Abraham’s Great Act of Faith

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb. 11:17–19).

Apart from Christ’s obedient sacrifice, probably the greatest act of faith in fear and trembling recorded in all of Scripture is the obedient response of Abraham when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac. This occurred after God had given Abraham a promise of future generations through Isaac and after God had made him wait many years for the birth of Isaac. In the interim, Abraham had taken steps to make sure that this promise was fulfilled with the aid of his wife Sarah, who, regarding herself as barren, offered her handmaid Hagar as a surrogate mother so that Abraham could have a son in order to fulfill the promise. Hagar had a son named Ishmael—but he was not the son of promise. Finally, after more years of waiting, God opened the womb of Sarah, and in her old age and in her barrenness, she brought forth a son who was given the name Isaac (when told she would have a son, Sarah had laughed, and the name Isaac means “laughter” in the Hebrew language). All of Abraham’s hopes, his entire destiny, was wrapped up in this child.   Continue at R. C. Sproul

Is There Only One Motivation for Obedience?

For Christians who know they are saved by grace and not by works, there is always a fundamental question that arises: Why should I obey God?  This question is not about whether Christians should obey God (all agree on that), but about the proper motivation for obeying God.  What should drive our sanctification?

Some have answered this question by suggesting that there is only one proper motivation for our obedience, namely our justification.  We should look back at the finished work of Christ with gratitude and appreciation, and this will drive us to follow and obey him.

Now, there is much that is commendable about this motivation.  Indeed, I would argue that the finished work of Christ, and his great mercy and grace toward us, is the core motivation for our obedience.

But, what is interesting is that the Bible does not offer just this single motivation. God’s word offers a multiplicity of reasons for our obedience that touch different aspects of our life and that motivate us from a variety of angles.  In this way, God creates an argument for our obedience that is broader and wider and more difficult for us to escape or ignore.   Continue at  Michael J. Kruger

Is Sanctification Furthered by Rules?

Mark Snoeberger’s recent post on sanctification generated a number of comments on this blog and over at SharperIron. One person asked this:

Do you really believe that sanctification is furthered by rules and if so in what way? I fail to see any way that rules effectively “further” sanctification.

A rule like “children obey your parents” does in fact further sanctification. It is essential to the sanctification of children. Regeneration itself does not bring any revelation as to the particular nature of the sanctified life. Regeneration does not impart any knowledge of the standard of conformity required for holiness. 

Regeneration is the impartation of a new disposition (or nature; see here). The regenerated person now has a disposition toward God, toward obedience to God. He has a desire to obey God, though the old disposition (or nature) is not immediately removed. Rules like “children obey your parents” further sanctification in that they give the standard of holiness and thus direct the regenerated person toward holiness. True, the rule in and of itself cannot bring about holiness apart from the regenerated heart and empowering Spirit, but the regenerated heart cannot be sanctified without the rule. Regeneration does not impart with it a knowledge of the the obedience required for sanctification.

It might be assumed, however, that people who are regenerated sort of automatically know the standards of holiness and thus don’t need any “rules.” Children, even in non-Christian homes, usually grow up being taught to obey their parents, and thus when they are regenerated, their new disposition leads them toward obedience to their parents, so that it might seem they need no rule to further their sanctification in this area. But that is because they are already aware of the God-given rule of obedience to parents. Admittedly, since we are all created in the image of God, everyone has a general sense of right and wrong written on our hearts (Rom 2:14-15). But of course this is imperfect at best and not sufficient for the holiness God requires.

We might consider the case of sexual immorality, particularly premarital sex. In today’s American culture many young people and those who teach them believe that premarital sex is perfectly normal and that it would be foolish to enter into marriage with someone with whom one has not had sex. Such a person who comes to Christ does not necessarily know, simply because of their regeneration, that having sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend is now sinful. They need a command, an exhortation, a rule that such conduct is contrary to God’s standard of holiness. They need to know this rule if their sanctification is to be furthered. Paul’s culture was similar to what we now face in ours in the realm promiscuity, so that we commonly see in his writings warnings about sexual immorality. People in his time did not automatically know that sexual immorality was forbidden when they came to Christ. They needed a rule (1 Cor 6:18) to further their sanctification.  Continue at Bill Combs

The Biggest Lie About Law?

