Podcast4Him
Where we apply scriptural principles to every day Christian lives.
Podcast4Him
93| Debating Holiness Standards: Is the Gospel Being Distorted? With Luke Beets and Nathan Mayo
This episode features a lively debate between Nathan Mayo (from Berean Holiness) and Luke Beets (Campus Minister) regarding the legitimacy and influence of holiness standards in Christianity. Each participant presents their case, with Nathan arguing that these prescriptive standards distort the true gospel message, while Luke defends their place as a necessary expression of obedience to God's commands. The conversation explores the implications of both perspectives, ultimately challenging listeners to consider their own understanding of faith, grace, and righteousness.
Berean Holiness Articles: https://bereanholiness.com/articles/
We want to thank you for listening to , where we apply scriptural principles to everyday Christian lives. I'm your host, Jonathan Rich. Sean is actually out sick tonight, so I will be helping moderate the debate. For the last few weeks, we've been promoting this debate between Nathan Mayo and Luke Beetz regarding holiness standards and doctrines and, of course, the time has now come for that debate to begin. We want to sincerely thank everyone who has expressed interest in the debate, for every one of the questions, the comments that were submitted, for all the shares, the likes, the feedbacks. We are honored to have a small part in aiming to moderate this debate with the best of our ability. With that, we understand that it comes with different challenges, some not so friendly messages, people wondering why we're even hosting the debate. Several have challenged our desire to see lost saved simply because they believe conversations like this are detrimental or not helpful to the church, to which our response is that we believe that you can do something for Christ in reaching the lost, while also having civil conversation and debate regarding principles, doctrines as well as traditions. The worst thing you can do, we believe, is hide behind your beliefs without explanation or desire to help others see the truth. Of course, we've spoken with both debaters tonight and have expressed to them that we desire that this debate does remain civil, not a shouting match or gotcha moments, necessarily, but to be Christ-like in all that we do. And, with that said, we also want to let them know that we want them to bring it. We want each of our speakers to stay firm, to disagree when needed, bring it. We want each of our speakers to stay firm, to disagree when needed and to even challenge one another. This debate very well could get heated at times, but we believe that iron sharpens iron. We believe that the best way to produce diamonds is to go through fire and to go through pressure. We also want to take a moment to say that not everything that is expressed in this debate from either participant is reflective of this podcast. There will be things we agree on from both parties and there will likely be things that we disagree on from both parties, but our desire is to remain balanced, fair and unbiased. With all that said, we'd like to share with you our debate resolution guidelines, and then we will begin.
Jonathan Rich:The resolution to be debated is prescriptive. Standards of dress and entertainment as taught in the holiness movement distort a biblical understanding of the gospel. Nathan will be taking the affirmative position in that resolution to be debated. We'll begin with introductions and then opening statements. Each opening statement will be 10 minutes long per participant. From then we will have our first rebuttal round, which we will also have a time limit of 10 minutes per participant, and then a second rebuttal round to follow, which will have a time limit of five minutes per participant.
Jonathan Rich:Once complete, we'll have a cross-examination round that will be a 15-minute total round where each participant will speak or give a response. We actually have one here for 90 seconds, but obviously that will be controlled by the participants within the cross-examination round. After that we will share audience questions. We will have three total questions that will be answered at a time limit of three minutes per participant and then, at the conclusion of this debate, each participant will have closing statements for two minutes each and we will end the debate and the podcast.
Jonathan Rich:We will have a timer for each round and speaker. I ask that you bear with me as I alternate between the timer, speaking questions and moderating, so if there is a period somewhere in this podcast where there is some sort of a longer pause, that is why, between the going back and going forth, so with that said and going forth, so with that said, what I want to do is I want to have Luke Beetz just give a small introduction, tell us who he is, where he's from, things like that, and then what we'll do is from there we'll go to Nathan's introduction and then, once Nathan is completed introducing himself, we will allow him to give his opening statement to begin. So, brother Luke, tell us who you are, tell us a little bit about yourself.
Luke Beets:Yes, sir. First I would like to say thank you to The Every Day Christian Podcast for hosting the debate. Thank you to Nathan Mayo for being on the front of the reading. It's an important debate.
Luke Beets:My name is Luke Beats. I'm a college campus preacher. I was a mailman for 13 years and a youth pastor for 13 years. Four years ago God called me and my family to resign our job at the post office, resign our position at the church, still attend that church about six weeks out of the year. Otherwise we're on the road somewhere in America.
Luke Beets:I was raised in a very conservative holiness Assembly of God church. It's the oldest Assembly of God church in that part of East Texas. The two closest fellowshipping churches that we would fellowship with are about two hours away on both sides. So we're in the middle of nowhere. But as a young man, seven years old, got saved, I was called to preach. When I was seven I had a pastor believe to your call to preach, you ought to preach. So I preached my first message when I was seven. I don't have an excuse for not being any better preacher than I am, but oh well, I do my best. No, but we love what God has called us to do to reach out to college students. Appreciate the opportunity to graduate from Ozark Bible Institute for your degree. Ozark Bible Institute and I'm repeating myself, but I really appreciate the opportunity I have tonight.
Jonathan Rich:Yes, sir, it's funny because I was in choir and I think I might have stayed with your family when we came and visited your church, and I can tell you it is a very, very small town. So I agree with what you said there.
Nathan Mayo:And then, brother Nathan, if you could give us an introduction of yourself, and then, if you'd like to begin your opening statement for this debate, sure thing. Well, it's certainly a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this Luke for helping make this happen and, of course, The Every Day Christian Podcast. My name is Nathan Mayo. I grew up independent Pentecostal holiness in North Alabama. That's where I was not quite born but raised and spent my growing up years. There were a lot of good things that came out of that background, a lot of things I liked, but there were also some things that I saw some issues with over time and even more looking back. But out of there, I left to join the Army. I have a degree in economics from West Point, was in the Army for a total of nine years and then my wife and I went to be missionaries in Haiti for a couple of years. So we saw some you know very, very serious poverty and also some some very powerful instances of God moving and helping people in a developing country and in a church that looks a little different from the church in the US but then again has a whole lot in common. In a church that looks a little different from the church in the U? S but then again has a whole lot in common. So after that experience, uh came to work in my current job, where I am a director of programs for a nonprofit that helps churches and nonprofits working with people in poverty to make their ministries more empowering. So my day job is serving the poor, albeit a little bit indirectly, and in that process I co-founded Berean Holiness. It's a hobby for me. So in the process of doing that and sharing some of what we share, I've learned a lot actually about cousin movements of the holiness group that I grew up in. Groups like the non-Pentecostal conservative holiness had no idea they existed when I was a kid and now they think that I've left their movement and I'm, you know, trying to tear down their movement that I had never heard of before I started out. But no, it's a privilege to do this. It's not my day job, it's one of a few side ministries that I'm involved in, but it's important and I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion here today. So that's my introduction. If you want to get the timer up and ready, then I am happy to present the affirmative case and kick this off.
Nathan Mayo:Today's resolution is that prescriptive standards of dress and entertainment, as taught in the holiness movement distort a biblical understanding of the gospel At Berean Holiness. Some of our most popular articles have addressed the lack of scriptural support that we see for the standards taught by the broader holiness movement. These standards are inconsistent. They frequently change without explanation or retraction of previous positions. They vary from region to region and from one subgroup to another. That makes it quite easy to point out the flaws in the logic and the proof texts.
Nathan Mayo:Almost all of these standards are prohibitions, and most of these standards are about dress and entertainment, ostensibly because these are the areas of life easiest to regulate by personal appearance. There are prohibitions on beards, jewelry, even open-toed shoes, despite the fact that all of these things are affirmatively supported in Scripture. There are prohibitions on short sleeves, tv playing cards, contemporary Christian music, high heels, despite the fact that these things are not addressed in Scripture at all. There are prohibitions on tattoos and makeup based on passing references in the Old Testament that are stretched into generalized prohibitions. While I do have the burden of proof for today's resolution, if Luke wants to defend these prohibitions, he still carries a scriptural burden of proof to do so.
Nathan Mayo:But it is fair to ask who cares If people want to follow these extra rules, regardless of whether they're quite in scripture. Why not just leave them alone? Well, first off, we don't force our content on anyone. We don't actually protest outside of their churches with cardboard signs, as somebody from this movement did at one of our events. But we do analyze their teachings to those who choose to listen and, frankly, I'd rather not even do that. As I mentioned, I'm just a volunteer with a day job. I'd rather spend my evening with my two adorable little girls and I used to have that exact mentality of they're good people. Who cares what they believe on these little issues. But then I started to see the young people that I had grown up with in the church go off and really go off the rails, and I started to see that there was something fundamentally unhealthy about the doctrine which was tied to these prescriptive standards.
Nathan Mayo:Now, I say prescriptive standards because these aren't merely personal convictions that one chooses freely to follow. They are prescribed or required for others to follow, and in their prescription they unintentionally distort the gospel message itself. And in their prescription they unintentionally distort the gospel message itself. Before I discuss how, let's quickly recap the gospel as it appears in Ephesians 2. But God who is rich, in mercy for his great love, wherewith he loved us even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, for by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast, for we are his worksmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God has ordained 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.
Nathan Mayo:So how do these standards distort the central teachings of Christendom? I'll give you three ways. Number one the gospel produces works of love. Prescriptive standards produce works of appearance. The gospel produces works of love. Prescriptive standards works of appearance. I just said that works do follow from salvation as a part of the gospel message. But what works? The Bible doesn't leave us in the dark about this.
Nathan Mayo:Let's look at the examples the Bible actually gives. James 2, the classic conversation on faith and works in scripture, gives some examples Loving your neighbor, not showing favoritism to the rich, feeding the hungry, abraham offering Isaac at God's command and Rahab hiding the spies. Jesus in Matthew 25, talks about what separates the sheep from the goats on the day of judgment Feeding the hungry, loving the stranger, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned. The fruit of the Spirit comes to mind Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. How come it is when a holiness preacher lists the marks of the believer and unbeliever, it always sounds like a list of things not to wear and places not to go. And yet the biblical passages on the fruits of good and evil tend not to address appearance and entertainment at all, much less list out wearing earrings, dyeing hair, painting nails, watching ball games and wearing a pair of Bermuda shorts. The Bible says you shall know them by their fruit, and it teaches us what that fruit is Apples, pears, bananas, love, joy, peace. The holiness movement scrubs that out and replaces it with a new list of fruit Skirts, no jewelry, no TV. It's like training a fruit inspector that he should be looking for Doritos in an orchard, which has an additional impact by confusing the evidences of salvation.
Nathan Mayo:Prescriptive standards confuse people about who is saved. That causes people to question the salvation of many saints, often including themselves, if they struggle to comply with the extra-biblical standards or ask too many questions for the preacher's comfort. It also causes them not to recognize sinners in their own churches, including their own children in many cases, because it turns out that the unredeemed can follow a dress code. The second point I have is that the gospel unifies all believers and prescriptive standards isolate tribes. The gospel unifies, prescriptive standards isolate. The good news of scripture is about the salvation of the individual, but it's also about the redemption of the collective. It puts us not only in right relationship 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 those outside the church. Unity of believers for evangelism of the lost. Prescriptive standards undermine both.
