Can a person lose his salvation? Conclusion

This is the last post in my series about how a person cannot lose his salvation. I encourage everyone to read the entire series but I'm going to recap my points briefly. I've talked about how salvation is described as a fundamental change in our nature – how we are “born again” and “pass from death unto life.” The Bible continuously describes our salvation using words of permanency like, “everlasting life” and “they shall never perish.” Furthermore, the Bible attests in many places that it is God who secures us in our salvation and we are kept by His power, not by our own works. Finally, I talked about how the majority of verses critics cite are “negative arguments” where they point to a conditional statement and argue the opposite. For example, in Revelation 3:5, God promises to not blot from the Book of Life the name of the soul that overcomes; critics argue that means God could blot the name from the Book of Life if the person fails to overcome.

There are a few verses, however, that critics cite which are not negative arguments. It's my opinion that in every one of these cases, the people being described are not – and have never been – Christians. Following are a few examples.

Perhaps the most cited passage is Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” This verse is cited as proof that a confession of faith alone is not enough to guarantee salvation but, rather, confession must be followed by good works (that is, “doing the will of My Father”). In the context of the entire passage, however, Jesus makes it clear that these are people who only claimed to be Christians but never had a personal relationship with Him. Consider verse 23, “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” I've written before about the emphatic force used in this passage in the Greek. Jesus is saying He, never knew these people – not even ever! They are not people who knew Him then became lost. They are people who never knew Him but thought they were saved because of the good works they did in His name.

Another passage sometimes offered is Hebrews 10:38, Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. The argument is made that this means if a believer should turn away from the faith (that is, “draw back”), then God will no longer have any pleasure in him. I don't believe that interpretation is valid when the verse is considered in context. Verse 39 says, But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. The epistle writer is clearly intending to exclude himself and his readers from the group that could “draw back.” He instead identifies the Hebrew audience as those who believe unto salvation. It is only lost people who hear the gospel and draw back that displease God.

There are other passages people cite and providing an exhaustive list would be too long for this series. The passages above are just example of how some passages used to argue that a person can lose his salvation really are talking about people who were never Christians. 1 John 2:19 says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” In this simple statement, John makes clear that people who “leave” the faith were really never of the faith. I'm not sure how much more overtly this could be stated.

In the parable of the sower (Matthew 13), the seeds that falls on the stony ground or among the thorns represent people who seem to accept the gospel but later turn away when faced with trials. Only the seeds that falls in the good soil, the ones that produce fruit, are Christians. Time after time, Jesus tells us that we can judge a Christian by his fruit. We may not be able to look at a person's face and know if he's a Christian but we should be able to tell by judging his actions. There have been – and will always be – people who claim to be Christians but really aren't. Maybe they even genuinely believe they are. But at the end of the day, they had never really become a sheep.

2 Peter talks about this same thing. Some people hear the gospel and enter into fellowship with believers. Later, they return to their former ways but are worse for it because they have heard the truth. Peter quotes Proverbs, describing them as dogs who return to their own vomit or pigs that return to wallowing in the mire. They never became lambs; that is, they never experienced the life changing transformation of being born again. They remained dogs and pigs and, eventually, returned to acting like dogs and pigs.

Ultimately, of course, God is the judge of who is saved and who is lost. We may form opinions based on men's actions but God sees their hearts and He knows who are the sheep and who are the goats. Even Christians sin. I've sometimes said that a sheep might get dirty but a pig wallows in the mud. Christians will also be judged for their sins. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 talks about the time every Christian will face, when his works will be judged by fire:

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

My sin has consequences – not just in this life but eternally. Every moment I spend on worldly things is time wasted building a house of wood and straw. It is time I could have spent pursuing things that will last eternally. When other saints are casting their crowns at the feet of Jesus (Revelation 4:10), I could be standing there empty-handed knowing I had squandered my reward. But regardless of whatever loss sin might cause us to suffer, Corinthians is clear that it cannot cost us our salvation.

Read the entire series

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Five Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 4

4) It gives the wrong impression of death

The Bible is very clear that death is the judgment for sin. There are several passages that illustrate this: For the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, Romans 5:12. He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, James 5:20, et al. We die physically because we are descended from Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22) but, after we die, the lost will be judged for their own sins before the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11-14). At that Judgment, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life, is cast into the Lake of Fire; this is called, the second death (Revelation 20:14-15).

