General Comments
Kingdom Questions
State of the Dead
Speaking in Tongues
Once Saved...?

General Comments

I had tried to get a discussion forum started, but the only posts I got in two months were spam. To get the ball rolling, I posted a few comments I'd gotten in emails, which I am now putting on a new page for easy reading. I had sent out emails announcing my new website, and most of the responses were either positive or at least, "I'll check it out."

Here is a sampling of some of the positive comments.

Thanks for introducing me to your wonderful site. I've just enjoyed a brief visit but will definitely add it to my favorites. Great stuff.
Thanks again and God bless.
Thanks for contacting me and for the website information. I was not affiliated with the Way International; I learned from people who were. And the Word I was taught has literally saved my life at times.
I really want to get back into the Word and have a heart for teaching (even though I haven't done a lot).
This was such a nice treat to open an e-mail from a fellow believer. Thank you!
Thank you for the info of the web site. I'm always looking for more input. I did a quick glance and it looks good. I'll go back and read everything later.
Thank you and God Bless You

But not everyone was so supportive. One (ex-Way) site on which I asked to have a link to my site wrote, "I do not link to sites related to the error in doctrine that is being promoted by Rev. Finnegan. Your site not only promotes the same doctrine, it also links to others who promote the error." I'm not sure which error they were referring to, but I guess they are not into open discussion. In contrast, someone else I wrote to said, "I always welcome new information to check out. It opens the door to learning and tests us, to see if the things you believe are really believable! I will definitely look into it."

A few comments were negative, such as the following:

Like so many others, you have come up with your seeming new "enlightenment" (your flavor of the month, decade, whatever), and take some twisted pleasure in criticizing others to whom you now feel spiritually superior. Sorry man, but I'm not buying.
Like you, I grew up in the Catholic Church. And I know from being very involved there, that you knew little if anything regarding the scriptures before you were introduced to The Way in the 70's. I also got involved in the early 70's with the ministry and left the Way back in the 80's like a lot of us. Mistakes were made, Of that there is no doubt. However, the ministry's biblical foundation is not due the wholesale condemnation that you have outlined in a number of your comments. Unlike some, I have remained thankful for the truth that I learned from the Way Ministry and have not sought personal celebrity for myself or to defame those who've gone before as many others have indeed attempted to do.
Guys like you like to "hit and run" and attack those that cannot defend themselves. I've read some of what you have to say and I believe that much of it is flawed from a basic fundamental understanding and from an overall scope of the scriptures. It has not been a blessing to read what you have to say. I have no bitterness toward you, but I have absolutely no interest in the content that you've presented. Please do not contact me again.

I replied as follows:

Just curious... what was it on my web site that gave the impression that I take pleasure in attacking or criticizing? I made every effort not to come across that way, as this was never my heart.
Dr. Wierwille himself said that we should not take his word for anything, but test it according to the Scriptures. Many of the things I wrote about that differ from Way doctrine are not "new enlightenment" but have been written about by Biblical scholars much wiser than I for hundreds of years.
If we disagree on our understanding of the Scriptures, I can see that. But if I gave the impression that I was attacking or condemning, I would like to correct that.

The following was the response:

This is really not important for us to have this discussion. I don't want to be involved in hearing about what a bunch of so called scholars have to say, especially when it is obvious to me that there are a number of wrong dividings of the Word in a number of their quotes. Incorruptible Seed - The seed is the Word??? Come on........
I don't want to judge you or anyone else, but I am not going to waste any more time with such hogwash. Please take me off your email and don't contact me any more.

Here's another one:

Hello Mark,
No, I'm not interested in your website. Please understand that I am not one who believes the Dr. Wierwille misguided, misled or wrongly taught anyone, either intentionally or unintentionally. I understand that many people have been hurt and now feel it is their spiritual duty to spend their time trying to disprove everything Dr. Wierwille ever taught or stood for. I'm not one of them, however. I will forever be thankful to Dr. Wierwille for his life and teaching ministry and will always think of him as one of the greatest believers and teachers of God's Word I have ever known. I know seek to fellowship with those that think the same.