Nathan Mayo:In 15 plus years I spent in four separate holiness churches. I never once participated in any event where we so much as met any of the other churches in town. There was certainly never any effort made to partner in any way with non-holiness believers because to do so would grant them legitimacy and undermine the prescriptive standards. I can't help but notice in Luke's introduction he mentioned that the two churches they fellowshiped were two hours away in both directions, but I'll bet those weren't the only churches that were on that drive. As for evangelism, I heard people say if God wants folks to be saved he'll bring them in the church doors. I saw no serious evangelistic efforts and just about the only people who ever got saved were ex-holiness folks. Now I did hear about some exceptions to the rule. Luke is one of them, and good for him. But even for the occasional person who cared enough to evangelize, it turns out that the prescriptive standards of dress and entertainment were a significant deterrent.
Nathan Mayo:The fact is that God's message already strains the comprehension of the unbeliever. So when you add long sleeves in southern gospel music as additional stipulations for righteousness, you have placed stumbling blocks at the narrow gate. The third reason that I have is that the gospel says Christ makes us holy. Prescriptive standards say we're saved by grace but we're kept by works. Holiness preachers have to teach people to cultivate orchards full of Dorito trees. They don't grow naturally, so if Doritos are on a tree it's because somebody stapled them on. One requires unnatural techniques to produce synthetic fruits. Techniques like peer pressure, insistence on constantly being around other holiness people offering spiritual prizes like second and third blessings as reward for compliance, emotional and story-driven sermons avoiding exegetical Bible study like the plague.
Nathan Mayo:But the main one is fear. Fear of missing heaven. I'd rather make heaven by a mile than miss it by an inch. Lord, I'm running trying to make 199 and a half on due. That fear replaces the security offered in the finished work of Christ with the doctrine of once saved, never saved.
Nathan Mayo:On this view, any sin at any point will separate us eternally from God. If unconfessed, but even holiness folks know they can't really meet God's standard on sins of omission. After all, to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him, it is sin. So instead they just focus on a checklist of things that are much easier to control Shave your whiskers, don't dye your hair, never show your knees or your elbows. Then you will be safe.
Nathan Mayo:The funny thing is that the Bible doesn't talk about anyone missing heaven by an inch. It compares those who make it and those who don't to sheep and goats, crimson and white trees with fruit and trees without. Have you ever seen a sheep that was an inch away from being a goat? When the Bible talks about the righteous and unrighteous, it's just as binary as when it talks about male and female. But when holiness people talk about righteousness, it's always a fluid spectrum. There are no accounts of Judgment Day, in which people almost make it in and just miss the cut. If you've put your trust in Jesus, you're perfect. You're wearing a wedding garment that you could never make on your own in a million years. If you're not with Jesus, everything you do is filthy rags.
Nathan Mayo:In summary, the gospel focuses on works of love. Prescriptive standards focus on outward appearance. The gospel unifies believers. Prescriptive standards isolate believers from each other and the lost. The gospel relies on Christ for spiritual security. Prescriptive standards rely on ever-changing checklists. In the next speech, it's Luke's job to tell you why these particular points I raise are all untrue, as they are all independent. If anyone is true, then I have sustained the resolution. For all of these reasons, I not only believe that prescriptive standards of dress and entertainment, as taught in the holiness movement, are unbiblical, but also that they actively distort people's understanding of the gospel. God's word does not benefit from our additions. Thank you.
Jonathan Rich:Nathan and Luke, your opening statement. Okay, and Luke your opening statement.
Luke Beets:Okay, before I do any type of rebuttal, what I really will need to do is give some clarification on what I am defending. First off, I would say I'm not defending everything that's ever been taught in a holiness church, or any church for that matter. That would not work Really. The final authority for the Christian in all things is the Bible. Through the Bible we have access to the very mind of God and therefore we are not left to wonder or question what is correct or false, but we can know with certainty what is true. Regardless, or regarding the stated resolution of this debate, prescriptive standards of dress and entertainment, as taught in the holiness movement, distort a biblical understanding of the gospel. Regarding that resolution, four things I believe must be established if we were to come to the truth on this topic. First, what does it mean to distort? Second, what is the gospel? Third, how do we appropriate the gospel? Four, what is the difference between holiness and righteousness? Now, first off, what does it mean to distort? Merriam-webster's Dictionary defines that word. To distort defines that to twist out of the true meaning or proportion, to alter or to give a false or unnatural picture or account of. So what is the gospel?
Luke Beets:Paul gets probably the most concise description of the gospel in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, 1 through 4, where he says of the gospel in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, 1 through 4, where he says Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also you have received and wherein ye stand by, which also you are saved if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain, for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and that he arose again the third day. According to the scripture, the gospel is the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and God in the flesh, for the sins of all mankind. How do we appropriate or how do we apply this to ourselves? How do we benefit from the gospel Acts, chapter number three, verse 19, says repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. Romans, chapter 10, verse eight and nine. But what saith it? The word is not even in thy mouth and in thine heart. That is the word of faith, which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart, excuse me, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. We are commanded, if we are to appropriate the gospel. We are commanded to repent of our sins, confess our faith in Jesus as our Lord and believe in his death, burial and resurrection as the only payment for our past sins. At this point we are justified.
Luke Beets:Now the term justification is the legal term, which means to declare righteous. In our day, we're more loose with our terms and we'll use words like saved, which it is used in Scripture. Really, the word saved or salvation is more of an all-encompassing word that covers justification, sanctification and glorification, as it would be incorrect to say that all these things transpire in the same instant. We have to be more specific if we wish to be accurate. Therefore, at the instant of repentance and faith, we are justified Romans, chapter 5, verse 1,. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Romans, chapter 4, verse 24 and 25,. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him, that raised up Jesus, our Lord, from the dead, who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification. For by grace you are saved. Ephesians, chapter 2, verse 8 and 9. For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not yourself. It is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
Luke Beets:Justification is accomplished completely on the grounds of grace, through faith. We are made right with God solely by what Christ did for us and not in any way by anything we do or have done. In justification, all our past sins are removed and laid on Christ and His righteousness is imputed, ascribed, reckoned as belonging to us. So what's the difference between holiness and righteousness? If that is the gospel, if the gospel is the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ on the behalf of mankind, I appropriate the gospel, I make it mine, I receive it by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and what he did alone. Then what is the difference in holiness and righteousness? Nathan made the statement and said that we are made holy at the point of salvation or justification. I would differ somewhat there, but I would say there's a difference between holiness and righteousness. That salvation, that justification, righteousness is imputed. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to me. But, as stated earlier, the Bible is absolutely clear that we are made righteous. We are declared to be righteous by faith in what Jesus did for us on the cross. However, this is the beginning of a journey and not the entirety. The Bible is also very clear that if we were to remain righteous, we are commanded to live righteously or in obedience to God.
Luke Beets:First John, chapter three, verse seven little children, let no man deceive you. He that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous. He that committed sins of the devil for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil. Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Luke Beets:2 Peter 3, verse 14. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found with him in peace, without spot and blameless. Philippians 2, verse 15. That ye may be blameless and harmless the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation among whom also ye shine as lights in the world. 1 John 2, verse 6. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk even as he walked.
Luke Beets:How did Jesus walk? 1 Peter, chapter 2, verse 21 and 22. For even hereunto were ye called because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow in his steps, who did no sin. Neither was guile found in his mouth. This is the life that we are called to walk If we are to remain righteous or in right relationship with God. A life free of sin and obedient to God is and obedience to God is commanded. Therefore, righteousness is what we do.
Luke Beets:Again, what's the distinction of holiness and righteousness? Righteousness is what we do. On the other hand, holiness is a state of being. It is what we are called to be. 1 Thessalonians, chapter 4, verse 7. For God has not called us unto uncleanness but unto holiness. Hebrews, chapter 12, verse 10. For they, verily, for a few days, chastened us after their own pleasure, but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Luke Beets:1 Peter, chapter 1, verse 16. Because it is written be ye holy, for I am holy Biblically, I'm made holy, I'm sanctified by God, by God, by the blood of Jesus, by faith Hebrews 13, 12,. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate, verse number 20,. Now, the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Luke Beets: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 be preserved, blameless, under the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We're given a great clue right there, but to move on quickly 1 Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse 24,. Faithfully see that call of you who also will do it. One who calls you to be holy will do this.
Luke Beets:At justification, all my past sins are forgiven and I'm declared righteous. At sanctification, I am made holy and free from my carnal nature as it is crucified and put to death. Romans, chapter six, verse number six. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin, I am not holy because of what I do. I am because what I do or don't do, rather, I'm holy because God made me holy and I live a righteous life because God sanctified me. Now, the very key thing I need to just right here in closing, make that point I am not, and as a holiness believer, I do not believe I am holy because I keep my hair cut short. As a man, as a woman, they wouldn't wear, you know, they would not cut their hair. That's not why we're holy. We are holy because God makes us holy makes sense. According to Leviticus 20, 26, the Bible says that even under the Old Testament law, god called Israel to live righteous because they had been separated by God.
Jonathan Rich: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 his response there to Luke's opening statement and something that he had mentioned, and I want to obviously get your take on this. I know I'm kind of putting some of the pressure on here, but he did mention Romans 12, 1, where it says I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice wholly acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. As you're rebutting this, would you mind giving your interpretation or your thoughts on that scripture that he mentioned?
Nathan Mayo:My pleasure. So I am here to make the case that prescriptive standards of dress and entertainment, as taught in the holiness movement, distort a biblical understanding of the gospel, that people who sit under the teachings of this movement frequently walk away with a clear list of rules to follow but misunderstand critical aspects of the gospel aspects of the gospel, in fact. Over 500 people answered our annual survey and expressed that holiness teachings confuse them about the gospel for all of the reasons I already mentioned. Now let me point out to you that you can self-identify as a holiness person, you can believe in a second blessing of perfect sanctification or any of the other distinctives of the holiness subgroup, and you could still agree with me about the unhealthy effect of teaching the particular standards of dress and entertainment that are currently in vogue in the holiness movement. Furthermore, I've presented three arguments so far, all of which are logically independent of each other. If anyone is true, then the resolution stands. Luke's job here today is to tell you why all of my arguments are wrong, because I'm here to uphold the resolution. I've said a lot to uphold it already. So far he hasn't responded to any of it. He has one more opportunity to do so and I have a pretty limited window to respond to him after that.
Nathan Mayo:A lot of the things Luke said about the gospel I couldn't agree with more. I mean, most of it was straight out of God's Word, just reading Scripture. So yay and amen is what I have to say to that. There are certainly some things in there that I would differ with and I'll bring that back around in the round, but we do seem to agree on the whole that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, resulting in good works of some kind. What kind can be discussed? Unity with all believers and love for a lost and dying world.
Nathan Mayo:Before I defend my previous three points, allow me to add one new one. My new point, the fourth one I would add into this round, is that the gospel reproduces through discipleship and prescriptive standards destroy discipleship. A biblical understanding of the gospel requires discipleship, but prescriptive standards destroy discipleship. A biblical understanding of the gospel requires discipleship, but prescriptive standards work against it, because discipleship is the slow, relational process of teaching other believers to be more like Christ. Christians learn to apply God's word to their lives and to their conduct. They learn to follow God's commands, sensitize their consciences and observe the effect of their actions on other believers so as not to create stumbling blocks, commands, consciences and effect. Remember that that's going to be important later. That's how they end up developing genuine personal convictions that actually differ from the believers to their left and right. That is what we see in Romans 14, where believers in the same body were practicing different things and Paul said that was okay, because these were matters of conviction and not matters of prescription in God's Word.