When we are born again, the Bible says we pass from death into life (John 5:24). The gospel is the good news that we can have life in Christ. As Christians, our sins are forgiven by Christ's blood. Our physical death becomes that time when we are rid of these vessels of clay and enter into eternity knowing that we will have no part in the second death. In 1 Corinthians 15:55, Paul rejoices, saying, O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Christ conquered death for Christians but, for the lost, death still holds sway. We seldom know when death will overtake us so we need to make a decision for Jesus while we have the opportunity. If a person dies before he has repented, he has forever lost the opportunity for salvation. Ezekiel 18:21-23 says, “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” God wants all people to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

In an interview with the NY Times, Bill Nye made these following comments:

NYE: I think the fear of death figures prominently in creationist thought. That the promise of eternal life is reassuring to people who are deeply troubled by the troubling fact that we’re all going to die. And it bugs me, too. But I press forward rather than running in circles screaming.

NY TIMES: And ultimately, death is a part of evolution.

NYE: It’s the key. The key is that you can pass on improvements by having kids. And there aren’t enough resources for any population to go completely unchecked, whether the population is humans or crickets. There isn’t enough for everybody, so you compete. And this is one of Darwin’s enormous insights.

According to Nye, death is the key to evolution. You see, it's not just that death happens during evolution, death is prerequisite to evolution. It's the hero of the story. It's the champion of the theory. Yet in spite of this, I still think that most of the people who believe in evolution never fully grasp exactly how critical a role death plays.

Natural selection is sometimes described as the “survival of the fittest.” Of course, this must also mean the demise of the unfit. According to the theory, a creature is born with some unusual trait (either through a fortunate combination of existing genes or through random mutation). On rare occasions, this unusual trait conveys some advantage to its host – perhaps the host can run faster, see keener, or jump higher. Because of this advantage, the host will hopefully live longer and leave more offspring than its neighbors without the trait. The offspring that inherit the advantage will likewise tend to have more offspring and eventually, the creatures having the trait will replace the entire population. The more fit live, the less fit die, and the entire population evolves. That is how it is supposed to work. If the less fit did not die, then the more fit really have no advantage to select.

Because it plays such a key role in evolution, some people almost regard death as noble. Biologos, a group that identifies itself as Christian, has an article titled, Death and Rebirth: The Role of Extinction in Evolution. Wow, “death and rebirth”! It almost seems to put evolution on equal footing with the Resurrection! In the article, the author makes this claim:

Extinction is actually a common feature of life on earth when viewed over long (e.g. geological) timescales. By some estimates, over 99% of the species that have ever lived have gone extinct [this is a lie, by the way].... Such an extinction event (of a single species, or perhaps a handful of species) alters the environment of other remaining species in an ecosystem. This, in turn, may influence the ability of some of these remaining species to reproduce compared to other species.... As the ecosystem landscape shifts due to loss of species, new biological opportunities, or niches, might arise. These new niches are then available to support new species to fill them.

There you go. Animals go extinct but that makes way for new animals to evolve. It's the circle of life. Some things live and some things die and it's good. When a tsunami or earthquake kills thousands of people, critics often say that such tragedies are evidence there is no God. They also say that such events have happened frequently in the world's history and that they are mechanisms that give some species the opportunity to evolve.

The role of death in evolution is the complete opposite of what death truly is. Death is an intruder into the creation. It is the consequence of Adam's sin and later, of our own sins. It is an enemy that will one day be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). Death should be dreaded by the lost and they should seek a way to avoid it. The gospel – the good news – is that there is life in Jesus!!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3
Part 5

Five Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 1

Too many Christians have fallen for the idea that evolution is a fact. It's the result of a concerted effort by many secular educators who tirelessly work to conflate “evolution” with “science,” loudly proclaim “the science is settled,” use legal maneuverings to squash any discussion in the classroom not helpful to the theory, then mock and ridicule anyone who doesn't get in line. Unfortunately, in some cases, these tactics have worked and some Christians, who otherwise profess to believe the Bible, are convinced the Bible can't be correct about a six day creation.

In an effort to protect the inerrancy of the Bible, these same Christians have adopted a compromising position, saying that both the Bible and evolution are true. Through much mental gymnastics and questionable hermeneutics, they have developed a theory of origins called “theistic evolution” which basically says that everything secular scientists believe about our origins – the Big Bang, the millions of years, the gradual deposition of the geological column – are all true. The only difference is that theistic evolutionists add the qualifier, “God-did-it.”

