94 | Debating Holiness Standards: Is the Gospel Being Distorted? With Luke Beets and Nathan Mayo - Podcast4Him

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jonathan Rich (00:00):
We want to thank you for listening to , where we
apply scriptural principles toeveryday Christian lives.
I'm your host, Jonathan Rich.
Sean is actually out sicktonight, so I will be helping
moderate the debate.
For the last few weeks, we'vebeen promoting this debate
between Nathan Mayo and LukeBeetz regarding holiness

(00:20):
standards and doctrines and, ofcourse, the time has now come
for that debate to begin.
We want to sincerely thankeveryone who has expressed
interest in the debate, forevery one of the questions, the
comments that were submitted,for all the shares, the likes,
the feedbacks.
We are honored to have a smallpart in aiming to moderate this
debate with the best of ourability.

(00:42):
With that, we understand thatit comes with different
challenges, some not so friendlymessages, people wondering why
we're even hosting the debate.
Several have challenged ourdesire to see lost saved simply
because they believeconversations like this are
detrimental or not helpful tothe church, to which our
response is that we believe thatyou can do something for Christ

(01:05):
in reaching the lost, whilealso having civil conversation
and debate regarding principles,doctrines as well as traditions
.
The worst thing you can do, webelieve, is hide behind your
beliefs without explanation ordesire to help others see the
truth.
Of course, we've spoken withboth debaters tonight and have
expressed to them that we desirethat this debate does remain

(01:28):
civil, not a shouting match orgotcha moments, necessarily, but
to be Christ-like in all thatwe do.
And, with that said, we alsowant to let them know that we
want them to bring it.
We want each of our speakers tostay firm, to disagree when
needed, bring it.
We want each of our speakers tostay firm, to disagree when
needed and to even challenge oneanother.
This debate very well could getheated at times, but we believe

(01:51):
that iron sharpens iron.
We believe that the best way toproduce diamonds is to go
through fire and to go throughpressure.
We also want to take a momentto say that not everything that
is expressed in this debate fromeither participant is
reflective of this podcast.
There will be things we agreeon from both parties and there
will likely be things that wedisagree on from both parties,

(02:15):
but our desire is to remainbalanced, fair and unbiased.
With all that said, we'd liketo share with you our debate
resolution guidelines, and thenwe will begin.
The resolution to be debated isprescriptive.
Standards of dress andentertainment as taught in the
holiness movement distort abiblical understanding of the

(02:39):
gospel.
Nathan will be taking theaffirmative position in that
resolution to be debated.
We'll begin with introductionsand then opening statements.
Each opening statement will be10 minutes long per participant.
From then we will have ourfirst rebuttal round, which we
will also have a time limit of10 minutes per participant, and

(03:00):
then a second rebuttal round tofollow, which will have a time
limit of five minutes perparticipant.
Once complete, we'll have across-examination round that
will be a 15-minute total roundwhere each participant will
speak or give a response.
We actually have one here for90 seconds, but obviously that
will be controlled by theparticipants within the

(03:21):
cross-examination round.
After that we will shareaudience questions.
We will have three totalquestions that will be answered
at a time limit of three minutesper participant and then, at
the conclusion of this debate,each participant will have
closing statements for twominutes each and we will end the
debate and the podcast.

(03:42):
We will have a timer for eachround and speaker.
I ask that you bear with me asI alternate between the timer,
speaking questions andmoderating, so if there is a
period somewhere in this podcastwhere there is some sort of a
longer pause, that is why,between the going back and going
forth, so with that said andgoing forth, so with that said,

(04:11):
what I want to do is I want tohave Luke Beetz just give a
small introduction, tell us whohe is, where he's from, things
like that, and then what we'lldo is from there we'll go to
Nathan's introduction and then,once Nathan is completed
introducing himself, we willallow him to give his opening
statement to begin.
So, brother Luke, tell us whoyou are, tell us a little bit

(04:31):
about yourself.

Luke Beets (04:33):
Yes, sir.
First I would like to say thankyou to The Every Day Christian
Podcast for hosting the debate.
Thank you to Nathan Mayo forbeing on the front of the
reading.
It's an important debate.
My name is Luke Beats.
I'm a college campus preacher.
I was a mailman for 13 yearsand a youth pastor for 13 years.

(04:56):
Four years ago God called meand my family to resign our job
at the post office, resign ourposition at the church, still
attend that church about sixweeks out of the year.
Otherwise we're on the roadsomewhere in America.
I was raised in a veryconservative holiness Assembly
of God church.

(05:17):
It's the oldest Assembly of Godchurch in that part of East
Texas.
The two closest fellowshippingchurches that we would
fellowship with are about twohours away on both sides.
So we're in the middle ofnowhere.
But as a young man, seven yearsold, got saved, I was called to
preach.
When I was seven I had a pastorbelieve to your call to preach,

(05:38):
you ought to preach.
So I preached my first messagewhen I was seven.
I don't have an excuse for notbeing any better preacher than I
am, but oh well, I do my best.
No, but we love what God hascalled us to do to reach out to
college students.
Appreciate the opportunity tograduate from Ozark Bible
Institute for your degree.

(05:59):
Ozark Bible Institute and I'mrepeating myself, but I really
appreciate the opportunity Ihave tonight.

Yes, sir, it's funny because I was in choir and
I think I might have stayedwith your family when we came
and visited your church, and Ican tell you it is a very, very
small town.
So I agree with what you saidthere.

Nathan Mayo (06:22):
And then, brother Nathan, if you could give us an
introduction of yourself, andthen, if you'd like to begin
your opening statement for thisdebate, sure thing.
Well, it's certainly a pleasureto be here.
I appreciate the opportunity toparticipate in this Luke for
helping make this happen and, ofcourse, The Every Day Christian
Podcast.
My name is Nathan Mayo.
I grew up independentPentecostal holiness in North

(06:44):
Alabama.
That's where I was not quiteborn but raised and spent my
growing up years.
There were a lot of good thingsthat came out of that
background, a lot of things Iliked, but there were also some
things that I saw some issueswith over time and even more
looking back.
But out of there, I left tojoin the Army.
I have a degree in economicsfrom West Point, was in the Army
for a total of nine years andthen my wife and I went to be

(07:06):
missionaries in Haiti for acouple of years.
So we saw some you know very,very serious poverty and also
some some very powerfulinstances of God moving and
helping people in a developingcountry and in a church that
looks a little different fromthe church in the US but then
again has a whole lot in common.
In a church that looks a littledifferent from the church in
the U?
S but then again has a wholelot in common.
So after that experience, uhcame to work in my current job,

(07:29):
where I am a director ofprograms for a nonprofit that
helps churches and nonprofitsworking with people in poverty
to make their ministries moreempowering.
So my day job is serving thepoor, albeit a little bit
indirectly, and in that processI co-founded Berean Holiness.
It's a hobby for me.
So in the process of doing thatand sharing some of what we

(07:52):
share, I've learned a lotactually about cousin movements
of the holiness group that Igrew up in.
Groups like the non-Pentecostalconservative holiness had no
idea they existed when I was akid and now they think that I've
left their movement and I'm,you know, trying to tear down
their movement that I had neverheard of before I started out.
But no, it's a privilege to dothis.

(08:12):
It's not my day job, it's oneof a few side ministries that
I'm involved in, but it'simportant and I appreciate the
opportunity to have thisdiscussion here today.
So that's my introduction.
If you want to get the timer upand ready, then I am happy to
present the affirmative case andkick this off.
Today's resolution is thatprescriptive standards of dress

(08:33):
and entertainment, as taught inthe holiness movement distort a
biblical understanding of thegospel At Berean Holiness.
Some of our most populararticles have addressed the lack
of scriptural support that wesee for the standards taught by
the broader holiness movement.
These standards areinconsistent.
They frequently change withoutexplanation or retraction of
previous positions.
They vary from region to regionand from one subgroup to

(08:55):
another.
That makes it quite easy topoint out the flaws in the logic
and the proof texts.
Almost all of these standardsare prohibitions, and most of
these standards are about dressand entertainment, ostensibly
because these are the areas oflife easiest to regulate by
personal appearance.
There are prohibitions onbeards, jewelry, even open-toed
shoes, despite the fact that allof these things are

(09:16):
affirmatively supported inScripture.
There are prohibitions on shortsleeves, tv playing cards,
contemporary Christian music,high heels, despite the fact
that these things are notaddressed in Scripture at all.
There are prohibitions ontattoos and makeup based on
passing references in the OldTestament that are stretched
into generalized prohibitions.
While I do have the burden ofproof for today's resolution, if

(09:39):
Luke wants to defend theseprohibitions, he still carries a
scriptural burden of proof todo so.
But it is fair to ask who caresIf people want to follow these
extra rules, regardless ofwhether they're quite in
scripture.
Why not just leave them alone?
Well, first off, we don't forceour content on anyone.
We don't actually protestoutside of their churches with
cardboard signs, as somebodyfrom this movement did at one of

(10:01):
our events.
But we do analyze theirteachings to those who choose to
listen and, frankly, I'd rathernot even do that.
As I mentioned, I'm just avolunteer with a day job.
I'd rather spend my eveningwith my two adorable little
girls and I used to have thatexact mentality of they're good
people.
Who cares what they believe onthese little issues.
But then I started to see theyoung people that I had grown up

(10:23):
with in the church go off andreally go off the rails, and I
started to see that there wassomething fundamentally
unhealthy about the doctrinewhich was tied to these
prescriptive standards.
Now, I say prescriptivestandards because these aren't
merely personal convictions thatone chooses freely to follow.
They are prescribed or requiredfor others to follow, and in
their prescription theyunintentionally distort the

(10:45):
gospel message itself.
And in their prescription theyunintentionally distort the
gospel message itself.
Before I discuss how, let'squickly recap the gospel as it
appears in Ephesians 2.
But God who is rich, in mercyfor his great love, wherewith he
loved us even when we were deadin sins, hath quickened us
together with Christ, for bygrace ye are saved through faith
, and that not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not ofworks, lest any man should boast

(11:07):
, for we are his worksmanship,created in Christ Jesus unto
good works which God hasordained beforehand that we
should walk in them.
So we're dead.
Christ offers legal pardon.
We accept by grace alone,through faith alone in Christ
alone, resulting in good works,unity with all believers and
love for a lost world.
So how do these standardsdistort the central teachings of

(11:29):
Christendom?
I'll give you three ways.
Number one the gospel producesworks of love.
Prescriptive standards produceworks of appearance.
The gospel produces works oflove.
Prescriptive standards works ofappearance.
I just said that works dofollow from salvation as a part
of the gospel message.
But what works?
The Bible doesn't leave us inthe dark about this.

(11:51):
Let's look at the examples theBible actually gives.
James 2, the classicconversation on faith and works
in scripture, gives someexamples Loving your neighbor,
not showing favoritism to therich, feeding the hungry,
abraham offering Isaac at God'scommand and Rahab hiding the
spies.
Jesus in Matthew 25, talksabout what separates the sheep
from the goats on the day ofjudgment Feeding the hungry,

(12:13):
loving the stranger, clothingthe naked, visiting the sick and
imprisoned.
The fruit of the Spirit comesto mind Love, joy, peace,
long-suffering, gentleness,goodness, faith, meekness,
temperance.
How come it is when a holinesspreacher lists the marks of the
believer and unbeliever, italways sounds like a list of
things not to wear and placesnot to go.
And yet the biblical passageson the fruits of good and evil

(12:35):
tend not to address appearanceand entertainment at all, much
less list out wearing earrings,dyeing hair, painting nails,
watching ball games and wearinga pair of Bermuda shorts.
The Bible says you shall knowthem by their fruit, and it
teaches us what that fruit isApples, pears, bananas, love,
joy, peace.
The holiness movement scrubsthat out and replaces it with a
new list of fruit Skirts, nojewelry, no TV.

(12:57):
It's like training a fruitinspector that he should be
looking for Doritos in anorchard, which has an additional
impact by confusing theevidences of salvation.
Prescriptive standards confusepeople about who is saved.
That causes people to questionthe salvation of many saints,
often including themselves, ifthey struggle to comply with the
extra-biblical standards or asktoo many questions for the

(13:20):
preacher's comfort.
It also causes them not torecognize sinners in their own
churches, including their ownchildren in many cases, because
it turns out that the unredeemedcan follow a dress code.
The second point I have is thatthe gospel unifies all
believers and prescriptivestandards isolate tribes.
The gospel unifies,prescriptive standards isolate.

(13:40):
The good news of scripture isabout the salvation of the
individual, but it's also aboutthe redemption of the collective
.
It puts us not only in rightrelationship with God but also
with other humans.
It's about love.
It's about unity.
It's about cooperation,primarily within the church for
the purpose of winning thoseoutside the church.
Unity of believers forevangelism of the lost.

(14:03):
Prescriptive standardsundermine both.
In 15 plus years I spent in fourseparate holiness churches.
I never once participated inany event where we so much as
met any of the other churches intown.
There was certainly never anyeffort made to partner in any
way with non-holiness believersbecause to do so would grant
them legitimacy and underminethe prescriptive standards.