I wrote back:

I understand being thankful for the man who taught you to love God's Word. But didn't he say himself that we should never take his word for anything, but test it according to the Scriptures? This is what I have endeavored to do on my site. If something turns out not to line up with the Bible upon closer examination, we were taught to change our thinking, rather than hold to wrong beliefs out of habit or tradition. If what we believe is right, it will stand, even in the face of such scrutiny. We need to be able to articulate not only what we believe but why we believe it.
God bless you

It is not my desire to tear down what anyone has done. If I have any "spiritual duty" it is the same as that of all Christians: to speak the truth in love. Any doctrines that I try to disprove from the Bible I do so because I was blessed to be taught things that fit with the Scriptures better. I do not do so because of any hurt I experienced.

Another criticism:

First off, no disrespect intended, but I'm not interested, but I'll tell you why, and I hope you have the humility (though I doubt it since you're starting a ministry of your own) to read why.
I give much more credence to the teams from Princeton than any group who rose from ersatz bible schools armed with lexicons and other so-called "research materials." Every ex Way Scholar is way out of his league with these men. That includes men like Bart Ehrman, a former evangelical Christian turned agnostic, and the foremost researcher on the New Testament. I'm waiting for the newest edition of Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" to come out on the shelves. It seems that a lot more scribes had their fingers in the New Testament pie throughout the years than was ever indicated or taught by any primary or "offshoot" ministry.
While Ehrman has become completely disenfranchised from believing at all from his years of research, for me and others his findings have yielded the opposite. The difference is that instead of blindly being corralled into accepting that every word in the KJV NT is distilled from scrolls which are inscrutable, it has only reinforced the message that it is more important to focus on developing a strong ethical, practical lifestyle emulating Christ than it is to while away the hours attempting to nitpick over minutia which may or may not be bona fide. "Research" is a euphemism for Pharisaical pursuit deviating from the core message, and doesn't deviate much from what happens in present day Yeshivas. I doubt very much if Christ were present on earth today and posed with the question of whether one should spend time in the pursuit of poring over texts for hours, or using the time in useful labor to express the Love of God in a manifested way, he would direct a person to start reading. The overwhelming content of the Gospels indicates otherwise.
Hence, going back and forth over topics like the Kingdom of God, which I have been doggedly presented with by a local person from time to time over the past five years as something "I must learn about!" or other intellectual bible pursuits is ludicrous to me. I have accomplished more in five hours than this person has done in five years, as far as impacting people's lives. That alone is a testament to me of the worthiness of the ministries he has skirted around in NY which are teaching about "The Kingdom of God." Put up or shut up I say, but you're probably too busy just churning out books and tapes to pay your mortgage. Me, I do honest work for a living, and use the funds to bless people beyond the borders of the USA in ways you can probably only dream of doing.
Remove me from your list, thank you.

I found it interesting that this person who stated that it is more important to express the love of God proceeded to make judgments about me that they had no knowledge of. I am not "starting my own ministry" nor do I churn out books and tapes to sell. I too do honest work for a living.

There are also many other scholars on the same academic level as Bart Ehrman who not only retained their faith, but also have recognized that the primary message of Jesus was the Kingdom of God. When Jesus was on earth before, had he been asked whether studying the Scriptures or laboring to express God's love was more important, he probably would have said "both." There wasn't a division between "doctrine" and "practice" as there is in this culture. He said that his words were the key to eternal life, but not just hearing them - we must obey them as well. As far as impacting people's lives, preaching the message that Jesus commanded us to preach is what impacts them on an eternal level.

Another (positive) comment:

I just browsed through your new site, skimming through the reading. It looks good, I'm glad you've launched this site. I'll bookmark it and continue checking it out in more detail as time goes on. The more of us out there preaching the Kingdom message the more likely we are to reach the "hungry" seekers out there. I'm putting together a personal site called "The Coming Kingdom" which I intend to be a place people can go to find kingdom scripture listed in logical meaningful order in order to go to the scriptures themselves and let the scriptures speak for themselves. This way, as my reasoning goes, we will have to rely on God teaching us and revealing and giving us understanding by way of His spirit.
I know I can and to tend to rely on what teachers say and tell me and I don't go to the scriptures themselves as I should. I suspect that I'm not the only one that tends to fall into that way. Also I intend to recommend other Kingdom related teachings and websites, linked from my own site. Does that make sense?


I replied:


Yes, what you say makes perfect sense. And I agree about needing to rely on God and not a man's opinion. Since there are teachers out there, I like to see what they have to say, and see if it fits with the Scriptures.
Thanks for your comments.