Nathan Mayo:Contrast that with man-made prescriptive standards, which seem like discipleship on steroids, you get overnight results. People go from looking immature to looking mature in a very short time. The problem is that, like steroids, rules eventually destroy your health and your ability to create muscle or spiritual strength through natural processes. Here's how. One of the main ways you disciple is by teaching people how to study scripture verse by verse in context. But since prescriptive standards can't be found from rightly dividing the word of truth, people have to be taught to actively mishandle scripture. Additionally, one of the main ways that you help people stay away from sin is by sensitizing their consciences. But prescriptive standards tell people to dismiss their consciences and listen to the preacher. But all this comes at a great cost. Remember how I said that most of the rules are about dress and entertainment. So there are massive swaths of life, like marriage and parenting and money management, where there are very few rules and very little fruit, because people aren't mature disciples. My friends, there is no place that is safe from temptation. Even a church pew can be a hotbed of gossip and bitterness. So when holiness preachers kept folks out of amusement parks but failed to disciple them, they didn't end up with a safer flock, they ended up with a sorry one.
Nathan Mayo:Now I'm going to recap the points that I have already provided and I'm going to focus on the things that Luke has said about it. He hasn't addressed them directly, but some of them he's said some things about in passing, so I'm going to try to respond to that, because it's my job to defend these points. That's why I'm here today. The first point that I shared is that the gospel produced works of love, and prescriptive standards produce works of appearance. Now, as you pointed out, jonathan, romans 12.1 talks about offering our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God.
Nathan Mayo:Now that still leaves open the question of where did the holiness come from? I would submit the holiness came from God, but works are a part of the gospel. They are a fruit of salvation. That is not in dispute in this round. But don't allow this conflation of the word holiness with these arbitrary and fickle standards to confuse you, because that's just not what we see in the Bible when we see the fruits of the believer. My friends, baptists aren't the only ones who baptize, and holiness sure aren't the only ones who are holy. Go, do a biblical word search on holiness. Whenever it is accompanied by commands, the most common one is to avoid sexual immorality. The one that never appears is dyeing your hair or painting your toenails, along with all of the other holiness dress codes.
Nathan Mayo:Now Luke says that he doesn't want to defend every standard that's ever been taught. I appreciate that I understand you couldn't and frankly, they change so often, how could you even keep up with them. But what I think that you do have a burden to do if you want to disprove the resolution, if you don't want to just agree with me on this is that this whole system of all of these changing rules is fundamentally confusing people about what the fruits of a believer are. And you've talked about, essentially, this doctrine of, maybe, perfect sanctification. Again, you can believe in perfect sanctification and you can still say, well, the evidences of perfect sanctification. Again, you can believe in perfect sanctification and you can still say, well, the evidence is of perfect sanctification would be the fruit of the Spirit and the holiness standards have to be tied in to this whole idea.
Nathan Mayo:I just don't see that in Scripture and so far Luke hasn't given us any reason to believe it's in Scripture. He has said that he would only defend standards that are in fact in Scripture and I appreciate that that standard that he's coming from. That's how I would look at it too. But when you start trying to defend a standard like beards being wrong, that one is so hidden in Scripture that God's Son himself didn't even catch that standard when he was here on Earth, it is really hard to defend that standard just based on Scripture. So he's going to have to go to. Well, your preacher has authority, 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 things confuse people about the gospel.
Nathan Mayo:The second point that I brought out is that the gospel unifies all believers. Prescriptive standards isolate tribes. Part of the gospel is the effect of the gospel, the significance. Now I agree. Death, burial, resurrection of Christ, you know, imputed righteousness, all this, or imputed holiness, we'll get to that in a second. That's all great. I couldn't agree more. At the same time, there's an impact and the impact is we're all brothers and sisters in Christ if we are sharing, if we're one in his body. Christ's body is not divided right. So we shouldn't see isolated tribes. Now, maybe people will gather, sometimes for different purposes, because they agree on this or that. That's one question. But whether or not we are just not fellowshipping any churches within a two-hour radius because of our prescriptive standards, that's a whole different issue. So that's on the second point. Again, luke didn't say much about it at this point.
Nathan Mayo:The third point that I brought out is that the gospel says Christ makes us holy. Prescriptive standards say we're saved by grace, kept by works. Now Luke does have a little more to say about this. I'm going to submit to you that sanctification is a gift through the sacrifice of Christ. It's actually not something we earn through the gritting of our teeth and the grinding of our gears.
Nathan Mayo:Hebrews 10.10 says we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10.14,. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Sanctification is a work done in all believers through grace alone, just like salvation. Yes, jesus said we needed to be perfect, like God is perfect. He also said that for us, first world rich folks, to get to heaven is like a camel getting through the eye of a needle. He said with man, this is impossible. But he didn't leave it there. He said with God, all things are possible. Then he did it for us. Don't miss the point. Jesus makes us perfect, we don't make ourselves perfect.
Nathan Mayo:Now Luke brings out this kind of interesting distinction between holiness and righteousness. Okay, he's saying these things are different. Now he read passages about believers being different from the world, and he's you know, he read passages that said anyone who sins is of the devil. Great, I agree. I agree. And he's emphasizing my point that the distinctions between Christians and non-Christians are very binary in Scripture. It's not like oh, a lot of you guys are right on the edge and sometimes you're of the devil and sometimes you're of God. It's this very black and white. There's the world and there's the church. How do we know which camp we're in? Well, it's by believing in Christ. It's justification, sanctification, all these things through faith.
Nathan Mayo:Now Luke has made a distinction here between holiness and righteousness. I gotta admit that's one I've never heard. So props to you for originality. I don't know how much of a compliment originality is when it comes to theology, but the fact is, in my observation the Bible uses a lot of different words to describe the same thing or very similar things. It does this exactly, so we don't end up making silly distinctions where there is no difference. Jesus tells a parable three different ways, back to back to back, about, you know, the lost sheep, the lost son, the lost coin, to emphasize a point. So we don't get too caught up in the particulars. So I would make the case off the cuff here that I think holiness and righteousness are similar or identical. But I don't think it really matters to the round because he still has to prove that these holiness standards are an acceptable thing to add in as evidences of the holiness or the righteousness, whichever one you're calling it. So he's saying there's this journey after you're saved. I don't think the Bible supports that.
Nathan Mayo:A very quick look at Romans 5, which is a great chapter to look at if you want to talk gospel 517, we're going to see righteousness used not just as something we earn but as something that's given to us. For if by one man's offense death reigned by one talking about Adam, much more will they receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one. Righteousness is a gift. We see in scripture Sounds a lot like justification. Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification. So justification is called a gift. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. The obedience of how many? The obedience of one, the obedience of Jesus Christ, made us righteous. It also justified us. Making a distinction between those words is not supported in Scripture and is also irrelevant to today's resolution.
Luke Beets:Brother Luke, your response to that? Yes, sir, Sorry, I was trying to get my mute button turned off.
Luke Beets:It wasn't wanting to go off for me First let me point out and respond to what Nathan said right there. Why do I make a distinction between holiness and righteousness? I would make the distinction because one of the easiest places is there's quite a few others, but a very easy place just to show it real quick is going to be in Revelation, chapter 22, verses 11 and 12. It's not original to me. The Bible says he that is unjust, let's not original to me. The Bible is going to say that he that is unjust, let him be unjust still. He which is filthy, let him be filthy still. He that is righteous, let him be righteous still. And he that is holy, let him be holy still. You're going to find in a lot of Paul's opening statements. He will discuss those who are believers, that are righteous, and then those that are saints. So a saint should be a sanctified person.
Luke Beets:Now a few things I do want to respond to and give an argument against and push back on to what Nathan was saying. First of all, you try which I would say it's a false dichotomy to say that whenever you make the statement that love the gospel, produces love, as opposed to appearance, obedience or obedience to outward standards Not a direct quote readily admit that, just yeah, kind of summary right there. I would say that really that's not entirely a false dichotomy, but it is in a sense. If you try and say that this love is something we're showing just to other people, the Bible says in Matthew, chapter 22 and 37, jesus tells us the first and great commandment is to love the Lord, your God, with all your soul and I'm going to probably butcher the entire perfect quotation of it, but we're to love God first and foremost. I thought I had that pulled up and I do. Jesus said unto him Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. So yes, I agree that the first and the greatest of all the evidences of being righteous it's the same one for being holy it's not.
Luke Beets:As much as I agree with giving to the poor and as much as I agree that it's the church's responsibility to reach out to physical needs, I also understand that before I can ever reach out to anyone, I must first love my God first and foremost. So the standard of obedience or adhering to an outward standard will be very blatant, because I'm doing my best to show my love to God first. It does not matter. At least Paul's trying to remember. Right now. I believe it's 1 Corinthians 13. I believe it is where Paul talks about if he gives all to the poor, if he were to do all of these things but he didn't have love of him. He goes to oh man, I don't have that one pulled up and I should have it pulled up. But he goes to El Litany and then talks about love and I would say that the love he's describing there is love toward God. If I don't love God first and foremost, then everything else I do doesn't matter. False religions can show great piety in the sense of their charitable donations, and I'm not against that. But I would say, first and foremost, we must walk in obedience to God and it is God who commands us that we are to live as salt and light, light definitely being something someone could see.
Luke Beets:Now you said in your opening statement that for most of the opening statement, that for most of the like, you said most of the standards that there's not really any scriptural backing. But I'm taking you didn't use the word most. You said for these standards there's no scriptural backing. But then you turned right around and you said even though they're not based on any scripture. They're based on scripture that must be stretched, based on any scripture. They're based on scripture that must be stretched. But you can't have it both ways. Either there is no scripture part whatsoever, as you stated, or there is scripture and in your opinion it has to be stretched, but you can't say there's no scripture and then say, well, there's scripture that must be stretched. You can't do that, it doesn't work. Now you mentioned Matthew, chapter 25, and you said now see, this is evidence of he's talking about charity. Again, nothing wrong with charity, but in Matthew 25, excuse me, christ would talk about that. As many as you have done this to the least of these, my brethren.
Luke Beets:Now, unless you're going to ignore the fact that Jesus never once says that all of the world are brothers in Christ, unless you're going to ignore the fact that Jesus specifically looks at a sinful world and says to the religious leaders especially you're of your father, the devil. And then you'll find in Ephesians, chapter 2, that the Bible speaks of those who are the children of disobedience that we were in times past, not anymore, or the children of disobedience that we were in times past, not anymore. Unless you're going to ignore all of this and say that Jesus is just giving a blanket statement that you show you're saved by giving money to the poor and that's how you do it. In order to do that you have to disregard so much of Scripture. Jesus is speaking right there of how Gentile nations would deal with the Jewish nation. I understand it gets a little bit into eschatology, but if we're going to interpret this you have to deal with who are the brethren he's speaking there. Either Jesus is saying the whole world is brothers in Christ, which would deny what he said in quite a few other places, or he's speaking of the Jewish nation and not individual Christians, but Gentile nations and their response to the Jews.