(14:24):
I can't help but notice inLuke's introduction he mentioned
that the two churches theyfellowshiped were two hours away
in both directions, but I'llbet those weren't the only
churches that were on that drive.
As for evangelism, I heardpeople say if God wants folks to
be saved he'll bring them inthe church doors.
I saw no serious evangelisticefforts and just about the only

(14:44):
people who ever got saved wereex-holiness folks.
Now I did hear about someexceptions to the rule.
Luke is one of them, and goodfor him.
But even for the occasionalperson who cared enough to
evangelize, it turns out thatthe prescriptive standards of
dress and entertainment were asignificant deterrent.
The fact is that God's messagealready strains the
comprehension of the unbeliever.
So when you add long sleeves insouthern gospel music as

(15:06):
additional stipulations forrighteousness, you have placed
stumbling blocks at the narrowgate.
The third reason that I have isthat the gospel says Christ
makes us holy.
Prescriptive standards saywe're saved by grace but we're
kept by works.
Holiness preachers have toteach people to cultivate
orchards full of Dorito trees.
They don't grow naturally, soif Doritos are on a tree it's

(15:29):
because somebody stapled them on.
One requires unnaturaltechniques to produce synthetic
fruits.
Techniques like peer pressure,insistence on constantly being
around other holiness peopleoffering spiritual prizes like
second and third blessings asreward for compliance, emotional
and story-driven sermonsavoiding exegetical Bible study
like the plague.
But the main one is fear.

(15:51):
Fear of missing heaven.
I'd rather make heaven by amile than miss it by an inch.
Lord, I'm running trying tomake 199 and a half on due.
That fear replaces the securityoffered in the finished work of
Christ with the doctrine ofonce saved, never saved.
On this view, any sin at anypoint will separate us eternally
from God.
If unconfessed, but evenholiness folks know they can't

(16:14):
really meet God's standard onsins of omission.
After all, to him that knowethto do good and doeth it not, to
him, it is sin.
So instead they just focus on achecklist of things that are
much easier to control Shaveyour whiskers, don't dye your
hair, never show your knees oryour elbows.
Then you will be safe.
The funny thing is that theBible doesn't talk about anyone
missing heaven by an inch.
It compares those who make itand those who don't to sheep and

(16:38):
goats, crimson and white treeswith fruit and trees without.
Have you ever seen a sheep thatwas an inch away from being a
goat?
When the Bible talks about therighteous and unrighteous, it's
just as binary as when it talksabout male and female.
But when holiness people talkabout righteousness, it's always
a fluid spectrum.
There are no accounts ofJudgment Day, in which people

(16:59):
almost make it in and just missthe cut.
If you've put your trust inJesus, you're perfect.
You're wearing a weddinggarment that you could never
make on your own in a millionyears.
If you're not with Jesus,everything you do is filthy rags
.
In summary, the gospel focuseson works of love.
Prescriptive standards focus onoutward appearance.

(17:20):
The gospel unifies believers.
Prescriptive standards isolatebelievers from each other and
the lost.
The gospel relies on Christ forspiritual security.
Prescriptive standards rely onever-changing checklists.
In the next speech, it's Luke'sjob to tell you why these
particular points I raise areall untrue, as they are all
independent.
If anyone is true, then I havesustained the resolution.

(17:41):
For all of these reasons, I notonly believe that prescriptive
standards of dress andentertainment, as taught in the
holiness movement, areunbiblical, but also that they
actively distort people'sunderstanding of the gospel.
God's word does not benefitfrom our additions.
Thank you.

Nathan and Luke, your opening statement.
Okay, and Luke your openingstatement.

Luke Beets (18:09):
Okay, before I do any type of rebuttal, what I
really will need to do is givesome clarification on what I am
defending.
First off, I would say I'm notdefending everything that's ever
been taught in a holinesschurch, or any church for that
matter.
That would not work Really.

(18:31):
The final authority for theChristian in all things is the
Bible.
Through the Bible we haveaccess to the very mind of God
and therefore we are not left towonder or question what is
correct or false, but we canknow with certainty what is true
.
Regardless, or regarding thestated resolution of this debate

(18:51):
, prescriptive standards ofdress and entertainment, as
taught in the holiness movement,distort a biblical
understanding of the gospel.
Regarding that resolution, fourthings I believe must be
established if we were to cometo the truth on this topic.
First, what does it mean todistort?
Second, what is the gospel?

(19:12):
Third, how do we appropriatethe gospel?
Four, what is the differencebetween holiness and
righteousness?
Now, first off, what does itmean to distort?
Merriam-webster's Dictionarydefines that word.
To distort defines that totwist out of the true meaning or
proportion, to alter or to givea false or unnatural picture or

(19:34):
account of.
So what is the gospel?
Paul gets probably the mostconcise description of the
gospel in 1 Corinthians, chapter15, 1 through 4, where he says
of the gospel in 1 Corinthians,chapter 15, 1 through 4, where
he says Moreover, brethren, Ideclare unto you the gospel
which I preached unto you, whichalso you have received and
wherein ye stand by, which alsoyou are saved if you keep in

(19:54):
memory what I preached unto you,unless you have believed in
vain, for I delivered unto youfirst of all that which I also
received, how that Christ diedfor our sins, according to the
scriptures, and that he wasburied and that he arose again
the third day.
According to the scripture, thegospel is the death, burial,

(20:23):
resurrection of Jesus Christ,the Son of God and God in the
flesh, for the sins of allmankind.
How do we appropriate or how dowe apply this to ourselves?
How do we benefit from thegospel Acts, chapter number
three, verse 19, says repent ye,therefore, and be converted,
that your sins may be blottedout when the times of refreshing
shall come from the presence ofthe Lord.
Romans, chapter 10, verse eightand nine.
But what saith it?

(20:43):
The word is not even in thymouth and in thine heart.
That is the word of faith,which we preach, that if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth theLord Jesus and shalt believe in
thine heart, excuse me, thatGod hath raised him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved.
We are commanded, if we are toappropriate the gospel.
We are commanded to repent ofour sins, confess our faith in

(21:05):
Jesus as our Lord and believe inhis death, burial and
resurrection as the only paymentfor our past sins.
At this point we are justified.
Now the term justification isthe legal term, which means to
declare righteous.
In our day, we're more loosewith our terms and we'll use
words like saved, which it isused in Scripture.

(21:27):
Really, the word saved orsalvation is more of an
all-encompassing word thatcovers justification,
sanctification and glorification, as it would be incorrect to
say that all these thingstranspire in the same instant.
We have to be more specific ifwe wish to be accurate.
Therefore, at the instant ofrepentance and faith, we are
justified Romans, chapter 5,verse 1,.

(21:50):
Therefore, being justified byfaith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus ChristRomans, chapter 4, verse 24 and
25,.
But for us also, to whom itshall be imputed, if we believe
on him, that raised up Jesus,our Lord, from the dead, who was
delivered for our offenses andwas raised again for our
justification.
For by grace you are saved.

(22:12):
Ephesians, chapter 2, verse 8and 9.
For by grace are you saved,through faith, and that not
yourself.
It is a gift of God, not ofworks, lest any man should boast
.
Justification is accomplishedcompletely on the grounds of
grace, through faith.
We are made right with Godsolely by what Christ did for us
and not in any way by anythingwe do or have done.

(22:34):
In justification, all our pastsins are removed and laid on
Christ and His righteousness isimputed, ascribed, reckoned as
belonging to us.
So what's the differencebetween holiness and
righteousness?
If that is the gospel, if thegospel is the death, burial,

(22:55):
resurrection of Jesus Christ onthe behalf of mankind, I
appropriate the gospel, I makeit mine, I receive it by
repentance and faith in JesusChrist and what he did alone.
Then what is the difference inholiness and righteousness?
Nathan made the statement andsaid that we are made holy at

(23:16):
the point of salvation orjustification.
I would differ somewhat there,but I would say there's a
difference between holiness andrighteousness.
That salvation, thatjustification, righteousness is
imputed.
The righteousness of Christ isimputed to me.
But, as stated earlier, theBible is absolutely clear that

(23:38):
we are made righteous.
We are declared to be righteousby faith in what Jesus did for
us on the cross.
However, this is the beginningof a journey and not the
entirety.
The Bible is also very clearthat if we were to remain
righteous, we are commanded tolive righteously or in obedience
to God.
First John, chapter three, verseseven little children, let no

(23:59):
man deceive you.
He that doeth righteousness isrighteous even as he is
righteous.
He that committed sins of thedevil for the devil sinneth from
the beginning.
For this purpose the Son of Godwas manifested, that he might
destroy the works of the devil.
In this the children of God aremanifest and the children of
the devil.
Whosoever doeth notrighteousness is not of God,

(24:21):
neither he that loveth not hisbrother.
2 Peter 3, verse 14.
Wherefore, beloved, seeing thatye look for such things, be
diligent that ye may be foundwith him in peace, without spot
and blameless.
Philippians 2, verse 15.
That ye may be blameless andharmless the sons of God without
rebuke, in the midst of acrooked and perverse nation

(24:41):
among whom also ye shine aslights in the world.
1 John 2, verse 6.
He that saith he abideth in himought himself also so to walk
even as he walked.
How did Jesus walk?
1 Peter, chapter 2, verse 21and 22.
For even hereunto were yecalled because Christ also

(25:03):
suffered for us, leaving us anexample that ye should follow in
his steps, who did no sin.
Neither was guile found in hismouth.
This is the life that we arecalled to walk If we are to
remain righteous or in rightrelationship with God.
A life free of sin and obedientto God is and obedience to God

(25:26):
is commanded.
Therefore, righteousness iswhat we do.
Again, what's the distinction ofholiness and righteousness?
Righteousness is what we do.
On the other hand, holiness isa state of being.
It is what we are called to be.
1 Thessalonians, chapter 4,verse 7.
For God has not called us untouncleanness but unto holiness.

(25:48):
Hebrews, chapter 12, verse 10.
For they, verily, for a fewdays, chastened us after their
own pleasure, but he for ourprofit, that we might be
partakers of his holiness.
1 Peter, chapter 1, verse 16.
Because it is written be yeholy, for I am holy Biblically,
I'm made holy, I'm sanctified byGod, by God, by the blood of

(26:10):
Jesus, by faith Hebrews 13, 12,.
Wherefore Jesus also, that hemight sanctify the people with
his own blood, suffered withoutthe gate, verse number 20,.
Now, the God of peace thatbrought again from the dead our
Lord Jesus Christ, that greatshepherd of the sheep, the blood
of the everlasting covenant,make you perfect in every good
work to do his will, working inyou that which is well-pleasing

(26:32):
in his sight, through JesusChrist, to whom be glory forever
and ever.
Amen.
1 Thessalonians, chapter 5,verse 23.
And the very God of peace,sanctify or make you holy.
Sanctify you holy, w-h-o-l-l-y,and I pray God, your whole
spirit and soul and body bepreserved, blameless, under the

(26:53):
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We're given a great clue rightthere, but to move on quickly 1
Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse24,.
Faithfully see that call of youwho also will do it.
One who calls you to be holywill do this.
At justification, all my pastsins are forgiven and I'm
declared righteous.
At sanctification, I am madeholy and free from my carnal

(27:14):
nature as it is crucified andput to death.
Romans, chapter six, versenumber six.
Knowing this, that our old manis crucified with him, that the
body of sin might be destroyed,that henceforth we should not
serve sin, I am not holy becauseof what I do.
I am because what I do or don'tdo, rather, I'm holy because

(27:35):
God made me holy and I live arighteous life because God
sanctified me.
Now, the very key thing I needto just right here in closing,
make that point I am not, and asa holiness believer, I do not
believe I am holy because I keepmy hair cut short.
As a man, as a woman, theywouldn't wear, you know, they

(27:55):
would not cut their hair.
That's not why we're holy.
We are holy because God makesus holy makes sense.
According to Leviticus 20, 26,the Bible says that even under
the Old Testament law, godcalled Israel to live righteous
because they had been separatedby God.

Yeah, we're going to enter into our first debate,
our first rebuttal round here,and I want to obviously toss
this over to Nathan and have hisresponse there to Luke's
opening statement and somethingthat he had mentioned, and I
want to obviously get your takeon this.
I know I'm kind of putting someof the pressure on here, but he

(28:35):
did mention Romans 12, 1, whereit says I beseech you,
therefore, brethren, by themercies of God, that you present
your bodies a living sacrificewholly acceptable to God, which
is your reasonable service.
As you're rebutting this, wouldyou mind giving your
interpretation or your thoughtson that scripture that he
mentioned?

My pleasure.
So I am here to make the casethat prescriptive standards of
dress and entertainment, astaught in the holiness movement,
distort a biblicalunderstanding of the gospel,
that people who sit under theteachings of this movement
frequently walk away with aclear list of rules to follow
but misunderstand criticalaspects of the gospel aspects of

(29:27):
the gospel, in fact.
Over 500 people answered ourannual survey and expressed that
holiness teachings confuse themabout the gospel for all of the
reasons I already mentioned.
Now let me point out to youthat you can self-identify as a
holiness person, you can believein a second blessing of perfect
sanctification or any of theother distinctives of the
holiness subgroup, and you couldstill agree with me about the
unhealthy effect of teaching theparticular standards of dress

(29:49):
and entertainment that arecurrently in vogue in the
holiness movement.
Furthermore, I've presentedthree arguments so far, all of
which are logically independentof each other.
If anyone is true, then theresolution stands.
Luke's job here today is totell you why all of my arguments
are wrong, because I'm here touphold the resolution.
I've said a lot to uphold italready.
So far he hasn't responded toany of it.