One of the commonest errors about law relative to Christian conduct is that God no longer uses fear or laws to promote Christian conduct.

I was born and raised in a fundamentalist milieu that was at times excessive in its proliferation of rules and regulations. I recognize quite freely that this tendency, while commencing as a well-intentioned pursuit of godliness, in many instances offered fertile soil for the wickedness of self-aggrandizing Pharisaism, fear-driven authoritariainism, and the diminution of the gospel of the grace of God.

Still, I was uncomfortable when I read recently that “rules and regulations…bring about a kind of religious moralism that is very far from genuine Christianity” and, further, that such rules de facto reflect a sort of fear that is incompatible with faith.

Why was I uncomfortable? Well, because the New Testament is filled with fear-motivated rules and regulations that function as legitimate self-disciplinary tools for the promotion of true Christian godliness. Note the following:

• “Great fear” induced the early church not to lie (Acts 5:5, 11 cf. 19:17ff).
• Paul exhorts us as believers to “purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of fear for God” (2 Cor 7:1).
• Paul tells slaves to “be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ” (Eph 6:5).
• Paul tells his readers, “As you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).   Continue at Mark Snoeberger

Insecurity Produces Pride

If you have the reputation of being somewhat critical, “hard edged”, and defensive–it may reveal much more than you realize. Believe it or not, there is a direct and explicit connection between a lack of confidence in God’s unconditional love for you and your tendency to be critical, assertive, and defensive. When you function as if God’s love and acceptance of you depends on your spiritual achievements, your obedience, and your performance, you develop a “defensive assertion of your own righteousness and defensive criticism of others.”

Big thanks to Tom Wood for highlighting these insightful words from Richard Lovelace:

Christians who are no longer sure that God loves and accepts them in Jesus, apart from their present spiritual achievements, are subconsciously insecure persons–much less secure than non-Christians–because they have too much light to rest easily under the constant bulletins they receive from their Christian environment about the holiness of God and the righteousness they are supposed to have. Their insecurity shows itself in pride, a fierce defensive assertion of their own righteousness and defensive criticism of others.  Continue at Tullian Tchividjian

First Corinthians 6 and the Lordship Debate

One of the most significant theological debates over the last several decades has been the controversy over “lordship salvation.” Central to this debate is the question of whether or not obedience to God is an inevitable fruit of genuine conversion. In the preface to The Gospel According to Jesus—the 1988 book that brought the lordship controversy to a new level—lordship advocate John MacArthur wrote:  

I have never taught that some pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. But I do believe without apology that real salvation cannot, and will not, fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer. There are no human works in the saving act, but God’s work of salvation includes a change of intent, will, desire, and attitude that inevitably produces the fruit of the Spirit.

This belief that regeneration inevitably results in a spiritually transformed life is one of the main tenets of lordship salvation. In contrast, many opponents of the lordship view have denied that good works are an inevitable result of conversion. For example, according to the late Zane Hodges—founder of the more radical form of non-lordship teaching known as “Free Grace” (hereafter FG)—the idea that “faith inevitably produces good works” is “a theological construct which cannot be established from the Bible.” Elsewhere Hodges writes, “How strange that in our day and time we have been told so often that fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is unsaved. Certainly we did not get this idea from the Bible.” According to Hodges and other FG teachers, it is hypothetically possible for an individual to believe in Christ and yet show forth absolutely no fruit in terms of obedience to God or love for Christ. Put another way, they believe in a regeneration which may or may not result in a visibly changed life.   Continue at Matt Waymeyer

Legalism or Obedience?