Back To The Top


Kingdom Questions

I received an email with several questions and observations. When I wrote back, I inserted my replies within the text.

Thanks again for sending your site info Mark. I quickly perused some of it and decided to ask you one question about the "kingdom."
Is there any mention of "kingdom" in the OT before Israel requires Samuel to give them a king? I am asking honestly as I am not home with my study materials. But, if my memory serves me well, there is no mention of a king or kingdom for Israel until they decided they wanted to be like the other peoples.

Yes there is. First of all, God set man on the earth to have dominion over His creation (Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8:1ff). In Genesis 12 and 13, God promised to give land to Abraham, and then in chapter 35 He confirms the land promise to Jacob, and adds the promise that kings will come from his loins. Then, God knew that Israel would want a king, and so He outlined certain criteria for that king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. It's not that He did not want them to have a king; it's that He wanted them to have a king who ruled in a godly manner, so he provided for that in the law, long before they asked for it.

But the idea of the Kingdom of God was not just in response to Israel asking for a king. It was part of God's plan all along, as can be seen by the many prophecies about it throughout the Old Testament, and into the New Testament. God's ultimate plan is for a man to rule on His behalf, and that man would be a perfect and godly man who would rule righteously and justly. The result of this righteous rule will be a world that is permeated by God's ways, His love and peace and perfection. That is what the Messianic prophecies were all about.

Here is something else along those lines. When I forgot everything I was taught by the Way and let my mind and soul settle for 5 years, I began to relearn what the Bible has to say from another perspective. The most important thing I learned, which reshaped my estimation of the Bible, was that at the foot of Mount Sinai, Moses completed his task given him by Yahweh Elohim. That task was to lead Israel from Egypt to meet Yahweh Elohim in the wilderness. Period!

His task was more than just leading them. He was the Lawgiver. It was through Moses that God gave them the Law, which was part of the covenant that God made with them. That Law also included the prophecy of a coming prophet in whose mouth God would put His Words.

Having arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai, Israel was afraid and elected Moses representative to meet with this God. Yahweh Elohim did not elect Moses for this position of representative and scribe.

But He did. He told Moses to speak to them on His behalf, He said Moses would be like a god to them, and He told Moses to write all the things in The Book of The Law.

As a result, Israel was given the priesthood, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. One can easily see the results of this throughout the generational history that came after this event.

I'm not sure what the "blah blah blah" is referring to. The priesthood was part of the Law which pointed toward the ultimate sacrifice of Christ.

The same holds true for the advent of king and kingdom regarding Israel. Both of these events shaped Israel in a way that Yahweh Elohim never intended.

As I said above, if God never intended it, why are there so many prophecies throughout the Bible about a coming King who would rule a perfect Kingdom on God's behalf? And why would Jesus say that the reason he was sent was to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Luke 4:43)?

The Bible is a western book, translated horribly from eastern thinking scriptures. Constantine, a pagan not baptized until just before his death, made sure that the Gnostic scriptures were left out of the canon.

Constantine did not affect the canon that much. It had been in development for quite a while by then. And the Gnostic scriptures were never seriously considered to be canonical by the Church.

He also persecuted them and killed them if they would not recant. They hid their scriptures well and some have been recovered in our day. Seventy years after the Nicene creed was dictated and enforced, the dark ages descended upon Europe, loosing most if not all of the ancient knowledge from the Greeks and the Hebrews. What survived was Latin.

Many Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from before the Dark Ages have been recovered, though.

I am not saying that the Gnostic scriptures plus the Biblical scriptures would make a difference, but what I am getting at is the history of how we got the document entitled "The Bible." Once we step outside the idea that the Bible is the inspired word and will of God, a whole new universe of meaning and possibility open to us.

The Gnostic ideas and those of Greek philosophy are what changed the true Biblical message into what the "orthodox" church now teaches. But the Canonical books of the Bible do not agree with Gnosticism, and in fact warn against it in several epistles, especially those of John.

The apostle Paul wrote that ALL scripture God-breathed. So, if ALL scripture (graphe) God-breathed, then how did God breathe? In the lungs of every human being that ever took up a pen to write. So, yes, the ancient scriptures behind the Bible were God-breathed, and so were all the others up until that time and until now by anyone.

The word "scripture" does not mean "everything that was ever written." Not everything that was written was considered Scripture.

My point? Writing scripture is no more important to us spiritually than a priesthood or a king. Breathing comes before writing. What are we breathing?