(30:11):
He has one more opportunity todo so and I have a pretty
limited window to respond to himafter that.
A lot of the things Luke saidabout the gospel I couldn't
agree with more.
I mean, most of it was straightout of God's Word, just reading
Scripture.
So yay and amen is what I haveto say to that.
There are certainly some thingsin there that I would differ

(30:31):
with and I'll bring that backaround in the round, but we do
seem to agree on the whole thatsalvation is by grace alone,
through faith alone in Christalone, resulting in good works
of some kind.
What kind can be discussed?
Unity with all believers andlove for a lost and dying world.
Before I defend my previousthree points, allow me to add

(30:52):
one new one.
My new point, the fourth one Iwould add into this round, is
that the gospel reproducesthrough discipleship and
prescriptive standards destroydiscipleship.
A biblical understanding of thegospel requires discipleship,
but prescriptive standardsdestroy discipleship.
A biblical understanding of thegospel requires discipleship,
but prescriptive standards workagainst it, because discipleship
is the slow, relational processof teaching other believers to

(31:15):
be more like Christ.
Christians learn to apply God'sword to their lives and to
their conduct.
They learn to follow God'scommands, sensitize their
consciences and observe theeffect of their actions on other
believers so as not to createstumbling blocks, commands,
consciences and effect.
Remember that that's going tobe important later.
That's how they end updeveloping genuine personal

(31:37):
convictions that actually differfrom the believers to their
left and right.
That is what we see in Romans14, where believers in the same
body were practicing differentthings and Paul said that was
okay, because these were mattersof conviction and not matters
of prescription in God's Word.
Contrast that with man-madeprescriptive standards, which
seem like discipleship onsteroids, you get overnight

(31:58):
results.
People go from looking immatureto looking mature in a very
short time.
The problem is that, likesteroids, rules eventually
destroy your health and yourability to create muscle or
spiritual strength throughnatural processes.
Here's how.
One of the main ways youdisciple is by teaching people
how to study scripture verse byverse in context.

(32:20):
But since prescriptivestandards can't be found from
rightly dividing the word oftruth, people have to be taught
to actively mishandle scripture.
Additionally, one of the mainways that you help people stay
away from sin is by sensitizingtheir consciences.
But prescriptive standards tellpeople to dismiss their
consciences and listen to thepreacher.
But all this comes at a greatcost.

(32:41):
Remember how I said that mostof the rules are about dress and
entertainment.
So there are massive swaths oflife, like marriage and
parenting and money management,where there are very few rules
and very little fruit, becausepeople aren't mature disciples.
My friends, there is no placethat is safe from temptation.
Even a church pew can be ahotbed of gossip and bitterness.

(33:04):
So when holiness preachers keptfolks out of amusement parks
but failed to disciple them,they didn't end up with a safer
flock, they ended up with asorry one.
Now I'm going to recap thepoints that I have already
provided and I'm going to focuson the things that Luke has said
about it.
He hasn't addressed themdirectly, but some of them he's
said some things about inpassing, so I'm going to try to

(33:25):
respond to that, because it's myjob to defend these points.
That's why I'm here today.
The first point that I sharedis that the gospel produced
works of love, and prescriptivestandards produce works of
appearance.
Now, as you pointed out,jonathan, romans 12.1 talks
about offering our bodies aliving sacrifice holy and
acceptable to God.
Now that still leaves open thequestion of where did the

(33:46):
holiness come from?
I would submit the holinesscame from God, but works are a
part of the gospel.
They are a fruit of salvation.
That is not in dispute in thisround.
But don't allow this conflationof the word holiness with these
arbitrary and fickle standardsto confuse you, because that's
just not what we see in theBible when we see the fruits of

(34:07):
the believer.
My friends, baptists aren't theonly ones who baptize, and
holiness sure aren't the onlyones who are holy.
Go, do a biblical word searchon holiness.
Whenever it is accompanied bycommands, the most common one is
to avoid sexual immorality.
The one that never appears isdyeing your hair or painting
your toenails, along with all ofthe other holiness dress codes.

(34:30):
Now Luke says that he doesn'twant to defend every standard
that's ever been taught.
I appreciate that I understandyou couldn't and frankly, they
change so often, how could youeven keep up with them.
But what I think that you dohave a burden to do if you want
to disprove the resolution, ifyou don't want to just agree
with me on this is that thiswhole system of all of these
changing rules is fundamentallyconfusing people about what the

(34:54):
fruits of a believer are.
And you've talked about,essentially, this doctrine of,
maybe, perfect sanctification.
Again, you can believe inperfect sanctification and you
can still say, well, theevidences of perfect
sanctification.
Again, you can believe inperfect sanctification and you
can still say, well, theevidence is of perfect
sanctification would be thefruit of the Spirit and the
holiness standards have to betied in to this whole idea.

(35:16):
I just don't see that inScripture and so far Luke hasn't
given us any reason to believeit's in Scripture.
He has said that he would onlydefend standards that are in
fact in Scripture and Iappreciate that that standard
that he's coming from.
That's how I would look at ittoo.
But when you start trying todefend a standard like beards
being wrong, that one is sohidden in Scripture that God's

(35:37):
Son himself didn't even catchthat standard when he was here
on Earth, it is really hard todefend that standard just based
on Scripture.
So he's going to have to go to.
Well, your preacher hasauthority, he's going to have to
go to other things.
But I don't think these things,biblically, are correct and I
do think that these thingsconfuse people about the gospel.
The second point that I broughtout is that the gospel unifies

(35:58):
all believers.
Prescriptive standards isolatetribes.
Part of the gospel is theeffect of the gospel, the
significance.
Now I agree.
Death, burial, resurrection ofChrist, you know, imputed
righteousness, all this, orimputed holiness, we'll get to
that in a second.
That's all great.
I couldn't agree more.
At the same time, there's animpact and the impact is we're
all brothers and sisters inChrist if we are sharing, if

(36:21):
we're one in his body.
Christ's body is not dividedright.
So we shouldn't see isolatedtribes.
Now, maybe people will gather,sometimes for different purposes
, because they agree on this orthat.
That's one question.
But whether or not we are justnot fellowshipping any churches
within a two-hour radius becauseof our prescriptive standards,
that's a whole different issue.

(36:41):
So that's on the second point.
Again, luke didn't say muchabout it at this point.
The third point that I broughtout is that the gospel says
Christ makes us holy.
Prescriptive standards saywe're saved by grace, kept by
works.
Now Luke does have a littlemore to say about this.
I'm going to submit to you thatsanctification is a gift
through the sacrifice of Christ.

(37:02):
It's actually not something weearn through the gritting of our
teeth and the grinding of ourgears.
Hebrews 10.10 says we aresanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ oncefor all.
Hebrews 10.14,.
For by one offering he hathperfected forever them that are
sanctified.
Sanctification is a work donein all believers through grace

(37:23):
alone, just like salvation.
Yes, jesus said we needed to beperfect, like God is perfect.
He also said that for us, firstworld rich folks, to get to
heaven is like a camel gettingthrough the eye of a needle.
He said with man, this isimpossible.
But he didn't leave it there.
He said with God, all thingsare possible.
Then he did it for us.
Don't miss the point.
Jesus makes us perfect, wedon't make ourselves perfect.

(37:46):
Now Luke brings out this kind ofinteresting distinction between
holiness and righteousness.
Okay, he's saying these thingsare different.
Now he read passages aboutbelievers being different from
the world, and he's you know, heread passages that said anyone
who sins is of the devil.
Great, I agree.
I agree.
And he's emphasizing my pointthat the distinctions between

(38:08):
Christians and non-Christiansare very binary in Scripture.
It's not like oh, a lot of youguys are right on the edge and
sometimes you're of the deviland sometimes you're of God.
It's this very black and white.
There's the world and there'sthe church.
How do we know which camp we'rein?
Well, it's by believing inChrist.
It's justification,sanctification, all these things
through faith.

(38:28):
Now Luke has made a distinctionhere between holiness and
righteousness.
I gotta admit that's one I'venever heard.
So props to you for originality.
I don't know how much of acompliment originality is when
it comes to theology, but thefact is, in my observation the
Bible uses a lot of differentwords to describe the same thing
or very similar things.

(38:49):
It does this exactly, so wedon't end up making silly
distinctions where there is nodifference.
Jesus tells a parable threedifferent ways, back to back to
back, about, you know, the lostsheep, the lost son, the lost
coin, to emphasize a point.
So we don't get too caught upin the particulars.
So I would make the case offthe cuff here that I think
holiness and righteousness aresimilar or identical.

(39:09):
But I don't think it reallymatters to the round because he
still has to prove that theseholiness standards are an
acceptable thing to add in asevidences of the holiness or the
righteousness, whichever oneyou're calling it.
So he's saying there's thisjourney after you're saved.
I don't think the Biblesupports that.
A very quick look at Romans 5,which is a great chapter to look
at if you want to talk gospel517, we're going to see

(39:32):
righteousness used not just assomething we earn but as
something that's given to us.
For if by one man's offensedeath reigned by one talking
about Adam, much more will theyreceive abundance of grace and
the gift of righteousness shallreign in life by one.
Righteousness is a gift.
We see in scripture Sounds alot like justification.
Therefore, as by the offense ofone judgment came upon all men

(39:55):
to condemnation, even so, by therighteousness of one, the free
gift came upon all men untojustification.
So justification is called agift.
For as by one man'sdisobedience many were made
sinners, so by the obedience ofone shall many be made righteous
.
The obedience of how many?
The obedience of one, theobedience of Jesus Christ, made
us righteous.
It also justified us.

(40:16):
Making a distinction betweenthose words is not supported in
Scripture and is also irrelevantto today's resolution.

Luke Beets (40:32):
Brother Luke, your response to that?
Yes, sir, Sorry, I was tryingto get my mute button turned off
.
It wasn't wanting to go off forme First let me point out and
respond to what Nathan saidright there.
Why do I make a distinctionbetween holiness and
righteousness?
I would make the distinctionbecause one of the easiest
places is there's quite a fewothers, but a very easy place

(40:56):
just to show it real quick isgoing to be in Revelation,
chapter 22, verses 11 and 12.
It's not original to me.
The Bible says he that isunjust, let's not original to me
.
The Bible is going to say thathe that is unjust, let him be
unjust still.
He which is filthy, let him befilthy still.
He that is righteous, let himbe righteous still.

(41:19):
And he that is holy, let him beholy still.
You're going to find in a lotof Paul's opening statements.
He will discuss those who arebelievers, that are righteous,
and then those that are saints.
So a saint should be asanctified person.
Now a few things I do want torespond to and give an argument
against and push back on to whatNathan was saying.
First of all, you try which Iwould say it's a false dichotomy

(41:42):
to say that whenever you makethe statement that love the
gospel, produces love, asopposed to appearance, obedience
or obedience to outwardstandards Not a direct quote
readily admit that, just yeah,kind of summary right there.
I would say that really that'snot entirely a false dichotomy,

(42:05):
but it is in a sense.
If you try and say that thislove is something we're showing
just to other people, the Biblesays in Matthew, chapter 22 and
37, jesus tells us the first andgreat commandment is to love
the Lord, your God, with allyour soul and I'm going to
probably butcher the entireperfect quotation of it, but
we're to love God first andforemost.

(42:27):
I thought I had that pulled upand I do.
Jesus said unto him Thou shaltlove the Lord, thy God, with all
thy heart and with all thy souland with all thy mind.
So yes, I agree that the firstand the greatest of all the
evidences of being righteousit's the same one for being holy

(42:49):
it's not.
As much as I agree with givingto the poor and as much as I
agree that it's the church'sresponsibility to reach out to
physical needs, I alsounderstand that before I can
ever reach out to anyone, I mustfirst love my God first and
foremost.

(43:09):
So the standard of obedience oradhering to an outward standard
will be very blatant, becauseI'm doing my best to show my
love to God first.
It does not matter.
At least Paul's trying toremember.
Right now.
I believe it's 1 Corinthians 13.
I believe it is where Paultalks about if he gives all to

(43:33):
the poor, if he were to do allof these things but he didn't
have love of him.
He goes to oh man, I don't havethat one pulled up and I should
have it pulled up.
But he goes to El Litany andthen talks about love and I
would say that the love he'sdescribing there is love toward
God.
If I don't love God first andforemost, then everything else I
do doesn't matter.
False religions can show greatpiety in the sense of their

(44:01):
charitable donations, and I'mnot against that.
But I would say, first andforemost, we must walk in
obedience to God and it is Godwho commands us that we are to
live as salt and light, lightdefinitely being something
someone could see.
Now you said in your openingstatement that for most of the

(44:28):
opening statement, that for mostof the like, you said most of
the standards that there's notreally any scriptural backing.
But I'm taking you didn't usethe word most.
You said for these standardsthere's no scriptural backing.
But then you turned rightaround and you said even though
they're not based on anyscripture.
They're based on scripture thatmust be stretched, based on any
scripture.
They're based on scripture thatmust be stretched.