Try to imagine it. You are playing a game of Monopoly, and your opponent throws a ten with the dice. Then he picks up his player marker and begins counting his steps. Immediately you realize he will land on the corner — “Go to Jail!” Well, he doesn’t want to land there, so he stops just one step short, on New York Avenue. Immediately you cry foul. But he responds indignantly, “I only stopped one step short. What’s the difference? Don’t be such a legalist!”

Will you feel ashamed? Will you now feel that you have been too persnickety and legalistic? Too careful to obey the rules? Or will you feel that you have been cheated?

To make the point another way, I have never yet met a parent who complained that his child was a legalist because he obeyed too much. In fact, it would be impossible for any parent to imagine how his child could obey too much.

Yet, find a Christian who is careful to obey God in everything, and we won’t have to look far to find another Christian to call him a legalist. What do we make of this?

It’s a word we all hate, but exactly what is legalism? Legalism is that attempt to establish or maintain a right standing with God by means of our own efforts. The Jews of Paul’s day, for example, thought they could be saved by keeping the law. Anyone claiming to be Christian knows better than that, but even among believers there is sometimes found that attempt to maintain a right standing with God by means of personal efforts. They seem to think that having been saved by grace they must maintain that salvation by works. Legalism.

Still more broadly the term is also used of those Christians who insist on extra-biblical standards of behavior and judge godliness accordingly. For some it is zippers instead of buttons. No hair touching the ears for men. No jewelry for women. No slacks for women. No movies. No playing cards. And so on it goes. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. Extra-biblical standards of behavior are used to measure godliness. Legalism.   Continue at  Fred G. Zaspel

Modesty: Legalism, Antinomianism, or Obedience?

Over the weekend, the Aquila report linked to an article by Matthew Tuininga on modesty, which has been a hot topic for the past few years in evangelicalism. The article argued that “the problem with an issue like modesty is that one can always take a stricter, more modest position than the next person” and that in discussing modesty or enforcing certain aspects of it, we “fall into the trap of implicitly viewing women and their bodies as evils that are to be avoided or hidden”. We have all been around women who dress in a way that hides the fact that they are women; they behave as though breasts, waists, and hips are an embarrassing necessity instead of part of God’s good creation. This error is not helpful.

But neither is the error that modesty is a relative issue, that each woman can come up with her own standard. And even in conservative churches, the tendency to antinomianism when it comes to women’s clothing is just as prevalent and dangerous as legalism is. I know of a conservative, Reformed congregation where the elders decided to keep the sanctuary uncomfortably cold this summer so that women would be forced to wear cardigans instead of baring so much skin in worship. A little while ago I was speaking to a young woman from a church that is full of legalism but who looked more like a soap opera actress than a professing believer. Even for conservative Christians, immodesty is still an issue.  Continue at Rebecca VanDoodewaard

Work Out Your Salvation

“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” It’s often used either as a whip or explained away (“Now, what Paul isn’t saying is…”). As usual, it’s crucial to examine the statement in the flow of Paul’s letter.

Context, Context...

First, the whole statement reads, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his own good pleasure” (Phil 2:12-13).

Second, “Therefore,…” already clues us to what has gone before. Paul has described Christ’s humility and exaltation for our salvation, which he commended as an example for believers. Jesus Christ is Lord, having been exalted to the Father’s right hand as our Redeemer (Phil 2:1-10). 

Third, in chapter 3 Paul will draw a line between his assets and liabilities, and move his assets (“righteousness under the law”) into the liabilities column, counting his good works apart from Christ as “dung, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith…” (Phil 3:8-9).   Continue at Michael Horton  

Obey Your Pastors and Submit to Them

Few passages are more commonly misread, or simply avoided, than Hebrew 13:17:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.

It shouldn’t surprise us that this passage often goes avoided. This is bound to happen in a culture where postmodernism rejects all claims of authority and where examples of abuses of authority are not hard to find in the news.

To make matters worse, a surface reading of this passage seems to sanction some form of authoritarianism, an unqualified obedience and submission to pastors in all matters. But that’s not the message of this passage, as we will see.