In a discussion about kids leaving the Church, a theistic evolutionist, who claims to be a former youth leader, made these comments:

Believe me, I know; kids aren't stupid, and know a specious argument when they hear it. If (in essence) they're being told that "The Flintstones" represents real and true history (that is, dinosaur/human cohabitation, etc), and that all they are watching on the History or Discovery channels is a sinister secular conspiracy to do away with God, then it's no wonder they fall away from the faith. I see (and have involved myself in) a Church and a Christian School which take a line which would be anathema to Ken Ham, freely endorsing a harmony between modern Science and a grounded Christian faith.

I was educated in public schools where I was taught evolution and I believed what the textbooks taught. Even after becoming a Christian, I continued for a while believing in evolution. There was even a brief time where thought I had invented the idea of theistic evolution. After that, I entered in another brief period where I just ignored the subject altogether. Eventually, of course, I came to completely reject evolution and became a full-blown, young-earth creationist. There are several reasons I reject theistic evolution. I thought I'd make a short series and talk about five of them.

1) It is contrary to a plain reading of the Scriptures

One way to “reconcile” the Bible with evolution is to claim the creation account isn't meant to be understood “literally” but rather as a poem or a parable. Genesis, they will say, only tells us that God created everything but science tells us how. I beg to differ. The Bible very clearly tells us how; God spoke and it happened. Genesis 1 offers a detailed account of the creation week. It's very specific, detailing the events of each day: on the first day, evening and morning, God did this; on the second day, evening and morning, God did this; etc.

Furthermore, the Bible says that God created Adam from the dust of the earth. These passages are not ambiguous. There is nothing in them to suggest we need to look somewhere else to determine how long “six days” or that suggest Adam evolved from some non-human primate.

What other parts of the Bible do we read in the same way some Christians read Genesis? Think about these questions:

How many days was Jonah in the whale?

How many days was Lazarus dead?

How many days did Joshua march around Jericho?

How many days did God take to create the universe?

It's easy to answer the first three questions. It should be just as easy to answer the fourth. Yet, because some Christians put their faith in science above the revealed word of God, they get confused over what should be an easy question. How many days was Jonah in the whale? “Three,” they answer. How many days did God take to create the universe? “We don't know,” they answer. What? Um, yes, we do know!

A usual argument employed is to say that the word “day” can mean something other than a day. True, but it can also mean a day. In fact, it usually means a single day. The meaning is always determined by context. When God commanded the Jews to work six days and rest the seventh (Exodus 20:8-10), do you think they asked themselves, “I wonder how long the Lord means by 'six days'?” In the same commandment (v. 11), the Bible says, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them.” In that context, how can anyone seriously suggest that “six days” really means “millions of years.”  Genesis 1 modifies each use of the word "day" with the modifier, "1st day," "2nd day," etc.  It also modifies each use with the phrase "morning and evening."  When Genesis 1 so emphatically uses the word "day" in the same way we would describe an ordinary day, why should I even bother to consider that it means something other than a 24-hour day?

Another characteristic of theistic evolution is that, if the secular scientists are right about the geological column, there is no room in the rock strata for a global flood. So, Christian evolutionists must also compromise when reading those chapters of Genesis that describe the Flood. They say Noah's flood was a local catastrophe limited to the Mesopotamia valley. So when God said, “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish,” it can't mean under the whole heaven or everything on the earth or all flesh shall be destroyed.

The Bible clearly describes a world-wide deluge. Genesis 7:20 says that mountains were buried under 15 cubits of water which is not possible if the flood were limited to a single valley (how can a mountain be 15 cubits underwater without both sides of the mountain being covered?). Furthermore, God's covenant of the rainbow says there will never be a flood like that one – a promise He didn't keep if the Bible only meant a local flood.

Genesis cannot be reconciled with a belief in evolution or a local flood. The theory is contrary to the clear words of the Bible. Does the Bible ever use parables or figures of speech? Yes, it does, but when it does, it is easily understood from the context. There is nothing about the early chapters of Genesis that suggest they are meant to be anything other than history. 2 Peter 1:20 says, no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. There is no hidden meaning. There is no obscure understanding that has only been recently brought to light through scientific discovery. Just like any other written work, the most ordinary reading of the text is usually its intended meaning and when the plain meaning is clear, there is no reason to seek any other meaning.