(44:48):
But you can't have it both ways.
Either there is no scripturepart whatsoever, as you stated,
or there is scripture and inyour opinion it has to be
stretched, but you can't saythere's no scripture and then
say, well, there's scripturethat must be stretched.
You can't do that, it doesn'twork.
Now you mentioned Matthew,chapter 25, and you said now see
, this is evidence of he'stalking about charity.
Again, nothing wrong withcharity, but in Matthew 25,

(45:16):
excuse me, christ would talkabout that.
As many as you have done thisto the least of these, my
brethren.
Now, unless you're going toignore the fact that Jesus never
once says that all of the worldare brothers in Christ, unless
you're going to ignore the factthat Jesus specifically looks at
a sinful world and says to thereligious leaders especially
you're of your father, the devil.
And then you'll find inEphesians, chapter 2, that the

(45:37):
Bible speaks of those who arethe children of disobedience
that we were in times past, notanymore, or the children of
disobedience that we were intimes past, not anymore.
Unless you're going to ignoreall of this and say that Jesus
is just giving a blanketstatement that you show you're
saved by giving money to thepoor and that's how you do it.
In order to do that you have todisregard so much of Scripture.

(45:59):
Jesus is speaking right thereof how Gentile nations would
deal with the Jewish nation.
I understand it gets a littlebit into eschatology, but if
we're going to interpret thisyou have to deal with who are
the brethren he's speaking there.
Either Jesus is saying thewhole world is brothers in
Christ, which would deny what hesaid in quite a few other
places, or he's speaking of theJewish nation and not individual

(46:22):
Christians, but Gentile nationsand their response to the Jews.
Also, you keep trying to make itsound like holiness teaching
says we are made holy by what wedo.
We're not saying that.
That is not at all what webelieve.
We don't.
And again, if we're going toreally debate the point the

(46:43):
point being that holinessstandards distort the gospel the
question is do we, as holinesspeople?
The true question would be dowe, as holiness people, distort
the gospel by saying you mustlive right if you are saved?
Now, if we were to say, if wewere to say we are saved because
we do right, that that is whatsaves us.

(47:05):
Then you would be right and Iwould be right there standing
with you saying that is adistortion of the gospel.
I talk to Catholics on a dailybasis who will say they are
saved by grace and their works.
That's a distortion of thegospel.
The Holy Church does not, doesnot ever get up and say I am a
Christian because I, as a man,have short hair.

(47:28):
No holiness preacher has evergot up and said I am made right
with God.
That's the gospel.
The gospel is justification byfaith, through grace, faith in
the death, burial resurrectionof Jesus Christ.
That's how Paul defined it.
To say that we distort thegospel would be to say that we
are teaching people that you areright with God, that this is

(47:50):
what makes you righteous.
That's what the gospel is.
You're made right because youdid this, this and this.
No, the Holy Church does that.
And unless you can produceanyone and even if you did,
there's going to be every Idon't know of any holiness
preacher that would not stand upright there with you and say
that man's wrong.

(48:10):
It is false to take the premiseand say that holiness standards
distort the gospel.
It is even to distort thepremise of the debate to say
that we distort the gospelbecause we say after you're
saved, it produces a differentproof than what you're saying.
It should that.

(48:32):
Even if we said it's not goingto produce love, but rather it's
going to produce outwardstandards which that's not what
any of us would argue, not inits entirety.
We would say it's love for Godfirst which will produce a life
of righteousness, a life free ofsin.
Would say it's love for Godfirst which will produce a life
of righteousness, a life free ofsin.
That's not a distortion of thegospel, unless we're saying that
in order to become a Christianyou must become sinless first.

(48:52):
That, yeah, wouldn't fit thetopic we're discussing Now.
Even with that, I do want tomake mention because, again, if
we're looking at distortions ofthe gospel, what I have to
refute is that premise thatyou're starting with.
I don't really have to refuteall of your arguments.

(49:13):
I'm going to go with theundercurrent of what—I'm a
presuppositionalist, by the way.
I work on a college campus, soI'm going to go at your
presupposition.
Your presupposition isstandards make the gospel cause
the distortion of the gospel.
To say that something isrequired of a Christian distorts
the gospel.
Now I would refute that.

(49:34):
If you look in Acts, chapternumber 15, you're going to see
this exact topic dealt with ingreat specificity.
Acts 15, paul gets there andwe're trying to breathe through
this because I'm almost out oftime.
But Paul gets there, theJerusalem Council, the Pharisees
are saying you've got to keepthe law of Moses and you have to
be circumcised.

(49:55):
The church talks about it,there's discussion about it.
Peter says we're saved by graceand faith Verse 11,.
But we believe through thegrace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
we shall be saved, even as theydo, and Gentile right there.
But then James makes this point.
James says it gives a quotefrom the Old Testament.
You pick up in verse 17, forthe sake of time, that the

(50:17):
resume of men must seek the Lordand all the Gentiles upon upon
whom my name is called.
Saith the Lord who doeth allthese things.
I'm sorry, let's, let's getdown.
Skip down to verse 19.
Wherefore my sentence is mysentence is that we trouble them
not from among the Gentilesthat are turned to God, but that
we write unto them that theyabstain from pollutions of idols

(50:38):
and from fornications and fromthings strangled and from blood.
James makes the point, he makesthe comment and he says this is
required of Christians.
So, james, according to yourstance, he added something to
the gospel?
No, he didn't.
He just said there are stillrequirements on the Christians.

(50:58):
Not what saves you, but youmust do this to stay saved.

And Brother Nathan, you've got five minutes
for.

Okay.
So at this point Luke hasstarted to bring some actual
argumentation to the round,which I appreciate.
Do wish he had brought some ofthat in his first speech.
However, let me address acouple of fair points.
Am I saying that standardsstretch scripture or that there
is no scripture?
That's a totally fair point.
Well, at the outset of my firstspeech, I listed out different
standards and I said some ofthese have no scripture Beards,

(51:33):
high-heeled shoes, things likethat.
Some of them have stretchscripture, tattoos, makeup.
So you're correct, I couldn'tsay both things about the same
standard at the same time, butgiven that there are a lot of
different standards, there aredifferent problems with the
different standards.
The real question that we havebefore us today is does the
gospel have any implicationsother than just you're saved,

(51:56):
justified, for six seconds andthen for the rest of time you
have to earn your getting intoheaven or you're getting into
the rapture or whatever we'regoing to award you as a prize
for living in this righteous way, which is different from
holiness in Luke's mind, right?
I'm submitting that the gospelis the implications of the death
, burial and resurrection ofChrist, which means we receive,
if you want to call,justification and holiness and

(52:18):
righteousness different things.
Very well, you're wrong.
We get them all.
You can separate them or youput them in a package, it
doesn't matter, we get the wholepackage right.
That's what the passage ofscripture in Romans 5 actually
taught, and Luke is trying tomake this distinction between
holy and righteous, or sorry.
Yeah, holy and righteous.
I'm pointing out that the Bibleuses a lot of words for the same

(52:40):
thing.
This is basic Bible reading 101.
When the Bible says that wehave a heart, a soul, a mind, a
spirit and bowels, and it usesthem all interchangeably.
Go read the Psalms.
Go read Psalm 119, where thepsalmist says roughly the same
thing.
In 150-odd verses, the Bibleuses different words to describe
the same thing.
Let me give you an illustrationof this, which was our proof

(53:02):
text for why holiness andrighteousness are different
things.
He that is unjust, let him beunjust still.
He which is filthy, let him befilthy still.
That's repetition.
That's using two words for thesame thing.
There's not a separate categoryfor the unjust and the filthy,
and then he keeps going.
He that is righteous, let himbe righteous still.
He that is holy, let him beholy still.
There's not filthy and unholyand holy and righteous as four

(53:24):
different categories of sinnersand saints.
There are righteous andunrighteous.
Okay, that's the biblicalstandard.
But putting all that aside, whatI'm pointing out is that this
is messing up people on thegospel, because the holiness
movement will stay a thousandmiles away from the charge of
legalism.
It'll say we would never saythat you have to do works in

(53:45):
order to get saved.
You just have to do works inorder to stay.
Saved, that's when the workscome in Okay.
Saved, that's when the workscome in Okay.
But then what works?
Well, it's both, and it's allthe things the Bible says, plus
all the things we added in.
I think it's pretty funny thatwe have a holiness preacher here
who came to a debate onstandards and is unwilling to

(54:07):
defend the standards.
You're just saying that well,it's a both and, and you have to
live righteous and you have tolive holy.
You're just assuming that allof these standards are
righteousness and holiness.
That's a pretty bold claim tomake.
So let me put the question toyou.
My audience, my pastor, askedthis question to a Jehovah's
Witness when you put your headon your pillow at night, have

(54:29):
you ever wondered if you've doneenough to make God happy and
get into heaven.
The Jehovah's Witness repliedevery night.
Then my pastor explained the suand I put this question to you
Do you ever wonder if you'vedone enough?
If you do, then you may beExhibit A of a distorted

(54:53):
understanding of the gospel.
The holiness movement generallyhas better teaching than the
Jehovah's Witness, but yourunderstanding of the gospel
might be closer to a cult'steaching than to the word of God
.
So here's a closing challengefor you.
Luke says these standards arein Scripture.
Judge for yourselves, Pick astandard that you're interested
in.
Go, research every argument youcan think of.

(55:14):
Read an article I've writtenabout it.
See if your arguments hold.
The second thing I wouldchallenge you to do is go find
some non-holiness believers whoare involved in all of these.
You know service to the sick,the orphan, the prisoner and
lost.
And yes, I agree with Luke, weshould prioritize believers in
our service.
But that's the real work of thebeliever, the fruit of the
Spirit as well, not just givingto the poor, it's the fruit of
the Spirit as well.
Go do some service alongsidethem, Try to convert them to

(55:38):
holiness if you like, but gomeet them.
You may just find that theirlives are more convicting to you
than yours is to them.
The fruits of the holinessmovement are division and
stagnation.
It's a tiny splinter of theglobal church, divided against
itself.
None of the main subgroups eventalk to each other other than
when they're attacking Berean.

(55:58):
It's time to reunite with theold paths, to refocus on
disciple-making, careful studyof God's word and unity with the
church across the street, thereal fruits of the real gospel,
as Paul said in Galatians, areyou so foolish, Having begun in
the spirit, are you now madeperfect by the flesh In your?
And, Brother Luke, you canrespond to that.

I wanted to add just something.
I again just kind of add inflavor and a little bit of
pressure.
A little bit of pressure.
Brother Luke, do you believe ordo you think that personal
convictions have been confusedwith biblical standards as well
and guidelines, and do you thinkthat that has caused many, at
the very least, to lose trust inthe holiness movement?

Luke Beets (56:51):
I think there's always a tendency.
I think there's always atendency, there can always be a
tendency to I don't know.
It's a good question.
I have to think through how toanswer that.
I think some people probablyhave.
I mean, again, I would notdefend everything that's ever

(57:12):
been preached from a holinesspulpit.
I mean I wouldn't expect Nathanto defend everything that's
been preached from anynon-Holmes pulpit.
So have there been people thatprobably have, Maybe.
I mean, I don't know rightoffhand, but possibly.
But to get back to what Nathanhad said, you keep trying to
paint this really in a way thatgets away from the very
resolution.

(57:33):
It's not you saying there's aHolmes preacher here that won't
deal with standards.
That's not what we came todebate.
You picked, in fact you worded,the very resolution we're
debating and the resolution wasdoes prescriptive holiness
standards distort the gospel?
That's your choice of aresolution.
That's not the one I offered.
You offered that resolution.
So I don't have to go intoevery standard, not if I'm going

(57:56):
to be true to the resolution.
If I'm going to be true to theresolution, what I'm supposed to
do is defend that.
Just because we have an outwardstandard which is biblical,
just because we have an outwardstandard that doesn't distort
the gospel.
For me to do otherwise would befor me to run away from the
very resolution you presented.

(58:16):
Now you also have made thecomment again and again and
again that there's no differencebetween holiness and
righteousness.
Now, if that's true, which Idisagree with, who is making
holiness worse?
Not me.
The Bible specifically says hethat doeth righteousness, that's

(58:42):
works.
He that doeth righteousness isrighteous.
So if righteousness, after weare declared righteous by God,
is what we do, and if holinessand righteousness are one and
the same, then you are the onewho makes righteousness works,
not me.
God gives us His nature,defining His nature as God is

(59:06):
holy.
He never gives His nature asGod is righteous.
It's all God, the angels.
When they cry around the throneof heaven, they say holy, holy,
holy.
They don't say righteous,righteous, righteous.
There's a big reason for that.
Some people want to say well,no, the nature of God is love.
The problem with that is, Godspeaks of his hatred toward
sinners, and I believe it'sPsalms chapter 7, Psalms chapter

(59:27):
5, Romans chapter 9, I believethere are three of them.
There are deals with God'shatred toward the sinner.
There's, I believe, one more inRevelation.
But anyway, if God's nature wassimply love, then you couldn't
have God having hatred towardthe wicked.
It wouldn't work and thatsounds harsh in our day man.
God has hate, but if we havehis nature as holy again not
righteous but holy then you canhave a holy hatred that God has,

(59:51):
that he loves.
He has love for all the worldJohn 3, 16, but yet at the same
time he has love and hate,because his hatred is not an
unholy hatred, it's a holyhatred you can have.
God can do that, we can't.
I'm commanded not to hateanyone, but God does a lot of
things.
I'm commanding you because he'sGod.
He's the arbiter of what isright and wrong.

