman that I’m advocating self-appointed pastors. I’m not. I’m saying the community recognizes qualified men and holds them accountable to the Word.
Yes, humans read words. No one disputes that. But Scripture is still God-breathed and used for correction (2 Tim 3:16–17), and believers are commanded to test teaching and reject “another gospel” no matter who says it (Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8–9). That only works if the Word can judge leaders too.
Sergio, thank you for your response to my comment! Again, I want to emphasize just how inspiring and true to scripture I find your critique of easy belief-ism and the call to the life of loyalty and faithfulness in Christ as the path of salvation before us. Gets me fired up in the best way!
To answer your excellent question: I think it really comes down to what we think Christianity is—it seems to me modern Christianity (anything flowing downstream of the reformation) sees the faith as something we must be true to by finding it and building it out of our reading of scripture. There is a restorationist angle to this, almost an idea of archeology, like if we could just read scripture properly, then we will be able to build the proper church or practice or way. But this is backwards from the perspective of traditional Christianity (the Orthodox Church). Traditional Christians understand that our faith does not originate in holy scripture, but rather was instituted in men, in the apostles and early followers of Christ. He established the church. And absolutely you are right, we don’t find salvation in an “institution.” Rather, it is found in our being united to Christ, as members of his body, which is the church.
The Orthodox church is no mere human instutution—it is a divine-human organism of which we become part, and thereby find life and healing in Christ. But this body is visible, as are all bodies. It is also united in shared belief—all orthodox hold to the same faith “once delivered to the saints.” We find it wise to follow the lead of those who came one generation after the apostles—how did they understand the church, the bishop, the sacraments. St Ignatius literally said if you aren’t with the bishop you are not with Christ. The sacraments were within the established body, the established family. These are the normative means of grace and participation and of salvation. These are the physical means by which our God chooses to enact our salvation. We see this from the very beginning of the history of the church.
So, is the Christian life a way discerned by properly interpreting a book? Or is it a family into which we are adopted, with unified teaching, and a living tradition that includes the holy scriptures and more? We say the latter.
Does that make sense?
And as a post script, this is not to diminish scripture in the slightest. It is the very word of God and we hold to every single bit of it. It’s just a question of whose interpretation does one submit to?
It really is an interesting topic. I actually have family leaning toward an Orthodox view, so I’m not unfamiliar with it.
The simplest way I can say where I’m coming from is this: institutions built by men are still institutions built by men. I keep coming back to the pre-Constantine era, when the church functioned more like a community than a religious machine—and the Hebrew Scriptures were the guidebook.
And just so you know, I really do appreciate the dialogue—please don’t take my questions as adversarial. My honest question is: where do you see that institutional framework laid out as the way in the New Testament?
Ah, very interesting indeed about your family. My family and I all converted from being lifetime (very committed) evangelicals just a couple years ago. Many of my extended family who I love deeply and am extremely close with are quite baffled, and I get it. Our family had experiences that primed us to receive Orthodoxy, not least of which was living in a majority Orthodox country for a few years and meeting some of the most sanctified, serious, humble and beautiful Christian people we had ever encountered.
I hear what you’re saying about “institutions of men.” But I would just respond that we don’t believe the church is an institution of men. There are fallible men within the church, even wolves in sheep’s clothing, but the church is the mystical body of Christ, the bride of Christ. I have come to believe that the church, (mystically united to Christ), is a divine-human organism worthy of placing faith in, as there are promised made about the church that we can hold to—she is the “ground and pillar of the truth,” and “the gates of hades shall not overcome her.” There was a “faith once delivered to the saints,” not many faiths. St Paul encourages the Thessalonians to “hold fast to the tradition they received, by spoken word and written epistle.” And everyone, 100% of the early Christians we have record of, they all identified the church in the same way the Orthodox do today.
Apostolic succession is a biblical concept, and it is affirmed by the earliest Christians and for all of Christian history up til the reformation. St Paul told Timothy he had laid hands on him, and that he also must lay hands on trustworthy men. When did this chain end? The orthodox today and all early Christians knew that the chain never ended. The early church was conciliar, just like in Acts 15 when they gathered to address the judaising heresy, so the successors of the apostles continued to meet in council during the first millennium.
Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures and worship being the blueprint of foundation of early Christian worship, you are absolutely right. But it isn’t in the way the messianic Jews say. It’s how the Orthodox Church worships. There is outstanding book on this subject I think you’d appreciate—“Orthodox Worship: A living continuity with the synagogue, the temple, and the early church.” By Anstall and Williams.