The Bible tells us the correct accounts of the creation and the judgment in no uncertain terms. I trust the easily understood words of the Bible far above the flawed opinions of secular scientists who proudly boast they will never accept a supernatural explanation for any event. This is the first reason why I reject theistic evolution.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Acts 20:28: The Blood of God or the Blood of His Son? An Argument of Exceptions

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

I was online the other day, discussing this verse. It's one of special, theological importance. A plain reading of this verse shows that God purchased the church, “with His own blood.” Obviously, it was Jesus who shed His blood on the cross so this verse seems to affirm the divinity of Jesus. That is, Jesus is God.

The person with whom I was discussing this verse took exception to that understanding. He resorted to a “mistranslation” argument. I've had dealings with this individual before and his Greek is not really that good. However, in this case, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the Greek that he was leveraging to bolster his point.

The Greek reads, διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) αἵματος (blood) τοῦ (the) ἰδίου (His own).

The most obvious translation of this verse is the one rendered in most Bibles, “through His own blood.” Another translation, which is a little more awkward in English, is “through the blood which is His own.” But there is still another possibility: “through the blood of His own (Son).”

The latter translation is not the most likely but it is still possible. The question is, which is the intended translation of the three? Since the critic I was conversing with online did not believe Jesus is God, he argued the 3^rd translation, the least likely one, is the correct one. He hooted and cheered that even RKBentley, a conservative Christian, acknowledged that “through the blood of His own” had merit as a possible translation. Of course, he ignored that I said it is the less likely one. As far as he was concerned, it is THE translation because Jesus is not God.

From there, we began discussing some other verses that referred to Jesus as God. Here are a few that I cited – please excuse my frequent use of the word, “clearly,” I was making a point:

In John 20:28, Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

John 1:1c clearly says, “the Word was God.”

Titus 2:13 clearly says, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 clearly says, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

In John 10:11, Jesus clearly said, “I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd” while Psalm 23:1 clearly says, “Jehovah is my shepherd.”

In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist said he was preparing the way for the Lord (who is clearly Jesus) just like Isaiah said. Isaiah 40:3 clearly said the prophet will prepare the way for Jehovah.

Joel 2:32 clearly says that whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. Roman 10:13 clearly says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.

Revelation 1:8, we clearly see that God is the Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 1:17, Jesus clearly says He is the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, we clearly see that the Alpha/Omega and the first/last is the same Person.

In John 5:21, Jesus clearly says He gives life just as the Father gives life.

In John 5:23 Jesus clearly says we should honor Him in the same way we honor the Father

In John 10:30, Jesus clearly said, “I and the Father are one.”

We also have many clear instances of people worshiping Jesus; The man born blind (John 9:38), the magi (Matthew 2:11), the disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33), et al.

So we see time after time where the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God. The response from my critic friend online was to cite William Barclay:

But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.

Note that Barclay said, “almost every occasion.” If the Bible says even once that Jesus is God, then that would clear up the ambiguous verses but never mind that now. What struck me was that the rebuttal I usually hear to seemingly clear references of Jesus' divinity is to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  Each and every time the Bible seems to identify Jesus as God, they say a more obscure translation of the verse is the correct one.

Is that the best they have? Their only response - ever - is to say, “what that really means is....”  We argue rules and they argue exceptions. How odd it would be if God gave us His revelation in code. How are we expected to understand any part of the Bible if the most ordinary meaning of any verse is never the correct one?

Hell: Hades, Sheol, Paradise, and Gehenna

To my last post concerning the “gates of hell,” a frequent visitor, Steven J, asked some interesting questions. While I was forming a reply to his comments, I realized that a lot of people might have similar questions so I thought I'd add a few more details and make it a post. As I began writing it, though, I realized the subject is a little more broad that I originally considered and wasn't sure I could keep it to a reasonable post length. It seemed that anything I wanted to omit seemed necessary to the whole post. I finally decided to scrap the whole thing and write an abbreviated version from scratch.

I say all that to say this: My views about hell probably reflect those held by the slight majority but opinions still abound. Consider this a disclaimer - the Bible gives us much detail about the lives of the characters it mentions and also give us instructions on how to conduct ourselves now. It gives surprisingly few details about hell and even fewer about heaven. The popular ideas of a “fire and brimstone” hell are not entirely wrong but they're not entirely right either. What I include here is correct to my best understanding of the Bible but I remain open to correction if I am convincingly persuaded by Scripture.