Jesus said that the Scriptures testified of him. He quoted the Hebrew Scriptures many times. He did not think they were unimportant.

Jesus breathed in and said receive ye holy spirit.

That was what VPW taught, but from what I have read there is no basis for translating the Greek as "breathed in." He breathed ON them.

There is a process by which we can breathe in uncommon breath every breath. Receiving holy spirit (uncommon breath) is not a one-time deal. It is a continuing process until our bodies fail to support us and theos gives us a heavenly (lofty) dwelling.

I agree that the holy spirit is not something that we receive one time. I agree that it continues to work in us spiritually. But there is nothing in the Bible to support the notion that holy spirit gives us a heavenly dwelling when our bodies fail to support us. When our bodies fail, we die, which the Bible calls falling asleep. We remain asleep until the resurrection when Christ returns.

The second great thing I learned was koine Greek. No, I did not go to a university to learn what they thought. I meditated and searched God for how that language was constructed. Very interesting when you stop listening to the authors of concordances and lexicons and listen to the simplicity of koine Greek, built on roots and prepositions.

God can teach someone things through His spirit, in conjunction with the Scriptures. That is why we are exhorted to test every spirit, and to prove all things, holding fast to what is good. However, learning something JUST through meditation opens up the possibility of being mistaken and even deceived.

The third great thing I learned was Hebrew and Kabballah.

I don't know much about Kabballah, but I do know that it is not based on a simple reading of the Scriptures, and that also leads to the possibility of deception.

The fourth great thing I learned was that the first line of the Bible says:
In the archetype elohim (masculine plural, accomplishers) cut (like trees) the entity the lofties and the entity the firm and the firm became without shape and without content.

Where does this translation come from?

Yahweh Elohim is not mentioned until Gen. 2:4 when the GENERATIONS of the heaven and the earth are mentioned. While Elohim is masculine plural, Yahweh is feminine singular and means "I am becoming." Yahweh comes from its root word hayah, which is translated "become" as in "the firm became without form and without content."
Without the feminine there could be no generation. This is clearly seen by the things that are made.
There is an overwhelming principle in this existence I call the Yahweh Elohim principle. Whatever happened before the generations of the heavens and the earth was called the archetype. It was in this archetype that elohim without the female component, accomplished something that separated the lofties from the firm. As a result, the firm became shapeless and without content.
To me, this is what we can expect in this archetype. When we die, the firm (body) becomes shapeless and without content (no soul / spirit). If the reincarnationists are correct, souls/spirits continue to come back through re-generation until they overcome the archetype. This is a thread that Jesus weaves throughout his messages to the seven churches. "OVERCOME." Just something to think about.

Jesus never suggested that the soul/spirit goes on to live without the body. This idea comes from Greek philosophy, not from the Hebrew Scriptures. He believed the same thing that the Prophets wrote - that those who die are asleep - i.e. unconscious, until they are awakened at the resurrection.

For now, let me close by bringing up Romans 10:9. In the Greek, there is no mention of a physical resurrection. On the contrary, the Greek says: "...that theos (the sun giving light to the heavens and life to the earth) awakened self out of a dead body..." What does the metaphor theos tell us?

I don't know where that translation comes from, but in any case, even if it didn't say it here, there are many other Scriptures that testify to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and there were eyewitnesses who saw him alive after he had died. This is what they preached.

I don't blame you for dumping everything you learned in The Way. However, it is so easy to get misled by the many ways of looking at things, that there has to be a standard. God wants us to come to Him and know Him and His Son. It makes more sense that He would keep it simple. He would not make it so complicated and esoteric that you can't understand it from the simple testimony of eyewitnesses.

There are a lot of skeptics who believe that the New Testament was not written by eyewitnesses, but I would recommend looking into some of the apologetics web sites who deal with that sort of thing. I don't agree with everything they conclude regarding doctrine, but they do a good job of showing that the Bible as we know it is trustworthy. One of the better ones is The Christian Think Tank ( by Glenn Miller (not the bandleader!). Another is Tekton Apologetics Ministries ( by James Patrick Holding.

I would exhort you to look into the proofs of why the Bible is a reliable standard, in spite of the unreliability of some so-called "Biblical research." I find that a simple reading of the Scriptures without pre-conceived notions leads to an understanding of God's plan for mankind. I pray that you will look into this.