What follows are a few important thoughts on this passage, beginning with a closer look at the idea of “obeying.”

Here is how W. E. Vine defines the Greek word “obey” (πείθο):

In Hebrews 13:17, believers are commanded to obey their leaders. The word used is peithō which has the usual meaning of “convince” or “persuade.” The “obedience” suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion. Peithō and pisteuō, “to trust,” are closely related etymologically; the difference in meaning is that the former implies the obedience that is produced by the latter.

Peithō, “to persuade, to win over,” in the passive and middle voices, “to be persuaded, to listen to, to obey,” is so used with this meaning, in the middle voice, e.g., in Acts 5:36-37 (in v. 40, passive voice, “they agreed”); Rom. 2:8; Gal. 5:7; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 3:3.  Continue at Obey Your Pastors

Discovering the Will of God

Read it at Say What I Ought

IMAGE

The Law & The Gospel

In order to recover the sufficiency of Scripture we must once again learn to distinguish the Law and the Gospel as the "two words" of Scripture. For the Reformers, it was not enough to believe in inerrancy. Since Rome also had a high view of Scripture in theory, the Reformers were not criticizing the church for denying its divine character. Rather, they argued that Rome subverted its high view of Scripture by the addition of other words and by failing to read and proclaim Scripture according to its most obvious sense.

At the heart of the reformation's hermeneutics was the distinction between "Law" and "Gospel." For the Reformers, this was not equivalent to "Old Testament" and "New Testament;" rather, it meant, in the words of Theodore Beza, "We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings." The Law "is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own "righteousness." "Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."1

Luther made this hermeneutic central, but both traditions of the Protestant Reformation jointly affirm this key distinction. In much of medieval preaching, the Law and Gospel were so confused that the "Good News" seemed to be that Jesus was a "kinder, gentler Moses," who softened the Law into easier exhortations, such as loving God and neighbor from the heart. The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the Gospel was simply an easier "law" than that of the Old Testament. Instead of following a lot of rules, God expects only love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin replied, "As if we could think of anything more difficult than to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength! Compared with this law, everything could be considered easy...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him."2 Thus, Calvin observes, Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is "a compensation for their lack," not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation. Continue at Michael Horton

See Also: Is the Law Gracious?

IMAGE

Does Grace Produce Disobedience?

There seems to be a fear out there that the preaching of grace produces serial killers. Or, to put it in more theological terms, too much emphasis on the indicatives of the gospel leads to antinomianism (a heretical version of Christianity that believes there is no place for God’s law in the life of a Christian). My problem with this fear is that I’ve never actually met anyone who has been truly gripped by God’s amazing grace in the gospel who then doesn’t care about obeying him. When our hearts are genuinely grasped by God’s unconditional love, the last thing we want to ask is, “What can I get away with?” Those who conclude, “Goody, I can now continue in sin til my heart’s content” prove that they don’t get grace. As I’ve said before: antinomianism happens not when we think too much of grace. 

Just the opposite, actually. Antinomianism happens when we think too little of grace. 

Wondering whether this common fear is valid, my dear friend Elyse Fitzpatrick (in C.S. Lewis fashion) writes an open letter to Mr. Grace-Loving Antinomian-a person she’s heard about for years but never met-asking him to please step forward and identify himself.

I posted this a while back but I just read it again myself and want to share it with those who may not have seen it the first time. It’s that good.

Enjoy…  Read it HERE

Orators and Heralds: Audience-Driven vs. Obedience-Driven

Two weeks ago, I posted a third principle of faithfulness for Gospel ministry from 2 Corinthians 4. If the Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing (2Cor 4:3), and if the problem we’re trying to solve is the world’s blindness to glory (2Cor 4:4), then our task is to preach a message that is powerful enough in itself to overcome that blindness. Paul tells us that such a proclamation is not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord (2Cor 4:5).