By the way, for the purpose of this post, we will stick primarily to the New Testament.

The English word “hell” invokes images of fire, brimstone, flames, and eternal torment. Many people are surprised, though, when I tell them the Bible does not use the word “hell” at all. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There are different words that have all been rendered as “hell” in the English translations. For a few of those words, the fiery judgment is the correct understanding but not in every instance.

In the New Testament, the word most often translated as “hell” is the Greek word ᾅδης (hadēs). In general, Hades refers to the abode of the dead. It includes all the dead, regardless of their faith while on earth. However, within Hades, souls are segregated into two groups – believers and non-believers – to await the resurrection. Hades is the functional equivalent of the Old Testament, Hebrew word שׁאל (sh^e'ôl). Sheol literally means “grave” or “pit.” Oh, and if you haven't noticed already, for the sakes of ease of typing and reading, I am referring to these here as Hades and Sheol.

In John 5:28-29, Jesus makes it clear that the “grave” (μνημεῖον (mnēmeion) is the Greek word in this passage) holds both the believing and unbelieving:

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (KJV)

Those who die while believing are taken to a place of rest in Hades. This has also been called “the Bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22) or“Paradise' (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 12:4). Those who died while outside of the faith are taken to a place of torment. It is also referred to as Gehenna (Matthew 5:22), Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4), or the abyss (Revelation 9:1).

Sometimes, this realm of the damned is also referred to as Hades (Luke 16:23) or Sheol which leads to a little confusion. Let me see if I can offer an analogy that could clear up the confusion. I live in Louisville, Kentucky (KY). Louisville is the city and it is in the state of KY. While I am in Louisville, I am simultaneously in KY. So, I could say, “I live in Louisville” and just as correctly say, “I live in KY.” Likewise, a damned soul in the place of torment (like Gehenna) can simultaneously said to be in Hades.

We see a good contrast between the place of rest and the place of torment in Luke 16:19-31 – the account of the rich man and Lazarus. The Bible says that when Lazarus died, he was carried by angels to the Bosom of Abraham. The rich man died and “was buried.” Then, in “hell” (Hades), he lifted his eyes and saw Abraham with Lazarus “in his bosom.” It is frightening to read as the rich man says he is being tormented in flames. Abraham reminds him that he received good things in life while Lazarus suffered evil things. Now the rich man is “tormented” while Lazarus is “comforted” (KJV). In the passage, Abraham also describes there is a gulf or chasm that divides the two areas. While Abraham and the rich man are obviously able to see each other and even converse, neither can cross to the other side.

When Jesus died, He descended to “Paradise” as is attested in His comment to the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” When Jesus ascended, He took with Him all the saints who now dwell in the presence of the Father (Ephesians 4:8-10). Most people agree that Paradise no longer receives spirits. Now, when a believer dies, he is immediately present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8).

Revelation tells us that there will be a final judgment of the lost. Revelation 20:13 says that “death and hell (Hades)” will give up the dead that are in them to stand before the white throne where their works are judged. At the end of the judgment, Hades, along with all those whose names are not in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the “second death” and is their final destiny for all eternity.

In many cases, a discussion of hell raises the criticism that God is cruel and unjust (the “argument of outrage”). Such a discussion will have to be for another post. Suffice it to say here and now that hell (the place of the damned) is a very real place and judgment awaits all who reject Jesus. However, salvation is available to all. Now is the time to decide.

There Was No Rapture - But the End is Still Near!

And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:17-22)

Before we had the Bible, God promised His people that He would send prophets who would let them know God's will. The LORD knew, of course, that anyone could claim to be speaking for God, and so He give His people in advance a simple test that would help them distinguish false prophets who claimed to be speaking for God and the real prophets whom He had sent. He said that the things spoken by a true prophet would come to pass. If a prophet spoke something “in the name of the Lord” and it didn't come to pass, he is exposed as a false prophet. The Bible says we should “not be afraid” of someone who has spoken presumptuously. In other words, “don't worry about any more warnings he might give.”

So what are we to think now of Harold Camping? This man has made not one but two false prophecies concerning the rapture of the Church. His most recent prediction – that the rapture would occur yesterday at 5:59 PM – came and went without incident. Actually, he said that 200,000 believers would be raptured while the earth itself would be destroyed by earthquakes. As I write this, Mr. Camp had not been reached for comment. Perhaps he and 199,999 others were taken? Nah! Just in case I've not been clear - I never believed Camp's claims for even a moment.