(01:00:13):
Again, just to reboot real quickon those two things you're the
one who makes holiness works,not me.
When you say righteousness andholiness are one and the same,
when you say there's nodifference, you deny Scripture
in quite a few places there, butthat's okay, that's okay.
You're the one who's trying togo away from really the

(01:00:39):
resolution you gave for thisdebate in trying to—you've yet
to show that the holiness church, having holiness standards,
distorts the gospel it doesn't.
And you've yet to show that ittwists it all.
Now again, if you were to saythat the whole entirety of the
holiness movement said you aresaved, because this is what
makes you righteous, then youwould have an argument.
But you have to even try andmake that argument because

(01:01:02):
there's no way to make thatargument.
To say that holiness standardsdistorts the gospel is to say
that we would believe that'swhat makes us right with God.
We don't.
And also, in our very closingmoment, I need to deal with what
you're saying, that we have towork to keep ourselves safe.
That's not what I'm saying whenI say you have to live sinless.
The Bible says that it's Godthat does this.

(01:01:22):
Philippians, chapter 2 andverse 15 says we are to be
blameless and harmless to sonsof God, without rebuke, in the
midst of a crooked and perversenation among whom we shine as
lights in the world.
If you go back one or twoverses, you're going to see how
we do this.
It's not that we as homelesspeople believe that we keep
ourselves sinless.
Not at all.
It's God that does it.

(01:01:43):
You'll find this right here,verse 13.
For it is God which worketh inyou both to will and to do of
his good pleasure.

Jonathan Rich (01:01:50):
I gave one more earlier my time's up.

Luke Beets (01:01:52):
I know you said about 20 seconds.
In Hebrews, chapter 13, verse21,.
The Bible says it's God thatwill make me perfect in every
good work to do his will.
So how do I live sinless andobedient to God?
God does it and I just get toenjoy the benefit.

What we're going to do is we're going to go into
the next round of this, whichwill be cross-examination.
Obviously, nathan, if you wantto respond to some of the things
that Luke said in that round,feel free to do so.
This is sort of a I wouldn'tsay free-for-all, but obviously
I want you both to ask, respondhowever you see fit.

(01:02:34):
I'm going to set a 15-minutetimer for this.
You guys obviously have aconversation with this
cross-examination.
We'll start with Nathan, if youhave a question or a response
to that, and we'll go ahead andstart this timer off.

Nathan Mayo (01:02:48):
Okay.
So it sounds like, Luke, wemight actually agree on a lot of
things and that's great.
It sounds like you're notsaying that our behavior after
salvation is going toimmediately call our
heaven-bound status intoquestion.
But I get a lot of people thatare writing in to me who are not
understanding that from theirholiness preacher.
They're saying things like Iviewed God as unpleasable.

(01:03:10):
Despite my constant striving todo what I thought pleased him.
It was never enough.
There was always another,another quote.
So I ask the question to youand maybe we agree, and I'd love

(01:03:41):
to agree here If we sin aftersalvation, let's say we commit
the sin of unthankfulness and wedie immediately after
committing that sin, withouttime to specifically repent of
it, do we go to heaven in yourunderstanding?

No, I do not believe that one sin will make it into
heaven.
I believe the distinction thatI'm going to give you, though
just real quick, is inRevelation, chapter 2 and 3,
you're going to find, it's notthat a person loses their
salvation as soon as they commitone sin.
It is rather that they refuseto repent of their sin.

(01:04:15):
So yeah, if a person dieswithout repenting of sin, they
go to hell.

So I said, now you're saying if they refuse to
repent of their sin, what ifthey sin?
Let's just say a bus is comingat you and you have an
ungrateful thought as that busis coming at you, and then the
bus hits you.
What then?

Whose fault is it that they sinned?
Is it God's fault, and does heowe them time to repent, or is
it rather that they rebelledagainst God?
Remember Isaiah.
The Bible says that you willhear a voice behind you telling
you when to turn to the left andwhen to the right.
It's a simple way, the Biblesays.
It's so easy that a way for aman, though a fool, shall not

(01:04:55):
err therein.
You're almost putting the blameon God that they sinned.

Yeah, no, my whole thing is Luke.
I'm just saying that ourrighteousness is imputed by
Christ.
That's how I understand thegospel.
So after all the conversationabout us not disagreeing on the
gospel, it seems like we reallydo have a difference.
So let me ask you this you saidthat God, you're making this
distinction betweenrighteousness and holiness.
You said God's character isn'trighteousness.

(01:05:21):
That's never said about God.
I haven't flipped through a lotof scriptures here Romans 4,
even the right Romans, sorry.
Romans 3, 22,.
Even the righteousness of God,which is by faith of Jesus
Christ, unto all and upon allthat believe, and that's one
reference the righteousness toGod, his righteousness that he

(01:05:46):
is just and the justifier ofthose who believe in Jesus.
God is called righteous.
So how can you make adistinction that God is holy but
not righteous when there areverses like that in Scripture?

I'm glad you gave me a chance to clarify.
I don't remember trying to setthose that oppose each other.
What I said was His nature isholy.
I would agree.
He has many attributes.
He has the attribute of mercy,of grace, of justice, of wrath,
of righteousness, of love, ofhate.
He has all these attributeswhich would make up his
character, which would be pointsof his character, but his

(01:06:18):
character is not his base,nature, at base.
What is god?
He is different from everythingelse in creation.
Nothing else in creation isholy.
Nothing is holy whereas god is.
It is that which makes himdistinct from everything else.
I'm not saying God is notrighteous, I'm saying that's not
his nature.

(01:06:38):
And if there is a distinctionmade in Scripture of the two,
then there is a distinction.

All right, there are a lot of distinctions you
make.
So let me ask you this, nowthat I know from you that our
salvation is in question atevery single second of every
single day, because anungrateful thought will send us
to hell.
Okay, so that's good to know.
Now, standards can always bemore strict.
Turtlenecks cover more thanstandard collars.
The Amish have a lot ofstandards the holiness haven't

(01:07:04):
had in a long time.
All else equal is more strict,safer and more pleasing to God,
in your opinion.

No, I'm made right with God.
Again, I already went over this.
I'm made right with God throughfaith in the death, burial,
resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I'm not more holy or less holy.
As I said, holiness is a stateof being.
You either are or you are not.
It's not that because the Amishhave a higher standard, they're
more holy.

Fair enough and I agree with you.
So fair point.
But what I'm concerned todiscover myself is that there
are a lot of standards that if Iviolate any one of them I might
be going to hell.
So I know you're not going todefend every standard.
I appreciate that.
I agree.
I understand you can't do that.
Let's see what you will defend.
Is it wrong for somebody towear a wedding ring?
Yes or no, in your opinion?

To wear a wedding ring?
Um, it could be.
Depends on the ring.
The bible gives me the uhtitanium 50 bucks.

Titanium ring 50 bucks.
Tell me if I'm going to hellluke.

I need to know you are wearing a ten dollar ring
and it is prideful.
It's just as simple as if it'sa $2 million ring.
That's the standard that Godgives.
It is because of pride, that'swhy, God removes it.

So I can wear a $2 million ring, as long as I don't
have pride.

Well I'm going to say you're going to have a whole
lot of trouble not beingprideful over that, Okay.

What if I have a $50 titanium ring, which I have
on my hand right now?
So I'm curious if I'm going tohell?
Right, I need to know this.
I have a $50 titanium ring andI don't feel that I have pride.
Only God knows my heart.
You don't know my heart, butwe'll assume I don't have pride.
Can I go to heaven with a $50titanium ring?

If you have zero pride in that ring, then hey, go
right ahead.

So if a woman has long hair, never cut it in her
life, and she has some amount ofpride greater than zero in her
hair, she's going to hell, right?
Can you please just take thatIf a woman has beautiful
Pentecostal updo hair that shespends an hour and a half on
every day and she has more pridethan zero because you just said

(01:09:09):
the standard for me going toheaven with a ring was zero
pride so if she has more thanzero pride in her hair, she's
going to hell.
I'm asking.

I'm giving you the distinction.
The distinction right here isthe Bible specifically says that
to be shaven or shorn, there'stwo words there.
Shaven will be cut with a razor, shorn will be cut with shears.

No, we're just assuming her hair is not cut.

We're just assuming that it's not cut, but she has
pride in her hair and she isjust being prideful.
Yeah, pride will send theperson to hell.
You're not going to get me toargue, Okay all right.

Well, I'm glad you agree.
So, holiness folks, y'allbetter be careful out there,
because your long hair.
It turns out that checklist youthought you were going to check
, that that's not actually goingto help you out.
Okay, so that's actually kindof good to know.
So there are standards inScripture, to be sure.
There are other things that aremore open-ended.

(01:10:01):
Let's say costly apparel.
Okay, let's say, maybe youshouldn't have costly apparel.
Who gets to draw the line onwhat is acceptable?
Because we established that Iprobably can't own a $2 million
ring.
I actually don't own a $2million ring.
You might be surprised to learn, but I can potentially own a
$50 ring if I don't have pride.
So who draws the line?

(01:10:22):
Who figures out what dollaramount is the pride bar?
Well, you can't not have prideat that amount.
Who draws that line?

In my statement.
When I said the $2 million ratewe're going to be charitable,
the point I was making was ifyou spent that kind of money, I
cannot imagine not beingprideful of that I think you're
right.

I actually agree with you on that.

Now, whenever we're dealing with the cost of your
way again, that is in the samecontext when Paul is putting
that Paul and Peter both dealwith that and both of them are
using, is it Peter?
I'm trying to remember.
Peter says who's outwardadorning, let it not lose
Anything.

we'll talk about that.

Which is why I'm tying that to pride.
So if a man wears an expensivepair of shoes, is he inherently
prideful?
No, if a man wears a cheap pairof shoes, is he inherently not
prideful?
No, I don't think either of uswould make that statement of
shoes is inherently not prodigalno, I don't think either of us
would make that statement Okay.

So there are some things though.
Well, let's just take modestywith clothing, clothing where
you can have a higher collar,you can't have a lower collar.
Now we're just going to saythat, at the extremes, both are
unnecessary.
Let's say, maybe a burqa isunnecessary and going naked is
probably unbiblical.
We'll just accept that thereare extremes Okay, and going
naked is probably unbiblical.
We'll just accept that thereare extremes, okay.
But who gets to draw the linebetween the two?

(01:11:37):
And I do have an answer forthat myself, but I want to know
what your answer is who drawsthe line?

I believe the Bible does.
You're going to find inRevelation where God talks about
how Christ is dressed.
You're going to find inRevelation let's check with one
in Revelation where God dealswith the dress of Christ, the
clothing, not dress you knowwhat I mean.

So you believe the Bible's going to tell me how
high to have my collar?

I believe the Bible's going to tell me I'll
put my link right there Ibelieve the Bible's going to
tell me that I should not causeas a woman but a woman should
not wear a low enough necklinethat it's going to cause a man
to lust and you can say well,man's going to lust no matter
what.

No, I'd actually, I'd actually agree.
Um, because I submit that it'scommandment, conscience and
effective effect on other people.
Right, that that's where mystandard is Okay.
So if the Bible specificallysays it, we're good to go.
If the Bible doesn'tspecifically say it, but your
conscience condemns you, followyour conscience.
If you don't have a conscienceor scriptural command in play,
then look at the effect on otherpeople, and that's what you're

(01:12:42):
talking about the effect on, inthis case, men around you.

I would differ just to hear what is our conscience
according to swimming.
It's not my turn to askquestions, I know.

Yeah yeah, we can talk about that.
Yeah, fair enough, but thereare different convictions in
Romans 14, where one esteems oneday better than the other, one
other man esteems every dayalike, but they're all
glorifying God, right, but thatis not their conscience.

(01:13:10):
Okay, so there's a wholecategory of standards that have
been dropped without explanationGoing to the bowling alley, the
internet, eating out on Sundays, maxi skirts, jean shirts,
braided hair, not to mention 100years of plain clothes and head
coverings.
When preachers drop a standard,do you think it's important,
especially since you'regrounding all these in the Word
of God?
Now, it's possible somebody gotthe Word of God wrong.

(01:13:31):
That's fine.
When they drop a standard, doyou think it's important that
they explain why the previousstandard was incorrect, or
should they just quietly stoptalking about it?

Well, I mean again, I can't defend everything, so
what, I'm going to stick withwith the ones you mentioned,
like with the head covering in.
I'm trying to guess what jumpedout at me.

I'm just assuming you don't agree with those.

No, the Bible says the woman's hair was given as a
head covering, she don't have towear something on top of that.
Do they need to explain why?
Maybe, maybe, not?
I don't feel like I or youwould have to explain.
Every time we make a change onanything, I don't get up and
yeah, I don't think they have todo that.
I don't.

(01:14:13):
If someone asks up, and yeah Idon't think, I don't know, I
don't think they have to do that.

I don't.
If someone asked them, theyought to be ready to.
Okay, so we established, youestablished, and I agree with
you, that james uh issued acommand to the early church.
Okay, um, about uh not eatingthings that were strangled.
I'll give you that one.
Now actually write about thatextensively.
But, um, would you concede thatthere might be a difference

(01:14:36):
between James, who's an apostlewhose words are recorded under
the inspiration of the HolySpirit in Scripture, and a
regular pastor who's juststanding up from the pulpit and
making a rule?

Yes, that's an easy question.
Yes, I do think so question.

Yes, I do think so.
So you think there is adifference.
So just because James can do Xin Scripture under the
inspiration of the Holy Spiritdoesn't necessarily mean your
pastor can do the same thing.