Luke Beets:Also, you keep trying to make it sound like holiness teaching says we are made holy by what we do. We're not saying that. That is not at all what we believe. We don't. And again, if we're going to really debate the point the point being that holiness standards distort the gospel the question is do we, as holiness people? The true question would be do we, as holiness people, distort the gospel by saying you must live right if you are saved? Now, if we were to say, if we were to say we are saved because we do right, that that is what saves us. Then you would be right and I would be right there standing with you saying that is a distortion of the gospel. I talk to Catholics on a daily basis who will say they are saved by grace and their works. That's a distortion of the gospel.
Luke Beets:The Holy Church does not, does not ever get up and say I am a Christian because I, as a man, have short hair. No holiness preacher has ever got up and said I am made right with God. That's the gospel. The gospel is justification by faith, through grace, faith in the death, burial resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's how Paul defined it. To say that we distort the gospel would be to say that we are teaching people that you are right with God, that this is what makes you righteous. That's what the gospel is. You're made right because you did this, this and this. No, the Holy Church does that. And unless you can produce anyone and even if you did, there's going to be every I don't know of any holiness preacher that would not stand up right there with you and say that man's wrong.
Luke Beets:It is false to take the premise and say that holiness standards distort the gospel. It is even to distort the premise of the debate to say that we distort the gospel because we say after you're saved, it produces a different proof than what you're saying. It should that. Even if we said it's not going to produce love, but rather it's going to produce outward standards which that's not what any of us would argue, not in its entirety. We would say it's love for God first which will produce a life of righteousness, a life free of sin. Would say it's love for God first which will produce a life of righteousness, a life free of sin. That's not a distortion of the gospel, unless we're saying that in order to become a Christian you must become sinless first. That, yeah, wouldn't fit the topic we're discussing Now.
Luke Beets:Even with that, I do want to make mention because, again, if we're looking at distortions of the gospel, what I have to refute is that premise that you're starting with. I don't really have to refute all of your arguments. I'm going to go with the undercurrent of what—I'm a presuppositionalist, by the way. I work on a college campus, so I'm going to go at your presupposition. Your presupposition is standards make the gospel cause the distortion of the gospel. To say that something is required of a Christian distorts the gospel. Now I would refute that.
Luke Beets:If you look in Acts, chapter number 15, you're going to see this exact topic dealt with in great specificity. Acts 15, paul gets there and we're trying to breathe through this because I'm almost out of time. But Paul gets there, the Jerusalem Council, the Pharisees are saying you've got to keep the law of Moses and you have to be circumcised. The church talks about it, there's discussion about it. Peter says we're saved by grace and faith Verse 11,. But we believe through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they do, and Gentile right there.
Luke Beets:But then James makes this point. James says it gives a quote from the Old Testament. You pick up in verse 17, for the sake of time, that the resume of men must seek the Lord and all the Gentiles upon upon whom my name is called. Saith the Lord who doeth all these things. I'm sorry, let's, let's get down. Skip down to verse 19. Wherefore my sentence is my sentence is that we trouble them not from among the Gentiles that are turned to God, but that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornications and from things strangled and from blood. James makes the point, he makes the comment and he says this is required of Christians. So, james, according to your stance, he added something to the gospel? No, he didn't. He just said there are still requirements on the Christians. Not what saves you, but you must do this to stay saved.
Jonathan Rich:And Brother Nathan, you've got five minutes for.
Nathan Mayo:Okay.
Nathan Mayo:So at this point Luke has started to bring some actual argumentation to the round, which I appreciate. Do wish he had brought some of that in his first speech. However, let me address a couple of fair points. Am I saying that standards stretch scripture or that there is no scripture? That's a totally fair point. Well, at the outset of my first speech, I listed out different standards and I said some of these have no scripture Beards, high-heeled shoes, things like that. Some of them have stretch scripture, tattoos, makeup. So you're correct, I couldn't say both things about the same standard at the same time, but given that there are a lot of different standards, there are different problems with the different standards.
Nathan Mayo:The real question that we have before us today is does the gospel have any implications other than just you're saved, justified, for six seconds and then for the rest of time you have to earn your getting into heaven or you're getting into the rapture or whatever we're going 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 gospel is the implications of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which means we receive, if you want to call, justification and holiness and righteousness different things. Very well, you're wrong. We get them all. You can separate them or you put them in a package, it doesn't matter, we get the whole package right. That's what the passage of scripture in Romans 5 actually taught, and Luke is trying to make this distinction between holy and righteous, or sorry. Yeah, holy and righteous.
Nathan Mayo:I'm pointing out that the Bible uses a lot of words for the same thing. This is basic Bible reading 101. When the Bible says that we have a heart, a soul, a mind, a spirit and bowels, and it uses them all interchangeably. Go read the Psalms. Go read Psalm 119, where the psalmist says roughly the same thing. In 150-odd verses, the Bible uses different words to describe the same thing. Let me give you an illustration of this, which was our proof text for why holiness and righteousness are different things.
Nathan Mayo:He that is unjust, let him be unjust still. He which is filthy, let him be filthy still. That's repetition. That's using two words for the same thing. There's not a separate category for the unjust and the filthy, and then he keeps going. He that is righteous, let him be righteous still. He that is holy, let him be holy still. There's not filthy and unholy and holy and righteous as four different categories of sinners and saints. There are righteous and unrighteous. Okay, that's the biblical standard.
Nathan Mayo:But putting all that aside, what I'm pointing out is that this is messing up people on the gospel, because the holiness movement will stay a thousand miles away from the charge of legalism. It'll say we would never say that you have to do works in order to get saved. You just have to do works in order to stay. Saved, that's when the works come in Okay. Saved, that's when the works come in Okay. But then what works? Well, it's both, and it's all the things the Bible says, plus all the things we added in.
Nathan Mayo:I think it's pretty funny that we have a holiness preacher here who came to a debate on standards and is unwilling to defend the standards. You're just saying that well, it's a both and, and you have to live righteous and you have to live holy. You're just assuming that all of these standards are righteousness and holiness. That's a pretty bold claim to make. So let me put the question to you. My audience, my pastor, asked this question to a Jehovah's Witness when you put your head on your pillow at night, have you ever wondered if you've done enough to make God happy and get into heaven. The Jehovah's Witness replied every night. Then my pastor explained the su and I put this question to you Do you ever wonder if you've done enough? If you do, then you may be Exhibit A of a distorted understanding of the gospel.
Nathan Mayo:The holiness movement generally has better teaching than the Jehovah's Witness, but your understanding of the gospel might be closer to a cult's teaching than to the word of God. So here's a closing challenge for you. Luke says these standards are in Scripture. Judge for yourselves, Pick a standard that you're interested in. Go, research every argument you can think of. Read an article I've written about it. See if your arguments hold.
Nathan Mayo:The second thing I would challenge you to do is go find some non-holiness believers who are involved in all of these. You know service to the sick, the orphan, the prisoner and lost. And yes, I agree with Luke, we should prioritize believers in our service. But that's the real work of the believer, the fruit of the Spirit as well, not just giving to the poor, it's the fruit of the Spirit as well. Go do some service alongside them, Try to convert them to holiness if you like, but go meet them. You may just find that their lives are more convicting to you than yours is to them.
Nathan Mayo:The fruits of the holiness movement are division and stagnation. It's a tiny splinter of the global church, divided against itself. None of the main subgroups even talk to each other other than when they're attacking Berean. It's time to reunite with the old paths, to refocus on disciple-making, careful study of God's word and unity with the church across the street, the real fruits of the real gospel, as Paul said in Galatians, are you so foolish, Having begun in the spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh In your? And, Brother Luke, you can respond to that.
Jonathan Rich:I wanted to add just something. I again just kind of add in flavor and a little bit of pressure. A little bit of pressure. Brother Luke, do you believe or do you think that personal convictions have been confused with biblical standards as well and guidelines, and do you think that that has caused many, at the very least, to lose trust in the holiness movement?
Luke Beets:I think there's always a tendency. I think there's always a tendency, there can always be a tendency to I don't know. It's a good question. I have to think through how to answer that. I think some people probably have. I mean, again, I would not defend everything that's ever been preached from a holiness pulpit. I mean I wouldn't expect Nathan to defend everything that's been preached from any non-Holmes pulpit. So have there been people that probably have, Maybe. I mean, I don't know right offhand, but possibly.
Luke Beets:But to get back to what Nathan had said, you keep trying to paint this really in a way that gets away from the very resolution. It's not you saying there's a Holmes preacher here that won't deal with standards. That's not what we came to debate. You picked, in fact you worded, the very resolution we're debating and the resolution was does prescriptive holiness standards distort the gospel? That's your choice of a resolution. That's not the one I offered. You offered that resolution. So I don't have to go into every standard, not if I'm going to be true to the resolution. If I'm going to be true to the resolution, what I'm supposed to do is defend that. Just because we have an outward standard which is biblical, just because we have an outward standard that doesn't distort the gospel. For me to do otherwise would be for me to run away from the very resolution you presented.
Luke Beets:Now you also have made the comment again and again and again that there's no difference between holiness and righteousness. Now, if that's true, which I disagree with, who is making holiness worse? Not me. The Bible specifically says he that doeth righteousness, that's works. He that doeth righteousness is righteous. So if righteousness, after we are declared righteous by God, is what we do, and if holiness and righteousness are one and the same, then you are the one who makes righteousness works, not me. God gives us His nature, defining His nature as God is holy. He never gives His nature as God is righteous. It's all God, the angels. When they cry around the throne of heaven, they say holy, holy, holy. They don't say righteous, righteous, righteous.
Luke Beets: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, God speaks of his hatred toward sinners, and I believe it's Psalms chapter 7, Psalms chapter 5, Romans chapter 9, I believe there are three of them. There are deals with God's hatred toward the sinner. There's, I believe, one more in Revelation.
Luke Beets:But anyway, if God's nature was simply love, then you couldn't have God having hatred toward the wicked. It wouldn't work and that sounds harsh in our day man. God has hate, but if we have his nature as holy again not righteous but holy then you can have a holy hatred that God has, that he loves. He has love for all the world John 3, 16, but yet at the same time he has love and hate, because his hatred is not an unholy hatred, it's a holy hatred you can have. God can do that, we can't. I'm commanded not to hate anyone, but God does a lot of things. I'm commanding you because he's God. He's the arbiter of what is right and wrong.
Luke Beets:Again, just to reboot real quick on those two things you're the one who makes holiness works, not me. When you say righteousness and holiness are one and the same, when you say there's no difference, you deny Scripture in quite a few places there, but that's okay, that's okay. You're the one who's trying to go away from really the resolution you gave for this debate 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 it twists it all. Now again, if you were to say that the whole entirety of the holiness movement said you are saved, because this is what makes you righteous, then you would have an argument. But you have to even try and make that argument because there's no way to make that argument.