And yet it seems that many pastors, churches, and individual Christians have not understood the implications of those principles. Sadly, many do preach themselves. Jerry Wragg has offered us two magnificent posts over the last two days (one, two) outlining some reasons he sees for this. Another of the reasons I believe that is the case is that we have a fundamental misunderstanding of our role. Many evangelical preachers see themselves as orators rather than heralds.

To help us see the difference, I want to quote generously from a chapter by Duane Litfin called “Swallowing Our Pride: An Essay on the Foolishness of Preaching.” It appears in Preach the Word, a book on expository preaching in honor of R. Kent Hughes. In this chapter, Litfin examines the widely-held notion that 1Cor 1:24 speaks only of the foolishness of the message preached to the exclusion of the method of preaching itself. He contrasts the ancient keryx, or herald—that is, what New Testament preachers are called to be—with the orator that Paul labored so diligently to distance himself from (1Cor 1:17–2:5).

The Obedience of the Second Adam and True Israel

There are several defining moments in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ that deserve the deepest and most serious consideration. His baptism at the Jordan, His temptation in the wilderness, His transfiguration, His agony in Gethsemane and His sufferings on the cross are the most significant points in Jesus’ earthly ministry. The baptism and temptation are singular in their importance because of the representative character which they portray. In order to fully understand any subsequent act in the life of Christ the central importance of these two inaugural events must first be discerned.

Matthew, Mark and Luke each collectively bear witness to the fact that the wilderness temptation occurred immediately after Jesus was baptized. His baptism was nothing less than identification with those for whom He came to die. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Jesus needed no repentance, but He underwent it to show that He was the sin-bearing representative of His people. It was most likely also the Messianic anointing with which His public ministry was inaugurated. This event, for the first time in human history, led to the unfolding of the mystery of the Trinity. There at the Jordan, the Father pronounced his declaration of delight over the Son, as the Spirit descended upon Him. The readers’ mind must reach back to the first manifestation of the Spirit, where, at the creation of the world, He is said to have hovered over the waters that the Father and Son spoke into existence. The declaration of the Father at Jesus’ baptism was meant to carry the Son through His entire ministry, especially through the atoning death He was to endure on the cross. The declaration that Jesus was the Father’s beloved Son, is put both to Jesus and to those who were present at the baptism. Jesus was obeying the Father by undergoing a baptism of repentance–a “repentance” that He alone, of all mankind, did not need. As the representative of His people, Jesus was obeying what His Father had commanded Israel to do, and was therefore well pleasing to Him. He was, in brief, the second Adam doing all that the Father commanded His people to do.    Keep Reading...

Law Without Gospel Leads To Licentiousness

I received this letter a few weeks ago from someone I’ve never met. He sent it to me as a word of encouragement regarding how the message of grace has revitalized his love for God. I hesitated to post it because, given the kind things he says about my work, I didn’t want to appear self-promotional. But what he says about the effect of grace in revitalizing his spiritual life and the inability of the law to engender what it commands is so good, I just had to share it with you.

He wrote:

Over the last couple of years, we have really been struggling with the preaching in our church as it has been very law laden and borders on moralistic. After listening, I feel condemned with no power to overcome my lack of ability to obey the law. Over the last several months, I have found myself very spiritually depressed, to the point where I had no desire to even attend church.   Keep Reading...

The Church’s Mission Statement

A mission statement is a brief statement of the purpose of an organization, religious or otherwise. Companies sometimes use their mission statement as an advertising slogan, but the intention of a genuine mission statement is to keep members and users aware of the organization’s purpose.

The mission statement should be a clear and succinct representation of the enterprise’s purpose for existence. The intent of the Mission Statement should be the first consideration for any employee who is evaluating a strategic decision.

Here is a quiz for you to see if you can recognize which company’s mission statements these are:

1. ”A computer on every desktop and in every home, running our software”

2. Establishing ourselves as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles while we grow.

3. ”We seek to be the world’s most customer-centric company, where customers can find and discover anything they may want to buy online at a great price.”