Finally, my last thought would be related to what I said earlier—as Orthodox we don’t believe the NT is what lays out how every aspect of the church should be established. Rather, we think reading the men who immediately succeeded the apostles is a valid and important way to understand how they viewed the church, and what they learned from the apostles. The church that emerges in the immediate centuries after the apostles is the same body that continues into the post Constantine era, and while there are certainly changes, we don’t believe any of it contradicts scripture, and we believe this body, this family, this one church, which continues today, is the body established by Christ and that scripture’s promises regarding that body have always applied and continue to apply. I hope this is helpful in some way.
Collin,
Seriously, thank you for taking the time to write all of that out. I can tell this isn’t a casual shift for you; it’s something you and your family have thought through and lived through. I respect that.
And I want to be very clear about my tone before I ask anything: these are genuine questions, not “gotcha” questions. I’m not trying to challenge your faith or talk you out of Orthodoxy. I’m not coming at you like an adversary. I’m trying to understand how you’re reasoning, because I value you and I value honest dialogue.
So if you’re willing to keep talking with me, here’s the core question I’m trying to get clarity on.
You said you don’t believe the Church is an institution of men, but a divine-human organism — the mystical Body of Christ — and in that sense “worthy of placing faith in.” I hear what you’re saying. But functionally, how does that operate in history without becoming a man-administered system?
Because the moment you have bishops making binding decisions, councils defining doctrine, a mechanism for determining “orthodox” vs “heresy,” and established liturgies/canons/jurisdictions/discipline, you do have a system. Maybe it’s a system you believe is guided by God — but it’s still carried out by men.
So my honest question is: if it’s not a man-made system, what is the objective difference between a “divine-human organism” and a human institution that sincerely believes it has divine protection? And connected to that: what’s the fail-safe when leaders are wrong — not just “wolves within,” but when the authority structures themselves drift or abuse power?
A few specific places I’d love your clarity:
When you say the Church is “worthy of placing faith in,” what do you mean by faith there? I can trust Messiah completely. But placing faith in an ecclesial structure feels like a category shift. How do you frame that without blurring the line between Christ and His people?
You cited “hold fast to the traditions… spoken and written.” I agree apostolic teaching wasn’t only ink-on-paper. But what’s the criterion for distinguishing apostolic tradition from later development? At what point does “this doesn’t contradict Scripture” become “this is binding with Scripture-level authority”?
On apostolic succession — I agree the concept exists. But does succession guarantee fidelity? In Scripture, holding office never automatically meant truth or purity. What’s the argument that a continuous chain equals a protected transmission of doctrine rather than simply a continuous chain of ordinations?
You mentioned early Christians identified the Church in the same way Orthodoxy does today. I get the point you’re making, but that’s a strong claim. Early sources aren’t perfectly uniform, and the early centuries show real disputes. So when you read the fathers, are they primarily witnesses to how things looked, or authorities that close the question?
I’m not trying to “win” anything here. I’m trying to understand the premise clearly — because right now it can feel like, “the Church is divinely protected, therefore the Church’s later form is trustworthy.” And I’m trying to see how you ground that without it turning into a circular argument.
If you’re willing, I’d genuinely appreciate your thoughts.
I’m happy to discuss, and thanks for your heart in all this. I hope I come across with the same generosity—ok I know I don’t haha…but to give a shot at your questions:
I suppose there are many many times when local bodies of the church have actually functioned for some amount of time, or at any given time, as an institution of men. Meaning, specific orthodox people and specific orthodox communities have failed to demonstrate all aspects of the true faith at times. But the overall church has been preserved in its theology and doctrine and in its structure and practice to be the true and one mystical body of Christ. The received wisdom of the church can be trusted as God given. The results of the ecumenical councils, the liturgy, the prayers, all that has been received by the whole Orthodox Church, and her communion of saints…yes, it is carried out by men, but it is divine-human. The divine keeps the humans moving in the right direction. The saints live the life of God. Just as the scriptures were written by men, with divine inspiration, so we believe the councils were executed by men with divine inspiration, and the liturgy was produced the same way, etc. Earlier you wrote “institutions built by men are still institutions built by men.” How about this, “books written by men are still books written by men.” False. Divine inspiration makes both the holy scriptures and the holy church more than just human products.