No, I do agree.
I think we will agree righthere.
We cannot add to Scripture.
I can't.
We have a closed canon and I'mglad we do.
I'm glad we have a closed canonthat God gave us His rules.
God gave us his expectations.
We live by those.

Okay, About 98% of the time a holiness man's attire
is indistinguishable from theworld's, yet women seem to have
a lot of standards that makethem stand out all the time.
They seem to be a lot moreseparate from the world than men
.
Why do women need so many morestandards than men?
To please God, in your opinion?

God did that.
If you'll read those passagesin 1 Peter and in 1 Timothy, God
gives what's priorly expectedof a man he don't say much about
dress in those passages, but hedoes talk about dress in the
other.
So that's God's choice, notmine.

Okay, so let's look at this.
You've established that prideis the real issue, right, the
pride is the real sin.

With the ring just that.

Yeah, with the ring , not in all cases, to be sure.
There are other sins.
So do you think it's wrong fora person, let's say a woman, to
wear a simple leather bracelet?
The Bible, as I checked,doesn't say anything about
leather bracelets on women.

Actually it does in Isaiah, chapter 3.
It just gives a cleardistinction, a clear commandment
.
On bracelets period, god justsays, yeah, you're not supposed
to do that, because you becameprideful and taken all of it
away from you.

Yeah, but isn't that in the context of a giant
metaphor and in the same, asimilar metaphor in Ezekiel, god
talks about how he bedeckedIsrael with gold and jewels and
a head diamond and lots of otherjewelry?

You know, what's interesting about that is he
does that and he says he doesthat to show their value.
But yet he looks at humanityand says, if you wear jewelry to
show your value, you're doingwrong.
God can do a lot of things.
I can't do it.

And that's just one of them.

Okay, so I get it.
You're taking a metaphor inIsaiah and you're saying that's
a prescriptive standard.
He says you did this, so I'mtaking it away from you.

There's no metaphor , it's a metaphorical person the
daughters of Zion are acollective in that context.

That's what it seems .

Okay, no, fair enough.
I think you're actually righton that point.
I just wouldn't.
I wouldn't stretch that into aprescriptive command.
But we've already establishedthat pride is the real issue
here.
So if somebody gets in manycontexts, we'll say many
contexts of appearance.
So if somebody, for instance,many contexts and it will say
many contexts of appearance.
So if somebody, for instance,gets braces and they have any
amount of pride in the fact thattheir teeth are straight,

(01:17:42):
they're going to hell right no,because about whenever says
braces are wrong, so what prideis the issue?

well, I am, but you tied it to braces, so their
braces would not be what causedthem to go to hell sure they.
Their pride, if you getprideful over your shoestrings.

You can be prideful over your holiness movement
right, yeah, you can be pridefulover anything.
Okay.

I hate to pride.

That's a scary place to live.
All right, you're, you're,you're up.

Okay Question that I would have.
I want to commend you.
You're a prolific writer onyour articles and you do a good
job on it.
I like writing, I like reading,I love to read, so I commend
you.
I don't agree with everythingyou write, but you do a good job
.
I think you do a good job onwriting.
You turn a phrase really good,anyway, but there is one

(01:18:33):
question when I was quite a fewquestions, but when I was going
through some of your writing, Inoticed something that really
caused me to ask the questionwhat sin did Jesus not have to
die for?

What sin did Jesus not have to die for?

What sin was his death not required to pay for?

I'm not aware of any.

Okay, so you make the statement in your article
Identifying Gospel Distortions.
You make the statement I have alonger quote.
I'm not going to give the wholequote, but you make the
statement that says 1 John 5, 16makes clear that, for
unbelievers at least, some sinsdo not lead to damnation.

(01:19:21):
Now, do you agree that Jesusdied to save our souls from the
wrath of God?

Sure.

What put us under the wrath of God?

Well, initially the fall of man.
So we're born under the wrathof God and then sin in the life
of the individual.

beyond that, what was the fall?

The fall was a rebellion against God and not
doing what God said.
What do we call rebellionagainst God?
That's all sin.
Sure, there's synonyms.

So you said that some sin will not send you to
hell.
You clearly say that it doesnot lead to damnation.

Yeah, and I'm referencing Scripture.
So let's, I mean I'd like toturn to the Scripture.
Yeah, go ahead.
The Scripture is the issue.
It's not so much what I sayabout the Scripture.
Oh, I agree.
Can you cite the passage?

This passage you said is 1 John 5, verse 16, what
that verse says, I'll read itreal quick.
If any man see his brother sina sin which is not unto death,
he shall ask and he shall givehim life for them.
That sin not unto death, thereis a sin unto death.
I do not say that he shall prayfor it, so go ahead.

Okay, well, I mean that passage says If any man see
his brother, a sin which is notunto death.
So clearly the author of thisthinks there is a sin which is
not unto death.
Now I have an explanation forhow that could be.
It's that we have the imputedrighteousness of Christ.
Now there are some people whowould proclaim you're once saved

(01:20:54):
, always saved, right, the sortof reformed tradition that a lot
of evangelicals would hold to.
I actually wouldn't hold tothat.
I would hold that we are savedby faith through Christ and if
you reject your faith in Christthen you reject the grace that
comes from that.
I don't think that just happensfrom moment to moment.
I would say so.
It's not an unthankful thought,means I'm rejecting my faith in
Christ.
It's if I say I no longerbelieve in Christ, I no longer

(01:21:17):
accept his burial andresurrection.
Most people who are in the oncesaved, always saved camp would
say that person was never savedin the first place.

So it's kind of a moot point A little off topic a
little off topic, just in thesense that I'm.
What I'm trying to get at hereis you're saying that not all
sin will send you to hell, butyet you do agree that sin is
what we need to be saved from,from our sin.
So your statement see, thereason I ask this question is
really, I think, between the twoof us, you and I ask anyway,

(01:21:45):
you, your side of the camp isreally the one, I would say,
that makes a distortion of thegospel.
You try and say that Christdied to save us from our sins,
but yet we don't need to savethem from all of our sins.
Some of our sins are okay,You've been dealt with it here,
and here's my question.

I see, I think I understand the question a little
better now.

So let me ask this question a little bit different,
based on what you said earlierwhat causes a person to lose
their salvation?
Is it sin, like an act of sin?
Does sin cause him, or does alack of belief cause him to lose
their salvation?

Well, if, by grace, you are saved through faith,
and that not of yourself, thenthere are some passages in
Hebrews about people tasting ofthe Holy Spirit and walking away
.
So it would stand to reasonthat rejecting the faith is that
Now.
Is that also a sin?
Yes, it's actually a veryparticular sin.
It's the sin of the blasphemyof the Holy Ghost, and Jesus
talks about that.

(01:22:36):
Yeah.

It's a very particular sin, sure?
How do you lose your salvation?
The blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

It's by rejecting faith in Christ, which is the
same thing.
I am saying.
Those are the same thing.

So if you lose your salvation, you can never come
back, Because that's what thatwould be saying.
Because you blas, come backBecause that's what that would
be saying because you've lost tothe Holy Ghost.
There's no forgiveness of thatin this life or the life to come
.
So a backslider can never comeback to God.

Yeah.
And if you read that passage incontext, what Jesus is saying
is the Pharisees are saying Ithink he cast out devils by the
devil, right?
So basically Jesus is saying tothe Pharisees hey guys, if I
literally do a miracle in frontof you through the power of the
Holy Spirit and you reject it,then there is nothing that I can
do to convince you of who I amAbsolutely nothing.

(01:23:22):
So there's no coming back fromthat.
There is no argument Jesus canpresent.
It's kind of like the rich mandied and he's like can I go back
and see my brothers?
And I think it's Abraham whosays to him well, they didn't
believe Moses, they're not goingto believe somebody coming back
from the dead.
So yeah, I do think you're notgoing to get your salvation back
, but I do think that's still amatter of choice on the part of
the individual.
There's just nothing God can doto draw you at that point.

(01:23:43):
That's from my free willperspective.
Some people don't have a freewill perspective.

I respect them too.
What do you deal with that?
Or how do you deal with this?
Maybe a little easier one tofind in reference what do you do
with the prodigal son when thefather says this my son was dead
.

He's talking.

He was alive at one point, he's dead, but now he's
back.
By the steps you're taking, youcan never come back.
But that's never what theScripture—there's nowhere in
Scripture that it even alludesto that.
I mean, you could take this onepassage there in Hebrews 10,
but are you really taking thestance that a backslider can
never come back?

No, I'm taking the stance that if they continue in
their rejection of Christ,they're not back.
So it's on them.
Can somebody hypotheticallytruly believe in Christ and then
not believe in Christ and thenbelieve in Christ again?
Yeah, maybe, I don't know, butyour faith in Christ is what's
going to determine your statusand grace In verse 17,.

(01:24:47):
All unrighteousness is sin.
Sorry, we're back in John.
All unrighteousness is sin, andthere is a sin not unto death.
I mean, that's just right therein the text.
So how I would interpret thatis I would say if you're an
unbeliever kind of it's a mootpoint you're going to hell
because you're an unbeliever.
Okay, if you're a believer, youmight commit a sin per John 17,

(01:25:09):
that is not unto death.
Let's say, for instance, havingan ungrateful thought before
you get hit by a bus.
That would be a sin that is notunto death.
In my understanding, youhaven't rejected Christ and
therefore you will be in heavenbecause your righteousness was a
gift according to Romans 5.
And so it hasn't been takenback, it's still your gift.

Okay.
So then, with that in mind Ihate to go back to this other
question I need to follow butyou are changing your position.
You're saying that the way youlose your salvation is blasphemy
of the Holy Ghost, which theBible says you cannot come back
from.
And then you switched and yousaid no, a person could believe
in Christ and then not believein Christ, and believe in Christ

(01:25:50):
and not believe in Christ.
That's possible.
They could come back.
You're changing your position.
Do you not see the change inyour position right here?
From an unforgivable sin,that's the only way you can lose
your salvation, you said, andthen you're saying no, you could
come back.
You're changing your position.

Well, yeah, you could be right.
I'm thinking about it, I think,with the unforgivable sin.
The idea of that sin is it is asin that you are committing at
a moment in time.
Okay, so if you cease, so, inas far as you are committing
that sin, you cannot be forgivenof it.
If you refuse to accept Christ,by definition, if we have a

(01:26:25):
free will, understanding gracecan't be extended to you.
Okay, if you cease that sin, ifyou cease in that sin of
rejection, then you can't acceptChrist.
So I think there is a way tosquare that.
But I'm using blasphemy of theHoly Spirit as synonym for lack
of faith rejection of faith, soyou don't think that's.

the only way you can lose your faith is by blasphemy
of the Holy Spirit, just to getpast that?

Yeah, I'm using that as a synonym.
We'd have to break down why I'mdoing that, but I'm using it as
a synonym, so you said in thepremise that y'all came up with
that, the distortion.

I agree.
I don't want to make it soundlike I didn't agree.
I did agree to it for the veryreason.

Oh yeah, no, and I'm the one who has to defend it
.
I get it.

So would you say that to put anything as a
requirement after salvation inorder to remain saved makes a
distortion of the gospel?

Ding, ding, ding.
That is what I would say, withthe exception of faith in Christ
, which is central to the gospel.

What about fornication, like James said in
Acts 15, and things strangledand sacrificed to idols?
Sure, because he didspecifically say that.

Yeah.
So the Bible does say thatthere are different ways to
reject faith in Christ.
One of them is to continue insin unrepentant for a long
period of time.
Functionally, then, you aresaying I don't really care about
who Jesus is.
Even if you make a verbalassent and I think you and I
both agree Somebody can pray asinner's prayer and not mean it
in their heart right, we thinkWe'd agree on that and then they

(01:27:55):
don't get salvation becausethey didn't mean it, they just
said some words, right?
Similarly, somebody cancontinue in sin, knowingly, in
rebellion and rejection againstGod, which means they have
rejected God.
But that's not the same ascommitting fornication I will
even give you that one One timeand going God, I have sinned.
Maybe, let's say a month later.

(01:28:15):
A month later you say, let'ssay it's a new believer Okay,
new believer.
Comes to Christ, knows it'swrong, commits fornication.
A month later they go God, Ihave sinned.
I'm turning back to you.
What happens if they die inthat month?
Now you say they clearly go tohell.
I say they go to heaven.
So we actually do have afundamental difference here.
But if they continue in sin foryears and years and they don't

(01:28:36):
accept Christ.
God knows the heart.
They don't love Jesus.
They haven't accepted hissacrifice or the significance of
it.

Does the Bible ever say you can go years and years
and years without repentance,and does it ever specifically
yes or no?
Does it ever specifically sayyou can go two days without
repentance and not lose yoursalvation if you've sinned?

Yeah, the Bible says there is a sin not unto
death.
I don't know the time on it.

I don't want to find out.

to be honest, I don't want to find out, but it
does say there's a sin not untodeath.

Isn't that a rather controversial scripture?
In fact, you're asking thatthat's the only way that verse
can be interpreted.
I think you would have to agreethat it's true that there are
other ways people haveinterpreted that, and they've
pointed to Herod.
They've pointed to placesspecifically in Scripture Herod
being killed for a sin he didand Nassim Sapphire being killed
for a sin they did.
You're acting like that's theonly way to interpret that.