4. “To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world.”     Keep Reading...

The Law Renders Us Inexcusable and Drives Us Into Despair

But, in order that our guilt may arouse us to seek pardon, it behooves us, briefly, to know how by our instruction in the moral law we are rendered more inexcusable. If it is true that in the law we are taught the perfection of righteousness, this also follows: the complete observance of the law is perfect righteousness before God. By it man would evidently be deemed and reckoned righteous before the heavenly judgment seat. Therefore Moses, after he had published the law, did not hesitate to call heaven and earth to witness that he had "set before Israel life and death, good and evil" [ Deuteronomy 30:19 p.]. We cannot gainsay that the reward of eternal salvation awaits complete obedience to the law, as the Lord has promised. On the other hand, it behooves us to examine whether we fulfill that obedience, through whose merit we ought to derive assurance of that reward. What point is there to see in the observance of the law the proffered reward of eternal life if, furthermore, it is not clear whether by this path we may attain eternal life. At this point the feebleness of the law shows itself. Because observance of the law is found in none of us, we are excluded from the promises of life and fall back into the mere curse. I am telling not only what happens but what must happen. For since the teaching of the law is far above human capacity, a man may indeed view from afar the proffered promises, yet he cannot derive any benefit from them. Therefore this thing alone remains: that from the goodness of the promises he should the better judge his own misery, while with the hope of salvation cut off he thinks himself threatened with certain death. On the other hand, horrible threats hang over us, constraining and entangling not a few of us only, but all of us to a man. They hang over us, I say, and pursue us with inexorable harshness, so that we discern in the law only the most immediate death.   Keep Reading...

 

 

IMAGE

Killing Moralism

Many Christians have grown up in the church on moralistic preaching; that is, preaching that calls for obedience without connecting the commands of God to the cross of Christ. This disconnect is dangerous, potentially leading hearers into either self-loathing or self-righteousness. Moralistic preaching is often the ground in which the devil sows the seeds of legalism. Of course biblical preaching will always be relevant and call for a response, but how can we preach the commands of God without reducing our messages to moralism? Is the key to simply jump from the command “pray without ceasing” to the reality that Jesus suffered a vicarious, penal atonement? Well, that’s one way to do it. But, let me suggest three ways of preaching the commands of God that help us avoid the trap of moralism.

Show the God of the Command

God’s laws are not arbitrary, but stem from who he is. And, because we are made in his image and for his glory, he gives us commands that reflect his character. So, when holding out the commands of God we must point beyond the command to the God who gives it.    Keep Reading...

The Sinless Perfection Test – Are YOU Perfect???

DISCLAIMER: Nothing said in this short questionnaire should be taken as a justification for willful sin in the life of a professing Christian. The Bible says if we continue to sin willfully (that is, against known light in known sin by an act of the will), and persist in that sin without true repentance after receiving the knowledge of the truth, then there is no sacrifice left to cover our sins (Christ’s blood then profits us nothing), and all we have to look forward to is the fierce judgment of God (Hebrews 10:26-31). If you claim to be a Christian, but you have tolerated any known form of sin in your life, and you’re not fighting it, wrestling against it, hating it with all your heart, and finding repentance and ultimately, victory over it, then you are in grave and serious danger. The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and the business of a Christian is a conduct of habitual holiness and love, and bearing fruit for God’s glory. Though in many things we offend all, especially in word, the true Christian does not commit and continue in ANY known sin, and if he stumbles, he will find true repentance quickly. If you are living in any known sin, and you continue to do that sin over and over, and aren’t fighting for your deliverance with a holy violence, and seeking victory above everything else in life, then you have very much reason to doubt the reality of your salvation. Those born of God have a new nature within them, which causes them to hate sin and love holiness, and the practical conduct of all Christians who have been born again undeniably proves that their practice is one of habitual righteousness and true holiness by faith in Jesus Christ. Read it all HERE