As for what is binding…I suppose the answer there is what is in the liturgy, what is in the hymns, what is in the creed, those things affirmed by ecumenical councils, and those things affirmed by the whole church. You are safe to follow these. And, we are bound by obedience to follow the bishops appointed over us. This is tricky because of course the very first thing as Americans we jump to is “but what if the bishop is a heretic!? What if they are corrupt?!” Well it might be better for your soul to humbly obey and pray, knowing God loves mankind and will judge you for your actions, while your bishop will be held to account for his heresy or error. Or…there is also the way of the saints and martyrs, who often took a holy stand against error. But 1) they were saints and better than me, and in a better position to judge than me. And 2) they made their principled stand, and then accepted the consequences, martyrdom, torture, whatever the case was. They didn’t just start a new denomination. They knew by faith that God would guide his true church through all.
Regarding faith in an institution. Yes, in one sense we have faith in the output of orthodoxy, the religion. The councils, the liturgy, the hymns, the universally accepted teaching/consensus of the fathers, etc. But on a larger scale, our faith in the church is actually one and the same as our faith in Christ. If the church is mystically united to Christ, if it is Christ’s very body, then our faith in Christ and in the church are one in the same. Granted, the individual members of the church are not worthy of our faith. But the sum total of the true church, the true body of Christ, absolutely. Those
Regarding succession: As orthodox, we know that a simple chain of transmission does not guarantee fidelity. Apostolic succession requires both—the laying on of hands by one who had hand laid on them, and back to the apostles…AND the transmission of the true faith. The Roman Catholics have criteria 1, but not criteria 2. They departed the faith by introducing many novelties and heresies. But criteria 1 is always required for apostolic succession.
As for the fathers, right you are, there were many disagreements and different approaches toward certain practices and doctrine…but not as major as you might think. And the ones who departed were often excommunicated—think Origin, and Tertulian who fell into heretical sects. Or Arius, who fell into heresy and almost pulled the whole church with him but for Athanasius and the council of nicea. (Of course these three are not saints to us.) The Holy Spirit preserves his church and the true church is marked not only by what every father taught individually, but more so by the consensus of the fathers, and that which is received by the church and withstands the test of time. This is an article of faith. That the family is still the family, and is protected—it is united to Christ and he preserves her.
One last thing, on an experiential level—it is so good for my soul to begin valuing obedience, and trusting in the church in a way I never have before (because the church was constantly innovating and even when it wasn’t, prayers were free lance and performative). When I go home from liturgy, I don’t find myself judging like I used to. Now I know I’m in the true church, it has been tested and approved over 2000 years. It isn’t some recent Bible college graduate’s attempt at a worship song, or the 1 hour long sermon of some puffed up (or maybe well intentioned but misled) preacher. I go home having partaken of the true body and blood of Christ, and my soul is at peace like never before and I’m being transformed like never before. So thankful that I found the fullness of Christ in the Holy Orthodox Church
Collin — I hear what you’re saying, and I respect the heart behind it. I’m also genuinely glad you’ve found peace and stability in the liturgy and community.
I just can’t get all the way to your conclusion, and here’s why.
For me, the “rule” has to stay Scripture-first. Not because I’m trying to be contrarian, and not because I’m trying to be “more Jewish” than anyone else — but because I’ve watched, over and over, how sincere men can drift, and then defend the drift by reading their later framework back into the text. Once a system exists, it tends to protect itself.
That “reading back into Scripture” issue is a big part of where I’m stuck. John 6 is a perfect example. The chapter explicitly sits in a Passover frame, and yet it’s often treated as if it’s mainly a later communion doctrine proof-text. I’m not denying the Table or the meaning of it. I’m saying the context matters: Passover, Exodus, covenant, manna, and Messiah as the true bread from heaven. When we flatten that into “this is simply about the Eucharist as the essential mechanism,” it feels like theology is driving the reading instead of the text driving the theology.
And that ties into my broader question: what did the church do before 300 AD? Before Constantine. Before councils had empire behind them. Before a formalized clerical system could enforce “received” outcomes.
When I read the New Testament, the earliest Jesus-movement is unmistakably Jewish in soil and shape: they’re worshiping the God of Israel, reasoning from Torah and the Prophets, and following Messiah as the promised King. Even when Gentiles are brought in, the logic is “grafted in,” not “replacement.” That matters to me because it suggests the early community wasn’t guided by a later institutional center of gravity — it was guided by Scripture, the Spirit, and covenant life.