I don't think anyone really took this guy seriously. It didn't matter that he'd already had one failed prediction – people simply don't take any end-times prophecies seriously anymore. Matthew 24:36 specifically disqualifies in advance any certain time given for His return. Christians, therefore, should never give ear to such drivel. However, such false prophets – that's right, I'm calling Camp a false prophet – are seen by the world as representative of Christians. So, when someone claiming to be a Christian acts like a nut, he makes all Christians look like nuts. An event as significant as the rapture is trivialized.

Interestingly though, the Bible has already told us about this attitude. Consider the following passage:

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:1-4)

How ironic. If I didn't fear it might be blasphemy, I might suspect God were playing a prank on unbelievers. Those who are without Christ scoff at His return. When bogus claims are made about His imminent return, it's even more reason to ridicule His return. As I hear their jeers, I know now more than ever, Christ could come at any moment. It's not because of the presumptuous claims spoken by false prophets, however, but because of the scoffers who Peter said would come in the last days!

Granville Sharp's Rule and Christologically Significant Verses

If any “rule” can exist in Koine Greek, the Granville Sharp Rule must qualify as the most contested yet most proven. Granville Sharp was the 18th century son of the Archbishop of York. He is best known for his work as an abolitionist but has left us a great legacy in his theological writings. Sharp had no formal education but, while working as a young apprentice to a London linen-draper, he taught himself Greek.

In his studies, Sharp discovered an important Greek idiom – the rule which now bears his name. He noticed that whenever an article+noun+“kai”+noun construction occurred, both nouns always referred to the same person. This construction is commonly called the “TSKS construction.” A key point to this rule is that only the first noun has the article (“the”) and the second noun is anarthrous. Additional points include that the nouns must be singular, personal, and not proper names.

The rule sounds more complicated than it really is. Here is an example in English so that you can see how the construction works: 2 Peter 2:20, “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This short clause has the article (“the”), noun (“Lord”), kai (“and”), and noun (“Savior”). Therefore, according to Sharp's rule, both of these nouns refer to the same person. In this context, they obviously both refer to Jesus.

Here are a few more instances:

Matthew 12:22, τον τυφλον και κωφον (the blind and dumb)

2 Corinthians 1:3, ὁ Θεὸς και πατηρ (the God and Father)

Ephesians 6:21, ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς και πιστος διάκονος (the beloved brother and faithful minister)

Hebrews 3:1, τον αποστολον και αρχιερεα (the Apostle and High Priest)

Revelation 16:15, ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν (the one watching and keeping)

The context of these examples clearly demonstrates that both nouns in each verse are references to the same person. Setting aside textual variations, the TSKS construction occurs some 80 times in the NT and most scholars agree there are no exceptions to Sharp's rule.

Sharp's rule takes on considerable, theological significance when applied to two verses: Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Here are the verses in the Greek:

Titus 2:13, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ).

2 Peter 1:1, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (our God and Savior Jesus Christ).

In both of these verses, “God” has the article and “Savior” is anarthrous so, according to Sharp's rule, they are references to the same Person. In these contexts, that Person is Jesus. Therefore, this explicitly means that Jesus is both God and Savior.

Those who deny the divinity of Christ refuse to see what should be obvious. The usual objection raised is to question the intent of the original authors: was this “rule” in the minds of the writers as they penned the New Testament? Considering the frequency where the TSKS construction appears and the large number of unambiguous examples that exist in the NT, I would say the writers understood well and precisely meant to say that Jesus is God and Savior. Indeed, where such a large number of unambiguous examples exist, to insist that these two passages are exceptions is nothing more than special pleading.

How Long Were the Days in Genesis?

There are some Christians out there who believe evolution to be true yet also claim to believe the Bible. Since the Genesis account of creation contradicts evolutionary theories concerning origins, there are various methods these people use to “reconcile” the two. There are various ways people do this but one way is to claim that the “days” of the creation week weren’t ordinary days but represented long periods of time. Each day was an epoch or era in which God performed a different creative act.

To bolster their claim, they point out the obvious fact that the word “day” can mean different things. It does not necessarily mean “24-hours.” To them, it could mean millions or billions of years. Well, it’s true that the word can mean different things, but then again, it can also mean 24-hours. So even though it could mean something other than 24-hours, that alone is not evidence that is does mean something other than 24-hours. As with any word, context should determine its meaning.