In Christ,

Back To The Top


State of the Dead

I received the following in an email. I provided short answers to the questions here, with links to where on my website I deal with it in more detail.

How do you explain "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?

This is a frequently misquoted passage. II Cor. 5:8 actually does not say that to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord. It says that Paul had a DESIRE TO BE absent from the body AND present with the Lord. But he indicates in other scriptures that he knows he will be with the Lord at the Return.

How do you explain Lazarus and the rich man being able to see and hear and know after they died? Parable by Jesus.

The point of the parable was not to teach what happens after death. Jesus used a story to make the point that EVEN IF one returned from the dead, some would not believe. It could not be teaching consciousness after death, as that would contradict the many Scriptures that say that the dead are unconscious.

What did they mean by weeping and gnashing of teeth?

This phrase occurs six times in Matthew (8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30) and once in Luke (13:2) and refers to the reaction of those who come to the realization that they will not be in the Kingdom of God (at Christ's return). But nowhere does it say that the weeping and gnashing of teeth happens in the grave, nor does it say that it will continue for all eternity.

I cannot find where it is said that the righteous dead and those living on earth will be with Jesus in Jerusalem? What got me to thinking is the passage in Revelation that states that the resurrected dead would be with Jesus during the thousand year reign.

Revelation 20:6 says that they which have part in the first resurrection "shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Where are Jesus and the saints going to reign from during those thousand years? Isaiah 2:1-4, Jeremiah 17:25, and Micah 4:1-3 tell us that the throne and center of government and worship will be in Jerusalem.

I hope this helps. Keep on seeking the truth!

Back To The Top


Speaking in Tongues

I received the following in an email:

I got to your link thru Buzzards website. I am an x- Way guy too. And I too have been studying Buzzards work for around ten yrs now. Let me say at the outset that I find his work outstanding and agree wholeheartedly with his major premise concerning the "complete" gospel. (kingdom message)
I just got done reading some of your teaching and wanted to ask one question regarding your comment on the manifestations. I started speaking in tongues before I took the "class" thru a twig leaders teaching and although I left the Way around 1982 I have continued s.i.t. much. Are you intimating that it is possibly a demon empowering the language? I am truly a sinner and at the same time truly persuaded by Jesus Christ that He is indeed the King and will one day re-appear to establish and rule His kingdom on earth.
Being from the Way, didn't you experience the same thing I did? We confessed Ro.10:9-10 and "supposedly" (?) received the holy spirit...........
P.S I find it interesting that many of us traveling down the Unitarian road wound up at Anthony's door step.

My response:

No, I don't suggest that speaking in tongues is a demon language in most cases (although it could be in some extreme instances I think). I am not entirely sure about the subject yet, but I have serious questions about it. If not of God, though, it is not necessarily demon-influenced. Studies have indicated that it could be a learned practice that only seems like a supernatural language.
I did speak in tongues, but after looking into it I am less convinced that the speaking in tongues that is seen today is the same as New Testament tongues. It was not heard of after the first or second century, except in extremely rare instances, until the early twentieth century. At that time the great Pentecostal movement happened primarily among Trinitarians, and many of them believe that it validates their beliefs. If their message is going to heaven instead of the Kingdom, and the Trinity instead of the One True God, it makes me highly skeptical that the current tongues phenomenon is a resurgence of the New Testament sign.
As for our experience, when we "confessed Romans 10:9" did we really know what it meant? I didn't know anything about the Kingdom Gospel, and was confessing what I was taught about the dispensational view of Scriptures. So did I believe the true Word? Did I have "the right stuff"? It's doubtful. And since I believed (as I was taught) that SIT proved I had the "right stuff" inside, it makes me strongly question now whether that was genuine.
Think about this... if it was genuinely of God, would we need to be taught how to do it? I don't know if you had the same experience in The Way, but I remember having practice groups in which we would do various exercises to increase our fluency, such as going through the alphabet. If it was genuinely Godly tongues, I don't think we would need that. There wasn't any teaching in the first century about how to do it - they just did it. Paul wrote I Corinthians 12-14 as reproof for how they were misusing it, but there is no record of anyone being taught how to do it.
Anyway, as I say, I'm not completely convinced either way yet, but strongly suspect that the current phenomenon is not the same as New Testament tongues. Have you read Anthony's article about it? Also, try doing a Google search for speaking in tongues and see what you find. There is some interesting information out there about the studies that have been done on it.
In any case, I'm glad to know the truth that I know now. It is indeed interesting that so many Unitarians end up at Anthony's site. And yet, the Church of God, Abrahamic Faith, has been around for more than a hundred years, and these are not new ideas by any means. That is what convinced me that it was the truth - it's not based on any one man's teaching or insight.