(01:29:25):
I think you would have to saythat's your opinion.

You'd also have to say, well, I mean, technically,
I have to have an opinion oneverything that I voice, so yeah
, it's my opinion.
But you're also doing the samething with the passages about
righteousness as a gift andimputed righteousness, and
you're saying, well, that's notquite what it means.

No, it specifically says I did say that
righteousness is given as a gift.
I also said holy.

It's given.
But okay, fair enough.

In your view it's given, but okay, fair enough.
In your view it's given, butit's taken away every six
seconds.
No, but you see, that goes tomy other question.
I want to try and hurry and getin.
Do you think it's possible tolive free of sin?

I think it's possible for any period of time.
But all the people that I'veever met who tell me they're
free of sin, I know for a factthey're not, so I just haven't
met them.

So you're saying that it's possible.
You just don't know.
You're basing that on your ownsubjective opportunity to meet
people.

Peter didn't live without sin.
He committed the sin ofpartiality and was rebuked for
it.
So was he on—well, I'm notasking questions.

It's hard not to do that, I'm going to grant you.
That's really hard not to do.
I did it too.
Does the Bible command us andalmost seem as if it expects us
to normally live without sinmultiple places?

It does indeed.

How does?

it say we do that Through the righteousness of
Christ through the power of theHoly Spirit.

Actually, not what it says.
I gave you a few specificplaces, one being second, one
being not second, one beingHebrews chapter 13, where the
Bible says it is God.

Oh yeah, god, who does it in you?

Yeah, God does it.
And also there's another one.
I don't think that I did.
Actually they're in Philippians.
I'd like to respond on thesetwo.

But to be fair, when I say through the power of
the Holy Spirit and you say, ah,but it's through God, it's kind
of the same thing, no.

I don't disagree.
I don't disagree.
What I'm saying is you'realmost sounding like you said
every six seconds it could be indanger.
If the Bible says in Romans 8that if we walk in the Spirit,
we shall not fulfill the lust ofthe flesh, it makes it sound as
though I'm not in danger oversix seconds because I'm living,
submitted to God.
That's what sanctification is.

(01:31:36):
That's not sanctification.
That is a prerequisite tosanctification, that is
consecration.
So my question is if a man isfully consecrated to God,
doesn't the Bible seem to paintthat as the norm that we will
not sin anymore, rather than thenorm that I'm going to keep on
sinning and wait years to repent?

Yeah, and I don't even know that I would defend
that there's any sin that youcan wait years to repent from.
But yeah, I'd say that in thelife of a believer you should
see more and more spiritualmaturity and less and less sin.

So how many acts of fornication can a person do
before they lose their salvation?
Because you said, you know theydo one and they die and they're
going to go to heaven.
So when the Bible says nofornicator has eternal life in
them and that the unrighteousshall not inherit the kingdom of
God, and the first thing itlists is fornication, how much
fornication can a person do andstill go to heaven?

Yeah, ask Paul in Corinth, because he was talking
to some pretty messed up peopleand he called them brothers and
he said kick them out.
Well, in one instance, butthere are different instances,
so that's between God and them.
I don't want to be in theirshoes but they have a chance.

Should you eat with a brother who's a fornicator?

according to Paul, If somebody is living in
unrepentant sin, you should gothrough the process of church
discipline and then you shouldtreat them as an unbeliever,
don't eat with them, especiallya fornicator.

So I do want to point that out here.

Yeah, but there's a process of church discipline
that would precede that.

True, but if you're a fornicator and you said, put
them out anyway six seconds, Ithink you ought to start with
the gospel, not all of this.

Alright, right on time.
What we're going to do now iswe're going to move to the
audience questions portion ofthe debate.
I know that some of these Ibelieve at least the first one's
more aimed towards Nathan,whereas the other two are more
towards Luke, but obviously, ifeither of you, I think we have

(01:33:37):
only three minutes maximum perquestion, so I'm going to give
you both an opportunity todiscuss or answer the question
that is being presented to youboth.
Again, we'll start with Nathanhere and I'm going to ask this
question.
Let me get my slides up here sothe audience can see as well.
So we'll start with the firstquestion to Nathan, which is did

(01:33:59):
Paul and Peter distort thegospel when they gave standards
of dress to the church in 1Timothy 2 and 1 Peter that?

is a great question .
I have two responses for it,but let's start by reading the
passage.
For a point of time, we'regoing to read 1 Peter 3, verse 3

(01:34:34):
.
Okay, so there are two basicways to understand this passage.
It's either a short checklistof prohibitions or it is a
general principle withapplications that may differ by
time, place and the heart ofeach believer.
In 1 Peter 3, peter lumps inwearing gold with wearing
clothes.
So reading this as a banagainst gold means you should

(01:34:55):
also read this particular verseas a ban against clothes.
The other way you could read itis that the condition of the
heart is more important than theoutward appearance, and you
should focus on the heart.
Other biblical passages suggestthat wearing clothes are in
fact, a good thing as well asgold.
In the Old Testament, rebeccathe righteous woman, she's given
gold earrings and goldbracelets to boot.
We have Ezekiel 16, I deck theewith ornaments, put bracelets

(01:35:18):
on thy hands, a chain on thyneck.
God, talking about Israel, theprodigal son, the father
representing God, gave him agold ring.
Okay, but let's say you readthis passage as a principle
rather than a prohibition.
You might find that evenholiness folks have reasons to
be challenged by it.
If your hair causes you pride,I'm not necessarily saying that
would justify cutting it off,but I am saying you should check

(01:35:39):
your heart right.
So that's one way to read it.
But you could read it as a listof rules.
But even if you read it as alist of rules, which I would
consider could be a validinterpretation, it's not clear
to me that holiness folks aredoing a great job even with that
box.
Because the Timothy passagetalks about costly apparel.
What's costly apparel?
Well, the average Greco-Romanowned about two to three pairs
of clothes.
So if you own more than that,and especially if you own a suit

(01:36:02):
or some dainty jewel dress, youmay have costly apparel.
So it may be a little bit scaryif you look at that as just a
universal.
But let's just sayhypothetically, it's a
prohibition Straight up womencan't wear gold, women can't
wear clothes.
We're going to put that aside.
And they can't braid their hair.
All right, we're going to putthat one aside.
And let's say it says you haveto wear a bucket on your head
too.

(01:36:22):
Can the Bible say that?
Yes, the Bible can say whateverit wants.
Actually, luke and I are inagreement on this point.
But the canon is closed and toinfer from that that your
preacher can therefore add abunch of other standards is to
make a category error.
So there's a difference.
If I tell you not to eatearthworms and you're like, yeah
, but I can eat carrots andcarrots are kind of like worms

(01:36:44):
because they're both in the dirt, they're in different
categories.
B like yeah, but I can eatcarrots and carrots are kind of
like worms because they're bothin the dirt.
They're in different categories.
Bugs are bugs.
Food is food.
What your preacher says is notthe same thing as what the word
of God says.
God can make the good newswhatever he wants it to be, but
Peter and Paul spoke under theinfluence of the Holy Spirit.
God's word is closed.
We're in agreement If yourpreacher is telling you he has
apostolic authority to add toscripture you are in a cult run.

That's my answer to that.
Again, Luke, I'll give you achance to respond.
If you want to respond byanswering the question or
respond to Nathan, that's fine.

Yes, and I'm going to respond to that question.
I think whenever you look atthose two passages, specifically
when it talks about, justbreeze through them real quick.
The first, timothy, chapter 2,that phrase right there, with

(01:37:39):
professing godliness, you'regoing to see that's repeated in.
You've got to look at words.
But're going to see that'srepeated in.
You've got to look at words.
But you'll see it again in 1Peter, where he talks about
who's adorning while they beholdyour chaste conversation.
Verse 2 of 1 Peter, 3, who'sadorning?
Let it not be that outwardadorning, the platy, hair,

(01:38:00):
wearing ability, putting on ofapparel, but let it be the
hidden man of the heart in whichis not grudgeable, even an
ornament of a meek and a quietspirit which is, in the sight of
God, of great price.
For after this manner in oldtime, the holy women, that
phrase right there.
The holy women.
You're going to find anothercross-reference.

(01:38:21):
As much as I love and I thinkit's important to do verse by
verse.
Isaiah tells us God, tells usthe prophet isaiah, you got to
do cross reference line up online.
Precept one precept, here alittle, there a little.
You're going to find this againin titus, chapter 2, where the
bible says the age, womenlikewise, if they be in likewise
, that they be in behavior asbecoming holiness.

(01:38:44):
And he goes through the samelist of discrete I'll mention
gold but he goes through thesame list of discreet I'm not
going to go but he goes throughthat same list of discreet
chaste, goes through those sameattitudes, going with shame
faces, going with chastity,going with being discreet, but
he ties that to a life ofholiness, not evidence.

(01:39:06):
So how would I answer?
I'd say no, paul did notdistort the gospel at all, just
like the holiness church doesn't.
Because Paul was not saying thatwe are saved.
A woman is saved, is made rightwith God, is justified before
God because she's chaste, orbecause she is discreet, or she
doesn't wear gold, she doesn'tbraid, she doesn't do pearls,

(01:39:28):
not at all.
Paul says you do these thingsbecause it becomes holiness.
You'll find in Leviticus,chapter 20, I was in my opening
statement and I ran out of timewhere God tells the children of
Israel I have given you all ofthese commands.
Where God tells the children ofIsrael I have given you all of

(01:39:48):
these commands.
And he goes through them, thedietary laws, he goes through
the sexual laws and he says inverse 26,.
He says you shall be holy, forI am the Lord and holy and have
severed you from among otherpeople that ye should be mine.
So God says you do what's right, you live righteous because I

(01:40:09):
made you holy.
So no, paul did not distort thegospel at all, because he
didn't say it made them holy,that their works made them holy.
But he said because you're holy, live this way.

Man.
This next question I'm going toagain.
We're going to stick with you,luke, on this next one from the
audience, which is if holinessstandards are not in the Bible,
why are they preached?
And if they are in the Bible,why are they so hard to find?
Why does God not explicitlystate them, like he does every

(01:40:42):
other issue, like adultery,murder, lying, etc.

Okay, I would say that they are pretty explicit.
To go back to what Nathan saidat the very beginning of the
discussion, whenever he saidthere's not a scriptural basis,
then he said there is ascriptural basis, it just gets
stretched.
I don't really see.

It depends on the standard.

You made the statement.
So I don't really see how muchmore explicit God could be in 1
Corinthians 11 when he said yourhair should not be shaven or
shorn.
I mean I guess you could saycan I burn it off?
Okay, yeah, okay.
Well, you know you can do that.
And if you want to do that andtwist scripture, Peter's going

(01:41:29):
to talk about people arrest thescripture to their own demise.
I really don't see how muchmore explicit the Bible could be
whenever it says don't weargold, Don't wear pearls.
I really don't see how muchmore explicit it can be.
I really don't see how muchmore explicit it can be when the
Bible says a woman shall notwear that which pertaineth to a
man.

(01:41:49):
I don't really see how muchmore explicit he says don't do
this.
Now does he say thou shalt not.
It says a woman shall not.
You just let the thou off.
We give out gospel tracts on thecollege campus.
One of our favorite ones iscalled the Atheist Test.
There's a great line in theretoward the end where it says

(01:42:18):
could it be that the thiefcannot find God for the same
reason that a thief cannot finda policeman?
They don't want to.
Could it be that it is explicit, but yet people just don't want
to see it.
Let me give you an illustrationof what I mean by that.
On college campuses I don'tpreach standards, I don't do
this.
There's a whole lot of, I hateto say, low-hanging fruit.
That's not what I mean, butthere's a whole lot of other

(01:42:39):
things that are probably a lotmore detrimental to them
physically, and especially tothem physically, that are much
more obvious, that you know I'mgoing to deal with, and but at
the same time I hold a sign onthe sign that says who must
repent.
One of the things on there isthe phrase crossdressers,
Crossdressers must repent.

(01:42:59):
I've yet this is one of the mostcommon questions we get I've
yet to have a student when theysay wise, wise, cross white and
cross dressers must repent, andI quote Deuteronomy 22 and 5.
I've yet to have one studentnot look at me and say, oh, you
mean I as a woman shouldn't wearpants.
They've never been to all ofthese churches and I know that's
anecdotal.
I understand that.

(01:43:21):
The point I'm making is it'svery explicit, if you just take
it for what it says.
The problem is not that it'snot explicit.
The problem is, as Jesus wouldsay, men love darkness rather
than light, and they don't wantit to be explicit.

Nathan, I'll give you a chance to respond Again.
You can either respond to whatLuke said or, if you need me to
reread the question, to respondto the question.
That's fine.

So if holiness standards are not in the Bible,
why are they preached?
Look, there are some standards.
You can talk about long hair.
There's a lot of scripture youcan talk about it.
It's interesting.
There are other things that canbe said, but there's at least
scripture to be discussed and,honestly, I can even respect a
position that a woman said.
I don't want to cut my hairbecause of these verses.
I write about this at greatlength.
However, there are other thingsthat is not the case.

(01:44:09):
Luke hasn't been willing totalk about the scripture against
beards.
He hasn't been willing to talkabout the scripture against
toenail polish.
He hasn't been willing to talkabout the scripture against the
bowling alley.
Right, there are a lot ofstandards that are much less so
in scripture, and so, yeah, Iget it.
Some are not there at all.
Okay, some are.
You can make an argument.