Luke Beets:To say that holiness standards distorts the gospel is to say that we would believe that's what makes us right with God. We don't. And also, in our very closing moment, I need to deal with what you're saying, that we have to work to keep ourselves safe. That's not what I'm saying when I say you have to live sinless. The Bible says that it's God that does this. Philippians, chapter 2 and verse 15 says we are to be blameless and harmless to sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation among whom we shine as lights in the world. If you go back one or two verses, you're going to see how we do this. It's not that we as homeless people believe that we keep ourselves sinless. Not at all. It's God that does it. You'll find this right here, verse 13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Jonathan Rich:I gave one more earlier my time's up.
Luke Beets:I know you said about 20 seconds. In Hebrews, chapter 13, verse 21,. The Bible says it's God that will make me perfect in every good work to do his will. So how do I live sinless and obedient to God? God does it and I just get to enjoy the benefit.
Jonathan Rich:What we're going to do is we're going to go into the next round of this, which will be cross-examination. Obviously, nathan, if you want to respond to some of the things that Luke said in that round, feel free to do so. This is sort of a I wouldn't say free-for-all, but obviously I want you both to ask, respond however you see fit. I'm going to set a 15-minute timer for this. You guys obviously have a conversation with this cross-examination. We'll start with Nathan, if you have a question or a response to that, and we'll go ahead and start this timer off.
Nathan Mayo:Okay. So it sounds like, Luke, we might actually agree on a lot of things and that's great. It sounds like you're not saying that our behavior after salvation is going to immediately call our heaven-bound status into question. But I get a lot of people that are writing in to me who are not understanding that from their holiness preacher. They're saying things like I viewed God as unpleasable. Despite my constant striving to do what I thought pleased him. It was never enough. There was always another, another quote. So I ask the question to you and maybe we agree, and I'd love to agree here If we sin after salvation, let's say we commit the sin of unthankfulness and we die immediately after committing that sin, without time to specifically repent of it, do we go to heaven in your understanding?
Luke Beets:No, I do not believe that one sin will make it into heaven. I believe the distinction that I'm going to give you, though just real quick, is in Revelation, chapter 2 and 3, you're going to find, it's not that a person loses their salvation as soon as they commit one sin. It is rather that they refuse to repent of their sin. So yeah, if a person dies without repenting of sin, they go to hell.
Nathan Mayo:So I said, now you're saying if they refuse to repent of their sin, what if they sin? Let's just say a bus is coming at you and you have an ungrateful thought as that bus is coming at you, and then the bus hits you. What then?
Luke Beets:Whose fault is it that they sinned? Is it God's fault, and does he owe them time to repent, or is it rather that they rebelled against God? Remember Isaiah. The Bible says that you will hear a voice behind you telling you when to turn to the left and when to the right. It's a simple way, the Bible says. It's so easy that a way for a man, though a fool, shall not err therein. You're almost putting the blame on God that they sinned.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, no, my whole thing is Luke. I'm just saying that our righteousness is imputed by Christ. That's how I understand the gospel. So after all the conversation about us not disagreeing on the gospel, it seems like we really do have a difference. So let me ask you this you said that God, you're making this distinction between righteousness and holiness. You said God's character isn't righteousness. That's never said about God. I haven't flipped through a lot of 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 all that believe, and that's one reference the righteousness to God, his righteousness that he is just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. God is called righteous. So how can you make a distinction that God is holy but not righteous when there are verses like that in Scripture?
Luke Beets:I'm glad you gave me a chance to clarify. I don't remember trying to set those that oppose each other. What I said was His nature is holy. I would agree. He has many attributes. He has the attribute of mercy, of grace, of justice, of wrath, of righteousness, of love, of hate. He has all these attributes which would make up his character, which would be points of his character, but his character is not his base, nature, at base. What is god? He is different from everything else in creation. Nothing else in creation is holy. Nothing is holy whereas god is. It is that which makes him distinct from everything else. I'm not saying God is not righteous, I'm saying that's not his nature. And if there is a distinction made in Scripture of the two, then there is a distinction.
Nathan Mayo:All right, there are a lot of distinctions you make. So let me ask you this, now that I know from you that our salvation is in question at every single second of every single day, because an ungrateful thought will send us to hell. Okay, so that's good to know. Now, standards can always be more strict. Turtlenecks cover more than standard collars. The Amish have a lot of standards the holiness haven't had in a long time. All else equal is more strict, safer and more pleasing to God, in your opinion.
Luke Beets:No, I'm made right with God. Again, I already went over this. I'm made right with God through faith in the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ. I'm not more holy or less holy. As I said, holiness is a state of being. You either are or you are not. It's not that because the Amish have a higher standard, they're more holy.
Nathan Mayo:Fair enough and I agree with you. So fair point. But what I'm concerned to discover myself is that there are a lot of standards that if I violate any one of them I might be going to hell. So I know you're not going to defend 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 to wear a wedding ring? Yes or no, in your opinion?
Luke Beets:To wear a wedding ring? Um, it could be. Depends on the ring. The bible gives me the uh titanium 50 bucks.
Nathan Mayo:Titanium ring 50 bucks. Tell me if I'm going to hell luke.
Luke Beets:I need to know you are wearing a ten dollar ring and it is prideful. It's just as simple as if it's a $2 million ring. That's the standard that God gives. It is because of pride, that's why, God removes it.
Nathan Mayo:So I can wear a $2 million ring, as long as I don't have pride.
Luke Beets:Well I'm going to say you're going to have a whole lot of trouble not being prideful over that, Okay.
Nathan Mayo:What if I have a $50 titanium ring, which I have on my hand right now? So I'm curious if I'm going to hell? Right, I need to know this. I have a $50 titanium ring and I don't feel that I have pride. Only God knows my heart. You don't know my heart, but we'll assume I don't have pride. Can I go to heaven with a $50 titanium ring?
Luke Beets:If you have zero pride in that ring, then hey, go right ahead.
Nathan Mayo:So if a woman has long hair, never cut it in her life, and she has some amount of pride greater than zero in her hair, she's going to hell, right? Can you please just take that If a woman has beautiful Pentecostal updo hair that she spends an hour and a half on every day and she has more pride than zero because you just said the standard for me going to heaven with a ring was zero pride so if she has more than zero pride in her hair, she's going to hell. I'm asking.
Luke Beets:I'm giving you the distinction. The distinction right here is the Bible specifically says that to be shaven or shorn, there's two words there. Shaven will be cut with a razor, shorn will be cut with shears.
Nathan Mayo:No, we're just assuming her hair is not cut.
Luke Beets:We're just assuming that it's not cut, but she has pride in her hair and she is just being prideful. Yeah, pride will send the person to hell. You're not going to get me to argue, Okay all right.
Nathan Mayo:Well, I'm glad you agree. So, holiness folks, y'all better be careful out there, because your long hair. It turns out that checklist you thought you were going to check, that that's not actually going to help you out. Okay, so that's actually kind of good to know. So there are standards in Scripture, to be sure. There are other things that are more open-ended. Let's say costly apparel. Okay, let's say, maybe you shouldn't have costly apparel. Who gets to draw the line on what is acceptable? Because we established that I probably can't own a $2 million ring. I actually don't own a $2 million 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? Who figures out what dollar amount is the pride bar? Well, you can't not have pride at that amount. Who draws that line?
Luke Beets:In my statement. When I said the $2 million rate we're going to be charitable, the point I was making was if you spent that kind of money, I cannot imagine not being prideful of that I think you're right.
Nathan Mayo:I actually agree with you on that.
Luke Beets:Now, whenever we're dealing with the cost of your way again, that is in the same context when Paul is putting that Paul and Peter both deal with that and both of them are using, is it Peter? I'm trying to remember. Peter says who's outward adorning, let it not lose Anything.
Nathan Mayo:we'll talk about that.
Luke Beets:Which is why I'm tying that to pride. So if a man wears an expensive pair of shoes, is he inherently prideful? No, if a man wears a cheap pair of shoes, is he inherently not prideful? No, I don't think either of us would make that statement of shoes is inherently not prodigal no, I don't think either of us would make that statement Okay.
Nathan Mayo:So there are some things though. Well, let's just take modesty with clothing, clothing where you can have a higher collar, you can't have a lower collar. Now we're just going to say that, at the extremes, both are unnecessary. Let's say, maybe a burqa is unnecessary and going naked is probably unbiblical. We'll just accept that there are extremes Okay, and going naked is probably unbiblical. We'll just accept that there are extremes, okay. But who gets to draw the line between the two? And I do have an answer for that myself, but I want to know what your answer is who draws the line?
Luke Beets:I believe the Bible does. You're going to find in Revelation where God talks about how Christ is dressed. You're going to find in Revelation let's check with one in Revelation where God deals with the dress of Christ, the clothing, not dress you know what I mean.
Nathan Mayo:So you believe the Bible's going to tell me how high to have my collar?
Luke Beets:I believe the Bible's going to tell me I'll put my link right there I believe the Bible's going to tell me that I should not cause as a woman but a woman should not wear a low enough neckline that it's going to cause a man to lust and you can say well, man's going to lust no matter what.
Nathan Mayo:No, I'd actually, I'd actually agree. Um, because I submit that it's commandment, conscience and effective effect on other people. Right, that that's where my standard is Okay. So if the Bible specifically says it, we're good to go. If the Bible doesn't specifically say it, but your conscience condemns you, follow your conscience. If you don't have a conscience or scriptural command in play, then look at the effect on other people, and that's what you're talking about the effect on, in this case, men around you.
Luke Beets:I would differ just to hear what is our conscience according to swimming. It's not my turn to ask questions, I know.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah yeah, we can talk about that. Yeah, fair enough, but there are different convictions in Romans 14, where one esteems one day better than the other, one other man esteems every day alike, but they're all glorifying God, right, but that is not their conscience. Okay, so there's a whole category of standards that have been dropped without explanation Going to the bowling alley, the internet, eating out on Sundays, maxi skirts, jean shirts, braided hair, not to mention 100 years of plain clothes and head coverings. When preachers drop a standard, do you think it's important, especially since you're grounding all these in the Word of God? Now, it's possible somebody got the Word of God wrong. That's fine. When they drop a standard, do you think it's important that they explain why the previous standard was incorrect, or should they just quietly stop talking about it?
Luke Beets:Well, I mean again, I can't defend everything, so what, I'm going to stick with with the ones you mentioned, like with the head covering in. I'm trying to guess what jumped out at me.
Nathan Mayo:I'm just assuming you don't agree with those.
Luke Beets:No, the Bible says the woman's hair was given as a head covering, she don't have to wear something on top of that. Do they need to explain why? Maybe, maybe, not? I don't feel like I or you would have to explain. Every time we make a change on anything, I don't get up and yeah, I don't think they have to do that. I don't. If someone asks up, and yeah I don't think, I don't know, I don't think they have to do that.
Nathan Mayo:I don't. If someone asked them, they ought to be ready to. Okay, so we established, you established, and I agree with you, that james uh issued a command to the early church. Okay, um, about uh not eating things that were strangled. I'll give you that one. Now actually write about that extensively. But, um, would you concede that there might be a difference between James, who's an apostle whose words are recorded under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, and a regular pastor who's just standing up from the pulpit and making a rule?
Luke Beets:Yes, that's an easy question. Yes, I do think so question.
Nathan Mayo:Yes, I do think so. So you think there is a difference. So just because James can do X in Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily mean your pastor can do the same thing.