So when you say, “The councils, liturgy, hymns, and episcopal obedience are what keep you safe,” I’m not denying those can be beautiful or beneficial. I’m saying I don’t see the New Testament making those things the boundary line of salvation or the defining proof of “the true Church.” I see Messiah as the boundary line. Repentance, faithfulness, love, endurance, and obedience to His teachings as the marks. And leaders as servants within the body, not a gate the body must pass through to be “real.”
I’m open to being sharpened, but this is my honest hang-up: I don’t see Jesus instituting a salvation-access system that requires later councils and institutional succession to validate it. I see a family, centered on Messiah, anchored to Scripture, and guarded by the Spirit — long before the post-Constantine world made “church” feel like an empire with paperwork.
I really do appreciate the dialogue, and I’m not treating you like an adversary. If you can show me in the text where Messiah or the apostles lay out that later institutional framework as the authoritative line, I’ll read it carefully.
And you are still supposing the Bible gives us the church…it doesn’t. The church gave us the Bible and it can only be understood within the Spirit led life of the church. The very family, the very church that has existed since the beginning. The one that hasn’t been schism’d away from.
Collin, I hear you, but that statement is exactly the circular move I’m pushing back on.
Yes, the ekklesia existed before the NT canon was finalized. But the earliest “church” didn’t create its Bible. It inherited the Hebrew Scriptures from Israel and lived inside them. And when the New Testament shows the ekklesia resolving a major doctrinal dispute, the template is Acts 15. That was the pre-Constantine community, Jewish in leadership and framework, dealing with Gentiles being grafted in. And the resolution wasn’t “you can only understand Scripture inside our later institution.” It was collective discernment, apostolic witness, and an explicit appeal to the written Scriptures as the measuring rod. James literally grounds the decision in the prophets.
So I’m not denying the Spirit-led life of the community. I’m saying the New Testament’s own model is that the Spirit leads the community through the Word, not around it, and not above it.
Also, “unschism’d away from” can’t be the definition of the true ekklesia, because the apostolic era itself had serious internal disputes, corrections, and boundary-setting. Unity matters, but unity in Messiah and the apostolic gospel, not unity as a self-authenticating institutional claim.
So here’s the hinge question again, now sharper: if Acts 15 is the New Testament pattern for how the Spirit-led ekklesia handles disputes, where does the New Testament teach a later shift to your claim that only the “unschism’d” institution can interpret Scripture correctly, and that Scripture can no longer function as the judge of the community?
Acts 15 = ecumenical councils
Acts 15 shows how the apostles and elders settled a dispute by Scripture and the Spirit. It doesn’t grant later councils apostolic-level authority or place their interpretations beyond correction by the Word.
Sorry…
I don't understand, what difference does it make which way you interpret when it is all made up anyway. One person's view is as valid as another. Someone explain?
Another attempt to destroy God’s Grace. You demand things from people, God has not demanded and does not ask from you.
If you’re confident I’m demanding more than God does, just open the Bible and show me where Jesus saves people He does not also command to repent, obey, and follow Him.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.--- John 5:24
You condemn yourself and others by having a works based doctrine. We turn to God and confess Jesus as our Lord. You have turned into slavery for life, instead of being set free.
It’s not works based. But your “works” naturally follow your faithfulness to Christ and what he’s called us to become, a new creation. Dead to old self without Him.
When we truly abide in Christ, we stop sinning, perhaps not entirely but we transform like Sergio explained.
You cannot tell me, you are saved but continue to sin and your life represents the sameness it did before you accepted Him.
Go reread Paul’s letter to Romans.
I've read Romans.
Romans plainly teaches that you cannot mix works with grace.
Do you sin?
Yes, you do.
According to James, if you try to keep the whole law and fail on one point you have broken the whole law. That means your little sins you allow are just as bad as murder.
Stop acting like you are saving yourself, or not sinning.
This notion is false. You sin, in thought and deed. In omission and commission.
I can tell you that i am saved and continue in sin, because that is a fact, and what the Word teaches.
Yes, we change. Yes, we grow. But you and I are still sinners saved by Grace. You are not better than anyone.
Look at the parable of the pharisee and the sinner praying. Luke 18:9-14
Which are you?
Chris — I’m not preaching self-salvation. I’m saying what the text says: grace saves, and the saved are commanded to repent and follow.