(01:44:29):
Markings on your flesh for thedead.
You can make an argument, butthen you do have to answer that
nasty question about, well, whycan we wear wool and linen?
Which Old Testament laws apply,which don't?
I write a lot about this.
I don't think it's a greatstandard, but okay.
So let's say, women pertainingunto men.
What about hoodies?
What about socks?
What about work boots?

(01:44:49):
What about ball caps?
What about denim jackets?
What about leather jackets?
Why this arbitrary selection?
That's so clear to Luke?
But, luke, I can also tell youwhy are women saying that on
college campuses?
Because they're trying to stumpyou and it's obvious to them
that that's silly.
So they say, well, that wouldmean this.
And you go well, it does.
Because I believe that.

(01:45:10):
But there are so many otherthings you don't address.
There are so many things thatare not clear and if they were
clear then there wouldn't be somany people spinning their
wheels unclear about it andthere wouldn't be 98% of the
church, which I don't know ifLuke thinks they're a part of
the church or not, includinglittle old me 98% of the church?
That's not talking about this.
I've been to over 100Bible-believing churches since
leaving holiness Not attending,but I speak at.

(01:45:32):
Churches do a lot of differentthings.
None of them are having aSunday school serious discussion
about beards and toenail polishor open-toed shoes.
None of them are talking aboutthese things.
They're not coming to the light.
Y'all it.
These things.
They're not coming to the light.
Y'all it's something you madeup yourself and that's why

(01:45:52):
there's all the inconsistencyand the difference from one
group to another.
If I ask you to show me whyjewelry isn't okay, you're going
to find some reasons inScripture where it's used in a
bad way.
But then you also have toanswer okay, israel plundered
the jewelry from the Egyptiansat God's command.
Then they used some of it tobuild the golden calf.
That's bad.
But then God told them to usesome of it to build the
tabernacle a freewill offering,and they kept the rest.
Now we're being told that itwas changed, like in Isaiah, god
changed the rules.
Okay, that's an interestingoriginal argument.

(01:46:13):
Haven't heard that one before.
Always hear new arguments forthe standards, which must not be
that clear if they need newarguments all the time.
But then we still haven'tsolved the fact that the
prodigal son's father gave him agold ring.
And oh, by the way, when therich man came into James's
church in his story, the richman was wearing a gold ring and
everybody said we're not goingto associate with him because
he's clearly not a believer,because there's a standard

(01:46:34):
against gold, right?
No, they said this guy, we likehim because they saw he was
rich.
There was a pride issue, to besure, but the church clearly
didn't have a standard againstgold, or they would have cast
him out as an unbeliever.
So I don't think these thingsare as clear as you're saying
they are, and I would let Lukerespond to the next question

(01:46:57):
first too, because it's more tohim.

Yeah, I was going to say we'll bounce right back
over to Luke for this nextquestion and final question.
Luke for this next question andfinal question.
I wish we could have got to allof them, but for sake of time
we picked three out of theseveral that we received.
And that third and finalquestion is is the holiness
dress standard necessary to staysaved?
And if so, why Is everyone whodoesn't dress holiness but still

(01:47:22):
claims to be saved and there isthe fruit present a liar or
deceived?
And if one can stay saved, thenwhy is it necessary and not
oppressive, brother Luke?

I think there's a lot of assumption in that
question.
There's the assumption thatthere's fruit when you skip
fruit, there is the assumption.
That's quite a bit.
That's one of the mainassumptions the assumption that
there's fruit present but notthis fruit.
So on college campus a lot oftimes what we will run into and

(01:47:58):
I speak from own experience ispeople want to take step two
without taking step one.
If the first and greatestcommandment is that I must love
the Lord, thy God, with all myheart, to love him with all my
mind and to love him aboveeverything, and if my life is to
be an imitation of Christ,which is to walk in obedience to

(01:48:19):
God, then the question reallyis not do I have to live all in
the stress standard in order tostay saved?
The question is do I have towalk in obedience to God?
And I may have all the fruit oflove.
And I may have all this fruit,that seeming fruit of loving
people and charity and all ofthat, but if I'm not walking in
obedience to God, then you knowit don't matter None of that

(01:48:41):
other stuff.
First I must obey God first andforemost.
It's not so much.
You know.
People say the whole of thisdress standard has changed and
that that's an original argument.
It's not really an originalargument to make the statement

(01:49:03):
that some things have changedover time, such as, you know,
with Israel spoiling theEgyptians.
It's not an original argument.
Whenever Cain married his sister, god changed later and said
don't marry your sister.
When Abraham married hishalf-sister, god ties him with
this question, because Godhadn't given the law yet.
Paul said until the law came in, nothing was sin.
So the question that right here, do I have to do this to stay

(01:49:24):
safe?
I'd say that's the wrong way tolook at it.
You're trying to say how much,how far from God can I live and
still be a Christian?
How much disobedience can Ihave and still be a Christian,
whereas the question should behow close to God can I live?
Why not give God everything?
Is that saying there's aslippery slope?
No, not at all.
It's saying give everything toGod.

(01:49:45):
Yes, he requires you, as awoman, not to cut your hair.
Yes, he requires you, as awoman, don't wear pants.
If they were just trying tomock, why would that be the
first thing that pops in theirmind?
If they did not associate thattogether at all, why would that
be the first thing that pops intheir mind?
No, if that's the first thingyour brain goes to, that's the

(01:50:07):
law of God Romans, chapter 2,verse 14, that his law is
written on our heart and weautomatically know.
No one has an excuse.
Romans, chapter 1.
Why does it instantly go there?
Why must you do this?
To remain safe, because youmust walk in obedience to God,
his laws on your heart, you fromwrong.
So, yes, it's not oppressive,it's a blessing, because the

(01:50:30):
Bible says God gives me theability to do that, to live holy
only through him.
Not oppressive at all.
If I had to do it myself, itwould be, but through God it's
not.

And Brother Nathan, your response.

Yeah, my response would be yes and amen.
We should be doing what iswritten in the law of God.
The problem is that many ofthese things are not.
Some of you have long hair.
You can debate that.
Okay, there's an argument to bemade.
But this idea that jewelry isbanned in Scripture, despite the
fact that you didn't addressthat, post this theoretical
standard change.
There are still people usinggold in a positive way, one of

(01:51:07):
them representing God in thestory of the prodigal son, the
other one in the story of therich man in James's church.
So if this standard changed,based on some specific
prescriptions to daughters ofZion which, by the way, you read
these passages and this is awhole nother conversation but
there are things like perfumeand bathing that are talked
about there too, and clothes ofvarious kinds, andles and sassas
, lots of things that were notconsidered to be banned post

(01:51:29):
that.
But just, we pick out thejewelry because that's that we
can.
We can do that right, but Iagree we need to do what's in
God's Word.
Luke tells us that oursalvation is so insecure that if
we sin in any way, weimmediately lose our salvation.
Okay, or whatever you want tocall it, justification Going to
hell.
That's what matters, right,that's what matters.

(01:51:50):
Whatever we call it, it's hell.
So that means that, accordingto his answer, that these things
are absolutely sin and sincan't exist in heaven.
Then he thinks everybody who'snot in the holiness movement is
going to hell, which it's reallyhard to get somebody to say
that out loud, honestly.
Sometimes we can get them to.

(01:52:10):
Most of the time they won't sayit out loud, but people will
just think it.
And I agree when the Bible sayswithout holiness, no man shall
see the Lord.
That's true, I agree with that.
I just don't think it's ourholiness.
I think it comes from Christ.
Number one.
Number two I do think wedemonstrate works as a believer,
but I don't see not wearinghoodies.
Oh wait, we didn't decide thatstandard meant that, right, we

(01:52:33):
decided it meant pants.
But I don't think that's it,because these things are not
clear in Scripture.
And if they were clear inScripture, then how come it is
number one?
These standards change overtime within the holiness
movement.
I'm not talking about, in God'sword, cain and sister.
I get that.
That's different.
It's a different argument.
I mean post the closing ofscripture in the holiness
movement.
These things have changed.
Holiness movement's not eventhat old.

(01:52:54):
It doesn't go back that far.
There are so many believerstoday.
I've met lots of them allaround the world in places.
I lived in Europe for fouryears, I lived in Morocco for a
while, lived in Haiti.
They don't know about thesestandards and, according to Luke
, these are the law of God andif y'all don't obey the law of
God, you're going to hell.
So all of these believers allaround the world that I've met

(01:53:15):
are going to hell.
According to Luke, and I'msaying number one, most of this
stuff isn't in scripture anyways.
Number two basically it'spossible to do something that is
sin and not immediately go tohell.
So there are two, two aspectsto that, and I appreciate that
Luke will say out loud that allnon holiness believers are going

(01:53:35):
to hell, because it's reallyhard to get somebody to say that
.

I will say this is going to be the most
difficult part of this debate,which is the conclusion, because
I've personally enjoyed hearingboth sides of the argument and
I pray those listening have aswell.
I would bounce over to Luke,but I'm just going to keep it
right here with Nathan and givehis closing statements and then
we'll we'll finish up with withLuke.

First off, I just want to say, luke, thanks for
being here.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate you sharing whatyou have to share.
We've for a long time tried toget people to debate us at
Berean and you reached out to usand I do appreciate that.
Let me say to the audience youmay know that God loves you
because it says it in the Bible.
Let me ask you this Does Godlike you because it says it in

(01:54:29):
the Bible?
Let me ask you this Does Godlike you?
Is God happy that you're hischild, even when you fail to be
perfect in every way?
I am a father and I like mykids, even when they're stinkers
.
Not every child is my kid.
I have some kids that are mine,some that are not.
God is the, the world's greatestdad.

(01:54:50):
If you have accepted Christwith sincere faith and you
desire to please Him and you arenot living in unrepentant
rebellion against Christ, you'reHis child and if you truly
understand the gospel, you willbe sensitive to sin in your life
and you won't want to cover itup or relabel it.

(01:55:11):
If you sin, you'll run to Jesusand if you get hit by a bus on
the way there, you're stillgoing to heaven Because God is
not going to let one of hischildren miss heaven by an inch.
Luke's trying to make you thinkI have some kind of hot take on
this.
99% of the church agrees withme on this.
The historic Christian faith isbacking me to the hilt all the

(01:55:34):
way back through the church.
Fathers, the hot take is comingto you courtesy of the holiness
movement that has distorted thegospel.
With these prescriptivestandards, god's word does not
benefit from our additions.
It's time we get back to theold paths.
It's time we get back to theold-time gospel.

(01:55:55):
And I just want to say, too, Iwould love to do another debate
on a standard.
It would be so fun to dig intothat, so maybe we can make that
happen sometime.
Awesome, luke, in your closingstatements.

Hey, I also want to say I appreciate Nathan,
appreciating being willing tostand for what you believe.
I think this is something thatwe could both agree on.
It's one thing to have anopinion, to have a belief.
It's a totally different thingto be willing to defend what you
believe.
I think it's important that wehave discussions.

(01:56:35):
I do want to point out againthat, according to the
resolution we had, I don't feellike that you showed in any way
that to have a holiness standarddistorts the gospel because,
again, we don't say that's whatsaves us.
So no, we have not in any wayshown that we're distorting the
gospel.

(01:56:55):
Again, I would point out that Ido think y'all do the
distortion of the gospel becausethe bible is going to tell us
in first in the book ofcorinthians, that if any man be
in christ, he's a new creature.
I would say y'all distort thegospel.
It's been demonstrated herebecause the Bible says that the
evidence of being saved is thatnew creature.
Old things are passed away.

(01:57:18):
You made the statement.
It's hard as it is for someoneto admit and hey, you said it's
hard for me to get someone toadmit that so whoever don't
follow the Holy Standard isn'tgoing to heaven.
I think it's equally for me toget someone to admit that
whoever doesn't follow the HolyStandard isn't going to heaven.
I think it's equally as hard toget someone to admit you can
have not you but that you madethe statement that people can
fornicate multiple times andthey can remain a Christian.

(01:57:38):
That's a distortion ofScripture.
If I'm a new creature in Christ, old things are passed away.
I do not live in sin anymore.
To say a Christian can live insin and to try and pat someone
on the back and say they'reliving in sin and that's okay,
that is a distortion of thegospel.
Not to say you must live rightafter you're saved.

And I would love to do another debate.
That'd be great on any stage.
I just pray you guys considerus if you do another debate Now.
We had a really good time inthis debate and really thankful
for Luke, thankful for Nathanagreeing to do this and having
us be involved and included inthis.
It means obviously a lot to usand in closing I'm going to say

(01:58:24):
again thank you to everybody whohas been involved in this and
thank you for all the audiencequestions.
Thank you for everyone who'slistening to this.
You can find us on the podcastplatform of your choice by
searching The Every DayChristian Podcast, that's the
every and day are two separatewords Christian podcast.
You can also find us on thesocial media platform of your

(01:58:46):
choice by searching at podcastfor him, that's, at podcast the
number for him.
Uh, thank you to ourparticipants and God bless
everybody.
You Thank you.

All Episodes

94 | Debating Holiness Standards: Is the Gospel Being Distorted? With Luke Beets and Nathan Mayo

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}94 | Debating Holiness Standards: Is the Gospel Being Distorted? With Luke Beets and Nathan Mayo