Luke Beets:No, I do agree. I think we will agree right here. We cannot add to Scripture. I can't. We have a closed canon and I'm glad we do. I'm glad we have a closed canon that God gave us His rules. God gave us his expectations. We live by those.
Nathan Mayo:Okay, About 98% of the time a holiness man's attire is indistinguishable from the world's, yet women seem to have a lot of standards that make them stand out all the time. They seem to be a lot more separate from the world than men. Why do women need so many more standards than men? To please God, in your opinion?
Luke Beets:God did that. If you'll read those passages in 1 Peter and in 1 Timothy, God gives what's priorly expected of a man he don't say much about dress in those passages, but he does talk about dress in the other. So that's God's choice, not mine.
Nathan Mayo:Okay, so let's look at this. You've established that pride is the real issue, right, the pride is the real sin.
Luke Beets:With the ring just that.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, with the ring, not in all cases, to be sure. There are other sins. So do you think it's wrong for a 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.
Luke Beets:Actually it does in Isaiah, chapter 3. It just gives a clear distinction, a clear commandment. On bracelets period, god just says, yeah, you're not supposed to do that, because you became prideful and taken all of it away from you.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, but isn't that in the context of a giant metaphor and in the same, a similar metaphor in Ezekiel, god talks about how he bedecked Israel with gold and jewels and a head diamond and lots of other jewelry?
Luke Beets:You know, what's interesting about that is he does that and he says he does that to show their value. But yet he looks at humanity and says, if you wear jewelry to show your value, you're doing wrong. God can do a lot of things. I can't do it.
Nathan Mayo:And that's just one of them.
Luke Beets:Okay, so I get it. You're taking a metaphor in Isaiah and you're saying that's a prescriptive standard. He says you did this, so I'm taking it away from you.
Nathan Mayo:There's no metaphor, it's a metaphorical person the daughters of Zion are a collective in that context.
Luke Beets:That's what it seems.
Nathan Mayo:Okay, no, fair enough. I think you're actually right on that point. I just wouldn't. I wouldn't stretch that into a prescriptive command. But we've already established that pride is the real issue here. So if somebody gets in many contexts, 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 that their teeth are straight, they're going to hell right no, because about whenever says braces are wrong, so what pride is the issue?
Luke Beets:well, I am, but you tied it to braces, so their braces would not be what caused them to go to hell sure they. Their pride, if you get prideful over your shoestrings.
Nathan Mayo:You can be prideful over your holiness movement right, yeah, you can be prideful over anything. Okay.
Luke Beets:I hate to pride.
Nathan Mayo:That's a scary place to live. All right, you're, you're, you're up.
Luke Beets:Okay Question that I would have. I want to commend you. You're a prolific writer on your 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 everything you write, but you do a good job. I think you do a good job on writing. You turn a phrase really good, anyway, but there is one question when I was quite a few questions, but when I was going through some of your writing, I noticed something that really caused me to ask the question what sin did Jesus not have to die for?
Nathan Mayo:What sin did Jesus not have to die for?
Luke Beets:What sin was his death not required to pay for?
Nathan Mayo:I'm not aware of any.
Luke Beets:Okay, so you make the statement in your article Identifying Gospel Distortions. You make the statement I have a longer quote. I'm not going to give the whole quote, but you make the statement that says 1 John 5, 16 makes clear that, for unbelievers at least, some sins do not lead to damnation. Now, do you agree that Jesus died to save our souls from the wrath of God?
Nathan Mayo:Sure.
Luke Beets:What put us under the wrath of God?
Nathan Mayo:Well, initially the fall of man. So we're born under the wrath of God and then sin in the life of the individual.
Luke Beets:beyond that, what was the fall?
Nathan Mayo:The fall was a rebellion against God and not doing what God said. What do we call rebellion against God? That's all sin. Sure, there's synonyms.
Luke Beets:So you said that some sin will not send you to hell. You clearly say that it does not lead to damnation.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, and I'm referencing Scripture. So let's, I mean I'd like to turn to the Scripture. Yeah, go ahead. The Scripture is the issue. It's not so much what I say about the Scripture. Oh, I agree. Can you cite the passage?
Luke Beets:This passage you said is 1 John 5, verse 16, what that verse says, I'll read it real quick. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask and he shall give him life for them. That sin not unto death, there is a sin unto death. I do not say that he shall pray for it, so go ahead.
Nathan Mayo:Okay, well, I mean that passage says If any man see his brother, a sin which is not unto death. So clearly the author of this thinks there is a sin which is not unto death. Now I have an explanation for how that could be. It's that we have the imputed righteousness of Christ. Now there are some people who would proclaim you're once saved, always saved, right, the sort of reformed tradition that a lot of evangelicals would hold to. I actually wouldn't hold to that. I would hold that we are saved by faith through Christ and if you reject your faith in Christ then you reject the grace that comes from that. I don't think that just happens from 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 longer believe in Christ, I no longer accept his burial and resurrection. Most people who are in the once saved, always saved camp would say that person was never saved in the first place.
Luke Beets:So it's kind of a moot point A little off topic a little off topic, just in the sense that I'm. What I'm trying to get at here is you're saying that not all sin will send you to hell, but yet you do agree that sin is what we need to be saved from, from our sin. So your statement see, the reason I ask this question is really, I think, between the two of us, you and I ask anyway, you, your side of the camp is really the one, I would say, that makes a distortion of the gospel. You try and say that Christ died to save us from our sins, but yet we don't need to save them from all of our sins. Some of our sins are okay, You've been dealt with it here, and here's my question.
Nathan Mayo:I see, I think I understand the question a little better now.
Luke Beets:So let me ask this question a little bit different, based on what you said earlier what causes a person to lose their salvation? Is it sin, like an act of sin? Does sin cause him, or does a lack of belief cause him to lose their salvation?
Nathan Mayo:Well, if, by grace, you are saved through faith, and that not of yourself, then there are some passages in Hebrews about people tasting of the Holy Spirit and walking away. So it would stand to reason that rejecting the faith is that Now. Is that also a sin? Yes, it's actually a very particular sin. It's the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, and Jesus talks about that. Yeah.
Luke Beets:It's a very particular sin, sure? How do you lose your salvation? The blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.
Nathan Mayo:It's by rejecting faith in Christ, which is the same thing. I am saying. Those are the same thing.
Luke Beets:So if you lose your salvation, you can never come back, Because that's what that would be saying. Because you blas, come back Because that's what that would be saying because you've lost to the Holy Ghost. There's no forgiveness of that in this life or the life to come. So a backslider can never come back to God.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah. And if you read that passage in context, what Jesus is saying is the Pharisees are saying I think he cast out devils by the devil, right? So basically Jesus is saying to the Pharisees hey guys, if I literally do a miracle in front of 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 am Absolutely nothing. So there's no coming back from that. There is no argument Jesus can present. It's kind of like the rich man died and he's like can I go back and see my brothers? And I think it's Abraham who says to him well, they didn't believe Moses, they're not going to believe somebody coming back from the dead. So yeah, I do think you're not going to get your salvation back, but I do think that's still a matter of choice on the part of the individual. There's just nothing God can do to draw you at that point. That's from my free will perspective. Some people don't have a free will perspective.
Luke Beets:I respect them too. What do you deal with that? Or how do you deal with this? Maybe a little easier one to find in reference what do you do with the prodigal son when the father says this my son was dead.
Jonathan Rich:He's talking.
Luke Beets:He was alive at one point, he's dead, but now he's back. By the steps you're taking, you can never come back. But that's never what the Scripture—there's nowhere in Scripture that it even alludes to that. I mean, you could take this one passage there in Hebrews 10, but are you really taking the stance that a backslider can never come back?
Nathan Mayo: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 hypothetically truly believe in Christ and then not believe in Christ and then believe in Christ again? Yeah, maybe, I don't know, but your faith in Christ is what's going to determine your status and grace In verse 17,. All unrighteousness is sin. Sorry, we're back in John. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death. I mean, that's just right there in the text. So how I would interpret that is I would say if you're an unbeliever kind of it's a moot point you're going to hell because you're an unbeliever. Okay, if you're a believer, you might commit a sin per John 17, that is not unto death. Let's say, for instance, having an ungrateful thought before you get hit by a bus. That would be a sin that is not unto death. In my understanding, you haven't rejected Christ and therefore you will be in heaven because your righteousness was a gift according to Romans 5. And so it hasn't been taken back, it's still your gift.
Luke Beets:Okay. So then, with that in mind I hate to go back to this other question I need to follow but you are changing your position. You're saying that the way you lose your salvation is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, which the Bible says you cannot come back from. And then you switched and you said no, a person could believe in Christ and then not believe in Christ, and believe in Christ and not believe in Christ. That's possible. They could come back. You're changing your position. Do you not see the change in your position right here? From an unforgivable sin, that's the only way you can lose your salvation, you said, and then you're saying no, you could come back. You're changing your position.
Nathan Mayo: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 a sin that you are committing at a moment in time. Okay, so if you cease, so, in as far as you are committing that sin, you cannot be forgiven of it. If you refuse to accept Christ, by definition, if we have a free will, understanding grace can't be extended to you. Okay, if you cease that sin, if you cease in that sin of rejection, then you can't accept Christ. So I think there is a way to square that. But I'm using blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as synonym for lack of faith rejection of faith, so you don't think that's.
Luke Beets:the only way you can lose your faith is by blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, just to get past that?
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, I'm using that as a synonym. We'd have to break down why I'm doing that, but I'm using it as a synonym, so you said in the premise that y'all came up with that, the distortion.
Luke Beets:I agree. I don't want to make it sound like I didn't agree. I did agree to it for the very reason.
Nathan Mayo:Oh yeah, no, and I'm the one who has to defend it. I get it.
Luke Beets:So would you say that to put anything as a requirement after salvation in order to remain saved makes a distortion of the gospel?
Nathan Mayo:Ding, ding, ding. That is what I would say, with the exception of faith in Christ, which is central to the gospel.
Luke Beets:What about fornication, like James said in Acts 15, and things strangled and sacrificed to idols? Sure, because he did specifically say that.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah. So the Bible does say that there are different ways to reject faith in Christ. One of them is to continue in sin unrepentant for a long period of time. Functionally, then, you are saying I don't really care about who Jesus is. Even if you make a verbal assent and I think you and I both agree Somebody can pray a sinner's prayer and not mean it in their heart right, we think We'd agree on that and then they don't get salvation because they didn't mean it, they just said some words, right? Similarly, somebody can continue in sin, knowingly, in rebellion and rejection against God, which means they have rejected God.
Nathan Mayo:But that's not the same as committing fornication I will even give you that one One time and going God, I have sinned. Maybe, let's say a month later. A month later you say, let's say it's a new believer Okay, new believer. Comes to Christ, knows it's wrong, commits fornication. A month later they go God, I have sinned. I'm turning back to you. What happens if they die in that month? Now you say they clearly go to hell. I say they go to heaven. So we actually do have a fundamental difference here. But if they continue in sin for years and years and they don't accept Christ. God knows the heart. They don't love Jesus. They haven't accepted his sacrifice or the significance of it.
Luke Beets: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 say you can go two days without repentance and not lose your salvation if you've sinned?
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, the Bible says there is a sin not unto death. I don't know the time on it.
Jonathan Rich:I don't want to find out.