John 5:24 is true. But you’re isolating it from the same Jesus who says, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15), “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11), and “Why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). Paul agrees: we’re saved by grace for obedience (Eph 2:8–10), and grace trains us to deny ungodliness (Titus 2:11–14).
James isn’t your escape hatch. James is warning against selective obedience and hypocrisy not giving permission to settle into ongoing rebellion. And Romans doesn’t teach “saved and continue in sin” as a lifestyle; it explicitly asks that question and rejects it: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means” (Rom 6:1–2). If someone claims Christ while making peace with sin, John calls that a lie (1 John 2:3–6; 3:6–10).
So no I’m not saying believers reach sinless perfection. I am saying the Bible does not describe salvation as “I’m saved, therefore I continue in sin.” It describes salvation as deliverance from sin’s dominion, a new heart, and a life of repentance and obedience flowing from faith.
As for Luke 18: I’m not the Pharisee boasting in myself. I’m the man who knows he needs mercy and because I need mercy, I refuse to turn grace into a permission slip to stay the same.
Nothing convinces me more of of how pernicious mainstream Christianity has become than its ability to cause its adherents to reach the opposite conclusion of a Bible text than that which the inspired author is making. Not just wrong…opposite.
James 2:10 is the quintessential example. The “if-you-break-ONE-law-you-break-them-all” was not an arguement to despair, followed by license to jettison the law altogether due to it being an impossible standard.
James’ point was…don't break the ONE.
The ubiquitous Christian read is “not only can I break one, I need not worry myself about breaking any of them” because, what the hey, “if I break one, I break them all.”
No wonder James' couches his comment on preparing us for [the] judgement. At least someone is. Christianity, as commonly understood, is not.
Well said!
I just don’t get you people.
Jesus stood against the pharisees, religious leaders who were ‘Saved” in the covenant but demanded obedience to the law for salvation.
Paul stood against pharisees who demanded the same thing.
John plainly states in 1 John that you sin. If you say you don’t, you are a liar, and the Word (Jesus) is not in you.
You fight so hard against people who pray to receive Christ, and trust God to save them. People who fail and sin, but have nothing else but Jesus Christ and His promises to save them.
You pat yourselves on the back that you are so perfect, like the pharisees, and cannot even see your own wickedness.
You say John 5:24 is true, but I isolate it?
There are tons of verses that say the same thing. Are they isolated too?
Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, John 3:16,
Do you sin?
Yes you do.
So, you don’t love Jesus. (John 14:15)
For people who believe in works, they must keep from sinning to prove they love Jesus.
But, I don’t have to do that because I am a sinner, saved by His grace. I don’t lie and claim to love Him while sinning. I’m not saved by loving Him.
You say “Go and sin no more.” ignoring the fact that she probably sinned again.
Do you sin?
You say “You call me Lord Lord,”
But, ignore the fact that the people in the verse are relying on their mighty works. Not the Lord’s grace. And He said “Depart from me I NEVER KNEW YOU. because they never confessed Him as Lord or turned to Him or trusted in His grace. They trusted in works.
Paul plainly says in Romans that if you mix grace with works you destroy God’s grace.
I just don’t understand why believers want to act like pharisees.
The Pharisees are plainly shown as an enemy to Christ. People who obey the law and think it proves their holiness or salvation. While ignoring that it is the promise of God that saves them.
You Might try reading Philippians 2:12 where Paul says they should “work out their salvation…”. Believe what you want but, no one is instantly saved, no matter what you’ve been told. Those who have been Baptized, have been “justified” by their faith, but that’s just the beginning. Salvation is a journey of faithful obedience to God, abiding in Christ’s teachings and His commands, seeking union with the Father. If one rejects God, there is no salvation. If one’s “faith” has produced no fruit/works of obedience, they must not have really believed and Christ will say, “I did not know you”. When true believers face God’s judgement, it won’t be for sinning, Christ already made that sacrifice. The true believers will be judged on their faithfulness.
Do you sin?
You are not faithful. Obviously.
Why lie and pretend you are?
Give it to God. Be real.
'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" is talking about sanctification, not earning or keeping or holding onto your salvation.
We get saved, and have the Holy Spirit. God works with us to break us and mold us into who He wants us to be. We are already saved. But, He has begun a work in us and will finish it. That is the work, referred to in the verse. Not salvation itself, but working with God within your salvation.