I got a response to the above email, and inserted my replies into the text.

Thanks for the response. Actually, I spoke in tongues pretty easily without much prompting and also I am still convinced that there is surely something to it. Not to be boastful but my language is quite expansive and is nothing like the gibberish we have all heard from people who s.i.t. The gibberish kind of tongues I have heard occurs mostly in Trinitarian churches which is another consideration.
I also think that God placed these references to tongues for a reason. No need in citing the verses you and I are both familiar with.
As you mentioned in your response, in light of the new perspective we have gained thru the knowledge of the Abrahamic faith there is much to be re-thought.

I agree. We can't just go by our experiences, as convincing as they may seem, since Jesus himself and several epistles warned against convincing deceptions.

One of the bottom line issues with me even when in the Way was the issue of the trinity. My gut feeling has always been that it is the other Jesus/spirit/gospel that Paul warned about.

I have thought about that too. I think it is one of the "other gospels" but there may be others too.

Have you read Deuble's book "They never told me this in Church"? In it he also seems to wrestle with the thorny issue of Trinitarians being true believers.

I have heard a lot about his book, but I have not yet had a chance to read it. I hope to soon though.

Finally, I think that we shouldn't rush to any conclusions concerning these issues but should continue seeking Gods guidance. He does not want us to be "ignorant concerning spiritual things"

I agree.

[NOTE: These answers were written not long after starting this website.  I have since done more in-depth study on the subject, the results of which can be seen in the set of articles under the title Speaking in Tongues.]


Back To The Top


Once Saved...?

Regarding the "Once Saved Always Saved" page, I received the following questions:

I was wondering what you thought about versus that say those who believe are spared from the wrath (future) - like 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 3:1-16 (vs. 17 the word "him" doesn't mean the person ... it's translated "this" refers to 'that work' gets destroyed [1 Cor. 3:15].
There's nothing in there that mentions continuing in faith. In 1 Cor. 3, in fact the "wood, hay and stubble" get burned away leaving only the 'Good'... Believing would fall under the category of a work, so unbelieving probably falls under the category of evil work (I'm combining Heb 3:12 - 14 from your website & 1 Cor. 3:13 - 15 which I've included here) but I'm sure you can put the verses together to see where I'm going with this.
I'm guessing you're sublimely familiar with Eph 2:8 - 10 too. GOD's Workmanship (we are) masterpieces / poema.

My reply:

Regarding the Scriptures you mentioned:
I Thess. 1:10 says we are saved from God's wrath to come. This is addressed to those who believe. No problem with that.
As for I Corinthians 3:15; I, too, was taught that this verse meant that as long as a person is saved, whatever works he does after that are "building on the foundation" and if he does bad works, they are "wood, hay, and stubble" and are burnt, but he himself is saved. But that is not what the context of this section is talking about. In this chapter, Paul is talking about planting the Word and building on the foundation of the Gospel that others may have started. If a man's work (of planting the Gospel) is destroyed, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved. It is talking about the work of building a Church body. It's not about the works a person does in his life after he is saved, and whether or not they affect his salvation.
I'm actually glad you brought that up. I have added that point to the article.
Hebrews 3:12 is not talking about "works" but about the "evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." I don't think it is correct to say that "believing would fall under the category of a work." In Ephesians 2:8-10, which you also referred to, Paul emphasizes that we are saved by faith and NOT by works. But we are created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works. Believing is in the heart, and RESULTS in works, but it is not in and of itself a work. We are neither saved nor lost because of our works, but because of our believing or lack of it.
As I wrote on the site, all the great things it says we have and are because of Christ, we appropriate because we believe in him. I don't think it's right to say that if a person has a moment of faith at one time, but turns from the faith later, he is still saved because of that one moment of faith. The Scriptures that I refer to in that article clearly indicate the possibility that one could depart from the faith, and turn their back on God and His salvation. We are exhorted to keep on the course until the end.
Thanks for your input!

Back To The Top


Mark Clarke