Nathan Mayo:to be honest, I don't want to find out, but it does say there's a sin not unto death.
Luke Beets:Isn't that a rather controversial scripture? In fact, you're asking that that's the only way that verse can be interpreted. I think you would have to agree that it's true that there are other ways people have interpreted that, and they've pointed to Herod. They've pointed to places specifically in Scripture Herod being killed for a sin he did and Nassim Sapphire being killed for a sin they did. You're acting like that's the only way to interpret that. I think you would have to say that's your opinion.
Nathan Mayo:You'd also have to say, well, I mean, technically, I have to have an opinion on everything that I voice, so yeah, it's my opinion. But you're also doing the same thing with the passages about righteousness as a gift and imputed righteousness, and you're saying, well, that's not quite what it means.
Luke Beets:No, it specifically says I did say that righteousness is given as a gift. I also said holy.
Nathan Mayo:It's given. But okay, fair enough.
Luke Beets:In your view it's given, but okay, fair enough. In your view it's given, but it's taken away every six seconds. No, but you see, that goes to my other question. I want to try and hurry and get in. Do you think it's possible to live free of sin?
Nathan Mayo:I think it's possible for any period of time. But all the people that I've ever met who tell me they're free of sin, I know for a fact they're not, so I just haven't met them.
Luke Beets:So you're saying that it's possible. You just don't know. You're basing that on your own subjective opportunity to meet people.
Nathan Mayo:Peter didn't live without sin. He committed the sin of partiality and was rebuked for it. So was he on—well, I'm not asking questions.
Luke Beets: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 and almost seem as if it expects us to normally live without sin multiple places?
Nathan Mayo:It does indeed.
Luke Beets:How does?
Nathan Mayo:it say we do that Through the righteousness of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Luke Beets:Actually, not what it says. I gave you a few specific places, one being second, one being not second, one being Hebrews chapter 13, where the Bible says it is God.
Nathan Mayo:Oh yeah, god, who does it in you?
Luke Beets: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 these two.
Nathan Mayo: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.
Luke Beets:I don't disagree. I don't disagree. What I'm saying is you're almost sounding like you said every six seconds it could be in danger. If the Bible says in Romans 8 that if we walk in the Spirit, we shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh, it makes it sound as though I'm not in danger over six seconds because I'm living, submitted to God. That's what sanctification is. That's not sanctification. That is a prerequisite to sanctification, that is consecration. So my question is if a man is fully consecrated to God, doesn't the Bible seem to paint that as the norm that we will not sin anymore, rather than the norm that I'm going to keep on sinning and wait years to repent?
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, and I don't even know that I would defend that there's any sin that you can wait years to repent from. But yeah, I'd say that in the life of a believer you should see more and more spiritual maturity and less and less sin.
Luke Beets:So how many acts of fornication can a person do before they lose their salvation? Because you said, you know they do one and they die and they're going to go to heaven. So when the Bible says no fornicator has eternal life in them and that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, and the first thing it lists is fornication, how much fornication can a person do and still go to heaven?
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, ask Paul in Corinth, because he was talking to some pretty messed up people and he called them brothers and he said kick them out. Well, in one instance, but there are different instances, so that's between God and them. I don't want to be in their shoes but they have a chance.
Luke Beets:Should you eat with a brother who's a fornicator?
Nathan Mayo:according to Paul, If somebody is living in unrepentant sin, you should go through the process of church discipline and then you should treat them as an unbeliever, don't eat with them, especially a fornicator.
Luke Beets:So I do want to point that out here.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, but there's a process of church discipline that would precede that.
Luke Beets:True, but if you're a fornicator and you said, put them out anyway six seconds, I think you ought to start with the gospel, not all of this.
Jonathan Rich:Alright, right on time. What we're going to do now is we're going to move to the audience questions portion of the debate. I know that some of these I believe at least the first one's more aimed towards Nathan, whereas the other two are more towards Luke, but obviously, if either of you, I think we have only three minutes maximum per question, so I'm going to give you both an opportunity to discuss or answer the question that is being presented to you both. Again, we'll start with Nathan here and I'm going to ask this question. Let me get my slides up here so the audience can see as well. So we'll start with the first question to Nathan, which is did Paul and Peter distort the gospel when they gave standards of dress to the church in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter that?
Nathan Mayo:is a great question. I have two responses for it, but let's start by reading the passage. For a point of time, we're going to read 1 Peter 3, verse 3. Okay, so there are two basic ways to understand this passage. It's either a short checklist of prohibitions or it is a general principle with applications that may differ by time, place and the heart of each believer.
Nathan Mayo:In 1 Peter 3, peter lumps in wearing gold with wearing clothes. So reading this as a ban against gold means you should also read this particular verse as a ban against clothes. The other way you could read it is that the condition of the heart is more important than the outward appearance, and you should focus on the heart. Other biblical passages suggest that wearing clothes are in fact, a good thing as well as gold. In the Old Testament, rebecca the righteous woman, she's given gold earrings and gold bracelets to boot. We have Ezekiel 16, I deck thee with ornaments, put bracelets on thy hands, a chain on thy neck. God, talking about Israel, the prodigal son, the father representing God, gave him a gold ring. Okay, but let's say you read this passage as a principle rather than a prohibition. You might find that even holiness 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 your heart right. So that's one way to read it. But you could read it as a list of rules. But even if you read it as a list of rules, which I would consider could be a valid interpretation, it's not clear to me that holiness folks are doing a great job even with that box.
Nathan Mayo:Because the Timothy passage talks about costly apparel. What's costly apparel? Well, the average Greco-Roman owned about two to three pairs of clothes. So if you own more than that, and especially if you own a suit or some dainty jewel dress, you may have costly apparel. So it may be a little bit scary if you look at that as just a universal. But let's just say hypothetically, it's a prohibition Straight up women can'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 put that one aside. And let's say it says you have to wear a bucket on your head too.
Nathan Mayo:Can the Bible say that? Yes, the Bible can say whatever it wants. Actually, luke and I are in agreement on this point. But the canon is closed and to infer from that that your preacher can therefore add a bunch of other standards is to make a category error. So there's a difference. If I tell you not to eat earthworms and you're like, yeah, but I can eat carrots and carrots are kind of like worms because they're both in the dirt, they're in different categories. B like yeah, but I can eat carrots and carrots are kind of like worms because they're both in the dirt. They're in different categories. Bugs are bugs. Food is food. What your preacher says is not the same thing as what the word of God says. God can make the good news whatever he wants it to be, but Peter and Paul spoke under the influence of the Holy Spirit. God's word is closed. We're in agreement If your preacher is telling you he has apostolic authority to add to scripture you are in a cult run.
Jonathan Rich:That's my answer to that. Again, Luke, I'll give you a chance to respond. If you want to respond by answering the question or respond to Nathan, that's fine.
Luke Beets:Yes, and I'm going to respond to that question. I think whenever you look at those two passages, specifically when it talks about, just breeze through them real quick. The first, timothy, chapter 2, that phrase right there, with professing godliness, you're going to see that's repeated in. You've got to look at words. But're going to see that's repeated in. You've got to look at words. But you'll see it again in 1 Peter, where he talks about who's adorning while they behold your chaste conversation.
Luke Beets:Verse 2 of 1 Peter, 3, who's adorning? Let it not be that outward adorning, the platy, hair, wearing ability, putting on of apparel, but let it be the hidden man of the heart in which is not grudgeable, even an ornament of a meek and a quiet spirit which is, in the sight of God, of great price. For after this manner in old time, the holy women, that phrase right there. The holy women. You're going to find another cross-reference. As much as I love and I think it's important to do verse by verse. Isaiah tells us God, tells us the prophet isaiah, you got to do cross reference line up on line. Precept one precept, here a little, there a little. You're going to find this again in titus, chapter 2, where the bible says the age, women likewise, if they be in likewise, that they be in behavior as becoming holiness. And he goes through the same list of discrete I'll mention gold but he goes through the same list of discreet I'm not going to go but he goes through that same list of discreet chaste, goes through those same attitudes, going with shame faces, going with chastity, going with being discreet, but he ties that to a life of holiness, not evidence. So how would I answer? I'd say no, paul did not distort the gospel at all, just like the holiness church doesn't.
Luke Beets:Because Paul was not saying that we are saved. A woman is saved, is made right with God, is justified before God because she's chaste, or because she is discreet, or she doesn't wear gold, she doesn't braid, she doesn't do pearls, not at all. Paul says you do these things because it becomes holiness. You'll find in Leviticus, chapter 20, I was in my opening statement and I ran out of time where God tells the children of Israel I have given you all of these commands. Where God tells the children of Israel I have given you all of these commands. And he goes through them, the dietary laws, he goes through the sexual laws and he says in verse 26,. He says you shall be holy, for I am the Lord and holy and have severed you from among other people that ye should be mine. So God says you do what's right, you live righteous because I made you holy. So no, paul did not distort the gospel 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.
Jonathan Rich:Man. This next question I'm going to again. We're going to stick with you, luke, on this next one from the audience, which is if holiness standards 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 explicitly state them, like he does every other issue, like adultery, murder, lying, etc.
Luke Beets:Okay, I would say that they are pretty explicit. To go back to what Nathan said at the very beginning of the discussion, whenever he said there's not a scriptural basis, then he said there is a scriptural basis, it just gets stretched. I don't really see.
Nathan Mayo:It depends on the standard.
Luke Beets:You made the statement. So I don't really see how much more explicit God could be in 1 Corinthians 11 when he said your hair should not be shaven or shorn. I mean I guess you could say can I burn it off? Okay, yeah, okay. Well, you know you can do that. And if you want to do that and twist scripture, Peter's going to talk about people arrest the scripture to their own demise. I really don't see how much more explicit the Bible could be whenever it says don't wear gold, Don't wear pearls. I really don't see how much more explicit it can be. I really don't see how much more explicit it can be when the Bible says a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man. I don't really see how much more 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.
Luke Beets:We give out gospel tracts on the college campus. One of our favorite ones is called the Atheist Test. There's a great line in there toward the end where it says could it be that the thief cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a 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 illustration of what I mean by that.
Luke Beets:On college campuses I don't preach standards, I don't do this. There's a whole lot of, I hate to say, low-hanging fruit. That's not what I mean, but there's a whole lot of other things that are probably a lot more detrimental to them physically, and especially to them physically, that are much more obvious, that you know I'm going to deal with, and but at the same time I hold a sign on the sign that says who must repent. One of the things on there is the phrase crossdressers, Crossdressers must repent.
Luke Beets:I've yet this is one of the most common questions we get I've yet to have a student when they say wise, wise, cross white and cross dressers must repent, and I quote Deuteronomy 22 and 5. I've yet to have one student not look at me and say, oh, you mean I as a woman shouldn't wear pants. They've never been to all of these churches and I know that's anecdotal. I understand that. The point I'm making is it's very explicit, if you just take it for what it says. The problem is not that it's not explicit. The problem is, as Jesus would say, men love darkness rather than light, and they don't want it to be explicit.
Jonathan Rich:Nathan, I'll give you a chance to respond Again. You can either respond to what Luke said or, if you need me to reread the question, to respond to the question. That's fine.