You cannot mix grace and works. It destroys God's Grace. (Romans 11:6)
This is actually the "Marrow Controversy" of the Puritan days. Look it up. Good "proper" discussion.
Allen, you just made me buy another book. My wife's going to be upset with me. :)
It seems to be a similar discussion. But, since the participants are from denominations with questionable views. I cannot say for sure. The Roman catholic church and the Protestant churches which come from it, hold views which taint the real Gospel.
I spent 20 years in the Independent Fundamental Baptist church. During that time, I was taught that salvation comes by grace through faith, and that once saved, always saved. I fully agree with both of those truths. However, I was never taught to honestly examine my faith or question the condition of my salvation. As a result, I spent two decades living in unrepentant sin, believing that grace alone was enough. I honestly believed that I was a carnal Christian (100% carnal & 100% Christian), and while grace is indeed sufficient for salvation, what I lacked was obedience and evidence of a transformed life. Eventually, I came to realize that I wasn’t truly saved as there was no fruit of salvation in my life. Today, I still stumble, but I am quick to repent and strive to live in accordance with God’s moral law, not to earn salvation, but as the natural outworking of it.
Boy, you sure check off all the boxes. Good job. Well written.
And It sounds like you are sooooo proud of your ability to obey.
Oh you stumble sometimes....rarely I'm sure.
So, proud of your ability to be Holy Holy Holy.
Am I right?
So, proud.....
I'm reminded of Isaiah, a prophet of God. He probably obeyed perfectly. I mean he was chosen and used mightily by God.
But, when he entered God's presence, He cried out "I am undone!! I am a man of unclean lips, from a people of unclean lips!!"
No pride. He saw the truth of his wretchedness. Truth that he was not aware of.
And that's what i am saying. i don't care how obedient you think you are. Or how perfect you believe you are being. You aren't.
It's only by Jesus and the Holy Spirit that you can even lift up your eyes toward God.
James said that if you try to keep the law and fail on one point you have broken the whole law.
So, when you say "I still stumble" You should actually say '"I broke the whole law." It's not a stumble. It is wretched sin. And the fact that you do not realize that, is the problem I am speaking of.
I break God’s law every day. I have sinned grievously against a holy and righteous God. Left to myself, I am unclean, and my righteousness is nothing more than filthy rags before Him. Scripture is unmistakable: “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). This is not a comparison between myself and my neighbor, as though moral ranking could justify anyone. The standard is not man. The standard is God Himself.
The moral law is not arbitrary. It reveals the very nature and character of God. “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Romans 7:12). When the law exposes my sin, it is doing exactly what God intended it to do: showing me who He is and who I am not. Like the prophet Isaiah, I must confess, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips” (Isaiah 6:5). The law does not exist so that I may reshape God into my preferences, but so that I might be reshaped into His image.
Therefore, I come as clay, not as the potter. “But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand” (Isaiah 64:8). I am not attempting to redefine righteousness or lower God’s standards to ease my conscience. I am submitting myself to be molded by Him, conformed to His will, His holiness, and His truth. As Scripture declares, “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” (Romans 9:20).
The apostle Paul understood this posture well. Even after his conversion, he did not exalt himself. Instead, he wrote, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). Paul did not deny the law or excuse his past. He acknowledged that the law revealed his sin, yet he rejoiced that grace triumphed through Christ. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Romans 5:20).
This is the heart of true repentance and faith. Not self-righteousness. Not comparison. Not tradition. But honest submission before a holy God, confessing our sin, trusting in Christ alone, and allowing the Spirit to conform us into the image of the Son. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16).
Salome
Perfectly written.
My thing is that there are TONS of Christians who are just like the pharisees in Jesus day.
They are Soooo obedient.
They love Jesus and even sing songs to prove it.
But, the Bible is clear that many will stand before him on that day, and be surprised because they missed it. They were so focused on being good and obedient, they missed Jesus and missed that He is the only way. HE IS the straight way. Not obedience. We do not obey.
Pharisees like to use this verse to prove that other people won’t be saved. You know, those people who follow the prosperity gospel…
But, this verse actually condemns works.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”—- Matt. 7:21-23
Notice they relied on their works. Not on their relationship with Jesus, because they never really knew Him.
The Bible is full of verses speaking of people surprised when they stand before Him and being lost.
I’m trying to prevent that and get people to realize they are only saved by Christ, not by works. Its simple, but sooooo hard. To just give it to Him, and trust Him.