Look at the following sentence:

“Back in my grandfather’s day, people would play the banjo every day, but only during the day.”

The word “day” appears in that sentence 3 times – each time with a different meaning. Do you have any trouble determining what each occurrence means? Most second graders can figure it out. I did a quick search on Biblegateway.com and saw the word day appears in the KJV 2,263 times. Why is it that ordinary people can figure out the meaning of the word everywhere else in the Bible except Genesis?!

An ordinary reading of Genesis 1 immediately suggests that the word day means an ordinary, 24-hour day. If we pause to carefully consider if this is correct, we can find several reasons to believe the ordinary reading is the correct one.

First, I would direct you to Exodus 20:9-11:

“Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,… For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

Here, when the LORD gave the Commandments, He gave us a formula to interpret the creation days. We are to work for six days and not work on the rest on the seventh in the same way that God worked for six days and rested on the seventh. This passage can only make sense if the days are understood to mean ordinary, 24-hour days. If the day meant “millions or billions of years,” then what are we to do? Work 6,000,000 years then rest for 1,000,000 years? The early readers would have obviously understood these to be ordinary days and we should do the same.

Furthermore, remember that Adam was created on the 6th day. So if the 7th day of the creation were millions or billions of years long, then Adam should have been millions or billions of years old. Yet the Genesis 5:5 says that he only lived 930 years.

A second clue that suggests these are ordinary days is because each occurrence of the word “day” in Genesis 1 is modified with the term “evening and morning.” Outside of Genesis 1, “evening and morning” appear with the word “day” three times (see list here). In all three instances, the word can only mean an ordinary day. For example, there is 1 Samuel 17:16, “And the Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days.” How else could this verse possibly be interpreted except to mean 40, ordinary, 24-hour days?

Consider also the reverse: if the days were meant to represent long periods of time, then what would be meant by the term “evening and morning”? Would it be millions of years of darkness followed by millions of years of daylight? That could hardly be true. The presence of the term seems to demand the word “day” to mean an ordinary day to the exclusion of all other possible meanings.

Still a third clue is that the word “day” is also modified by an ordinal number (i.e. first day, second day, etc). This construction occurs many times in the Bible. In the example from 1 Samuel 17:16, Goliath presented himself for “forty days.” From Genesis alone there are many examples of this construction: Genesis 7:17 explains that the Flood was upon the earth for “forty days.” Genesis 7:24 says, “the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.” In Genesis 17:12, God commanded that Jewish boys be circumcised when they are “eight days” old. Genesis 22:4, Abraham lifted his eyes on the “third day” and saw the place where he was to sacrifice Isaac. In fact, in every occurrence, when the word day is modified with a number, it means an ordinary day.

We have seen that when “day” is modified with “evening and morning” it means an ordinary day. We have seen that when “day” is modified with a number it means an ordinary day. In Genesis 1 the word “day” is modified with BOTH the term “evening and morning” AND a number. What else then can it mean but an ordinary day?

Still, well meaning people will point to verses like 2 Peter 3:8 where Peter said, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” and then use that as a type of formula (i.e. One “Lord’s day” equals 1,000 years). There are a few problems with this. First, if it were meant to be a straight conversion, then the creation week would still only be 7,000 years long - not millions or billions of years. Of course, there is the same issue of Adam’s age as described above. 2 Peter 3:8 merely means that God is outside of time. The same verse continues “a thousand years as one day”. There is also Psalms 90:4 which says a thousand years are like a “watch in the night” in His sight. Verses such as this are merely to demonstrate the timelessness of God. To Him, 1,000 years, a day, an hour, all have no meaning.

Since the days of Genesis 1 are so obviously ordinary days, one must wonder why people seek to find a different meaning. I believe the reason is obvious: they have trusted the finite knowledge of fallible men over the infallible Word of the infinite God. They believe scientists have “proven” the earth is much older than the Bible suggests so they project their old age beliefs onto their understanding of the Bible.

I say instead we should use the clear meaning of the Bible to help us understand His creation. The Bible says that the heavens, earth, and everything in them was made in six days. We need not look for a different meaning to what is perfectly clear.

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

Sola Gratia means “grace alone.” In my last post on this series, we talked about Sola Fide (faith alone) and how we receive salvation simply by believing and not by works. In that post, I mentioned how faith is sometimes viewed as a work – that is, we believe God must save us because we believe. More simply put, it is the mistaken belief that we “earn” our salvation by believing.