Nathan Mayo: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 you can talk about it. It's interesting. There are other things that can be 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 hair because of these verses. I write about this at great length. However, there are other things that is not the case. Luke hasn't been willing to talk about the scripture against beards. He hasn't been willing to talk about the scripture against toenail polish. He hasn't been willing to talk about the scripture against the bowling alley. Right, there are a lot of standards that are much less so in scripture, and so, yeah, I get it. Some are not there at all. Okay, some are.
Nathan Mayo:You can make an argument. Markings on your flesh for the dead. You can make an argument, but then you do have to answer that nasty question about, well, why can 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 great standard, but okay. So let's say, women pertaining unto men. What about hoodies? What about socks? What about work boots? 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 you why are women saying that on college campuses? Because they're trying to stump you and it's obvious to them that that's silly. So they say, well, that would mean this. And you go well, it does. Because I believe that.
Nathan Mayo:But there are so many other things you don't address. There are so many things that are not clear and if they were clear then there wouldn't be so many people spinning their wheels unclear about it and there wouldn't be 98% of the church, which I don't know if Luke thinks they're a part of the church or not, including little old me 98% of the church? That's not talking about this. I've been to over 100 Bible-believing churches since leaving holiness Not attending, but I speak at. Churches do a lot of different things. None of them are having a Sunday school serious discussion about beards and toenail polish or open-toed shoes. None of them are talking about these 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 made up yourself and that's why there's all the inconsistency and the difference from one group to another.
Nathan Mayo:If I ask you to show me why jewelry isn't okay, you're going to find some reasons in Scripture where it's used in a bad way. But then you also have to answer okay, israel plundered the jewelry from the Egyptians at God's command. Then they used some of it to build the golden calf. That's bad. But then God told them to use some of it to build the tabernacle a freewill offering, and they kept the rest. Now we're being told that it was changed, like in Isaiah, god changed the rules.
Nathan Mayo:Okay, that's an interesting original argument. Haven't heard that one before. Always hear new arguments for the standards, which must not be that clear if they need new arguments all the time. But then we still haven't solved the fact that the prodigal son's father gave him a gold ring. And oh, by the way, when the rich man came into James's church in his story, the rich man was wearing a gold ring and everybody said we're not going to associate with him because he's clearly not a believer, because there's a standard against gold, right? No, they said this guy, we like him because they saw he was rich. There was a pride issue, to be sure, but the church clearly didn't have a standard against gold, or they would have cast him out as an unbeliever. So I don't think these things are as clear as you're saying they are, and I would let Luke respond to the next question first too, because it's more to him.
Jonathan Rich:Yeah, I was going to say we'll bounce right back over to Luke for this next question and final question. Luke for this next question and final question. I wish we could have got to all of them, but for sake of time we picked three out of the several that we received. And that third and final question is is the holiness dress standard necessary to stay saved? And if so, why Is everyone who doesn't dress holiness but still claims to be saved and there is the fruit present a liar or deceived? And if one can stay saved, then why is it necessary and not oppressive, brother Luke?
Luke Beets:I think there's a lot of assumption in that question. There's the assumption that there's fruit when you skip fruit, there is the assumption. That's quite a bit. That's one of the main assumptions the assumption that there's fruit present but not this fruit. So on college campus a lot of times what we will run into and I speak from own experience is people want to take step two without taking step one. If the first and greatest commandment is that I must love the Lord, thy God, with all my heart, to love him with all my mind and to love him above everything, and if my life is to be an imitation of Christ, which is to walk in obedience to God, then the question really is not do I have to live all in the stress standard in order to stay saved? The question is do I have to walk in obedience to God?
Luke Beets:And I may have all the fruit of love. And I may have all this fruit, that seeming fruit of loving people and charity and all of that, but if I'm not walking in obedience to God, then you know it don't matter None of that other stuff. First I must obey God first and foremost. It's not so much. You know. People say the whole of this dress standard has changed and that that's an original argument. It's not really an original argument to make the statement that some things have changed over time, such as, you know, with Israel spoiling the Egyptians. It's not an original argument.
Luke Beets:Whenever Cain married his sister, god changed later and said don't marry your sister. When Abraham married his half-sister, god ties him with this question, because God hadn'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 safe? I'd say that's the wrong way to look 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 I have and still be a Christian, whereas the question should be how close to God can I live?
Luke Beets:Why not give God everything? Is that saying there's a slippery slope? No, not at all. It's saying give everything to God. Yes, he requires you, as a woman, not to cut your hair. Yes, he requires you, as a woman, don't wear pants. If they were just trying to mock, why would that be the first thing that pops in their mind? If they did not associate that together at all, why would that be the first thing that pops in their mind? No, if that's the first thing your brain goes to, that's the law of God Romans, chapter 2, verse 14, that his law is written on our heart and we automatically know. No one has an excuse. Romans, chapter 1. Why does it instantly go there? Why must you do this? To remain safe, because you must walk in obedience to God, his laws on your heart, you from wrong. So, yes, it's not oppressive, it's a blessing, because the Bible says God gives me the ability to do that, to live holy only through him. Not oppressive at all. If I had to do it myself, it would be, but through God it's not.
Jonathan Rich:And Brother Nathan, your response.
Nathan Mayo:Yeah, my response would be yes and amen. We should be doing what is written in the law of God. The problem is that many of these things are not. Some of you have long hair. You can debate that. Okay, there's an argument to be made.
Nathan Mayo:But this idea that jewelry is banned in Scripture, despite the fact that you didn't address that, post this theoretical standard change. There are still people using gold in a positive way, one of them representing God in the story of the prodigal son, the other one in the story of the rich man in James's church. So if this standard changed, based on some specific prescriptions to daughters of Zion which, by the way, you read these passages and this is a whole nother conversation but there are things like perfume and bathing that are talked about there too, and clothes of various kinds, andles and sassas, lots of things that were not considered to be banned post that. But just, we pick out the jewelry because that's that we can. We can do that right, but I agree we need to do what's in God's Word. Luke tells us that our salvation is so insecure that if we sin in any way, we immediately lose our salvation. Okay, or whatever you want to call it, justification Going to hell. That's what matters, right, that's what matters. Whatever we call it, it's hell. So that means that, according to his answer, that these things are absolutely sin and sin can't exist in heaven. Then he thinks everybody who's not in the holiness movement is going to hell, which it's really hard to get somebody to say that out loud, honestly. Sometimes we can get them to. Most of the time they won't say it out loud, but people will just think it. And I agree when the Bible says without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. That's true, I agree with that. I just don't think it's our holiness. I think it comes from Christ. Number one. Number two I do think we demonstrate works as a believer, but I don't see not wearing hoodies. Oh wait, we didn't decide that standard meant that, right, we 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 in Scripture, then how come it is number one? These standards change over time within the holiness movement. I'm not talking about, in God's word, cain and sister. I get that. That's different. It's a different argument. I mean post the closing of scripture in the holiness movement. These things have changed.
Nathan Mayo:Holiness movement's not even that old. It doesn't go back that far. There are so many believers today. I've met lots of them all around the world in places. I lived in Europe for four years, I lived in Morocco for a while, lived in Haiti. They don't know about these standards and, according to Luke, these are the law of God and if y'all don't obey the law of God, you're going to hell. So all of these believers all around the world that I've met are going to hell. According to Luke, and I'm saying number one, most of this stuff isn't in scripture anyways. Number two basically it's possible to do something that is sin and not immediately go to hell. So there are two, two aspects to that, and I appreciate that Luke will say out loud that all non holiness believers are going to hell, because it's really hard to get somebody to say that.
Jonathan Rich:I will say this is going to be the most difficult part of this debate, which is the conclusion, because I've personally enjoyed hearing both sides of the argument and I pray those listening have as well. I would bounce over to Luke, but I'm just going to keep it right here with Nathan and give his closing statements and then we'll we'll finish up with with Luke.
Nathan Mayo:First off, I just want to say, luke, thanks for being here. I appreciate it. I appreciate you sharing what you have to share. We've for a long time tried to get people to debate us at Berean and you reached out to us and I do appreciate that.
Nathan Mayo:Let me say to the audience you may know that God loves you because it says it in the Bible. Let me ask you this Does God like you because it says it in the Bible? Let me ask you this Does God like you? Is God happy that you're his child, even when you fail to be perfect in every way? I am a father and I like my kids, even when they're stinkers. Not every child is my kid. I have some kids that are mine, some that are not.
Nathan Mayo:God is the, the world's greatest dad. If you have accepted Christ with sincere faith and you desire to please Him and you are not living in unrepentant rebellion against Christ, you're His child and if you truly understand the gospel, you will be sensitive to sin in your life and you won't want to cover it up or relabel it. If you sin, you'll run to Jesus and if you get hit by a bus on the way there, you're still going to heaven Because God is not going to let one of his children miss heaven by an inch. Luke's trying to make you think I have some kind of hot take on this. 99% of the church agrees with me on this.
Nathan Mayo:The historic Christian faith is backing me to the hilt all the way back through the church. Fathers, the hot take is coming to you courtesy of the holiness movement that has distorted the gospel. With these prescriptive standards, god's word does not benefit from our additions. It's time we get back to the old paths. It's time we get back to the old-time gospel. And I just want to say, too, I would love to do another debate on a standard. It would be so fun to dig into that, so maybe we can make that happen sometime. Awesome, luke, in your closing statements.
Luke Beets:Hey, I also want to say I appreciate Nathan, appreciating being willing to stand for what you believe. I think this is something that we could both agree on. It's one thing to have an opinion, to have a belief. It's a totally different thing to be willing to defend what you believe. I think it's important that we have discussions.
Luke Beets:I do want to point out again that, according to the resolution we had, I don't feel like that you showed in any way that to have a holiness standard distorts the gospel because, again, we don't say that's what saves us. So no, we have not in any way shown that we're distorting the gospel. Again, I would point out that I do think y'all do the distortion of the gospel because the bible is going to tell us in first in the book of corinthians, that if any man be in christ, he's a new creature. I would say y'all distort the gospel. It's been demonstrated here because the Bible says that the evidence of being saved is that new creature. Old things are passed away.
Luke Beets:You made the statement. It's hard as it is for someone to admit and hey, you said it's hard for me to get someone to admit that so whoever don't follow the Holy Standard isn't going to heaven. I think it's equally for me to get someone to admit that whoever doesn't follow the Holy Standard isn't going to heaven. I think it's equally as hard to get someone to admit you can have not you but that you made the statement that people can fornicate multiple times and they can remain a Christian. That's a distortion of Scripture. 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 in sin and to try and pat someone on the back and say they're living in sin and that's okay, that is a distortion of the gospel. Not to say you must live right after you're saved.
Jonathan Rich:And I would love to do another debate. That'd be great on any stage. I just pray you guys consider us if you do another debate Now. We had a really good time in this debate and really thankful for Luke, thankful for Nathan agreeing to do this and having us be involved and included in this. It means obviously a lot to us and in closing I'm going to say again thank you to everybody who has been involved in this and thank you for all the audience questions. Thank you for everyone who's listening to this. You can find us on the podcast platform of your choice by searching The Every Day Christian Podcast, that's the every and day are two separate words Christian podcast. You can also find us on the social media platform of your choice by searching at podcast for him, that's, at podcast the number for him. Uh, thank you to our participants and God bless everybody. You Thank you.