Sola Gratia is the simple understanding that salvation is only available by the grace of God. “Grace,” by definition, means “unmerited favor.” God is not obligated to save us. In fact, God, who is perfectly just, would be justified to condemn us for our sins. He makes salvation available only because of His love for us. Furthermore, He only loves us because of who He is – not because of who we are or because of anything we’ve done.

To understand this fully, we need to consider the Biblical description of the condition of man before Christ’s sacrifice for us.

Consider these verses:

“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” Isaiah 64:6

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” Romans 3:10

Because of our hard heartedness, we have become like potsherds that strive against our Maker (Isaiah 45). The Potter who shaped the clay surely has the right to undo it. Likewise, how can we fault God, who made us, if He should decide to destroy us for our rebellion? But here is where the grace of God is shown:

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

The holy God, who would be just to pour His wrath on us because of our continuous rebellion against Him, instead sent His Son to suffer the wrath in our place. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him (Isaiah 53:5). Now that’s grace!

Another interesting verse to consider is Romans 6:23:

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Ask yourself this: what are “wages”? Normally, wages are something you earn. They are what you deserve after you’ve worked for someone. But Romans says the “wages” of sin is death. The thing we “earn”, the thing we “deserve” for our work, is death. And what is a “gift”? A gift is given only by the grace of the giver. You don’t work for it. You don’t deserve. You only receive it.

That’s God grace for us. He doesn’t give us what we deserve. Our works have only earned us death. But instead, He gives us the gift of eternal life.

Sola Gratia – grace alone!

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

Over the next several days I will be publishing a series of posts on the Five Solas. The Five Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic beliefs and emphasis in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. "Sola" means "alone". These five points represent a remarkably precise and enduring summary of the Christian faith.

While most Christians will agree with these points in principle, I’ve noticed that many aren’t able to argue for the accuracy of them using Scripture. For example, the first Sola we will explore is Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone.” Most Christians will agree that the Bible is our only source of authority and other sacred writings (such as the Book of Mormon), Church traditions, or men’s opinions are all subservient to the Bible. Yet how many Christians are able to defend this view of Scripture using only Scripture? It would be the height of hypocrisy to insist the Bible is the final source of authority if the Bible itself does not make that claim!

The most obvious passage dealing with the idea of Sola Scriptura could be nothing else than 2 Timothy 3:15-17:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

We see from this passage the following things:

>That the Scriptures are given by God.
>That the Scriptures are inerrant (how else could all Scripture be profitable?)
>That Scripture alone is able to make us “wise unto salvation”
>That with just the Scriptures we may be perfect and “thoroughly furnished unto all good works”

That single passage stands on its own merit and little more needs to be discussed. However, some groups may claim to agree with the above passage but at the same time will say that they have some other revelation in addition to the Scripture. If that is true, then it isn’t Scripture alone – it’s Scripture plus some other revelation.

Some groups, for example, claim that they hold either traditions or teachings that must be read, followed, or understood before a follower can correctly understand the Bible. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are renowned for their “Bible study” groups. They print Bible study material such as the Watch Tower magazine which they claim is necessary to correctly understand the Scriptures. The organization actually discourages members from reading the Bible independently of the supporting material which they provide.

For people who believe that such instruction is necessary to correctly understand the Bible, I direct you to 2 Peter 1:20:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

There is no secret understanding of Scripture. The Bible says what it means – plainly. There ordinary understanding of a passage is the correct one and no other material is necessary to discover some other meaning. If someone claims that a passage means something other than what an ordinary reading reveals, great care should be taken to not let such a person deceive you (2 Corinthians 11:3-5).

Another claim held by some groups is to have additional Scriptures. The Mormons, for example, claim to have a companion to the Bible, The Book of Mormon. To them I would say that the cannon of Scripture is closed. Nothing more can be added or taken from the Scriptures. Consider Revelation 22:18-19:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Scriptures alone are our revelation from God. No other man or book can have revelation which contradicts the Scripture. The Bible alone is sufficient and everything the God wanted to know about Him is contained therein.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

Today is Earth Day

Today is “Earth Day.” According to Wikipedia, “Earth Day… is a day designed to inspire awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment.” That sounds well and good and I’m all for appreciating the Earth’s environment. But there’s a fine line between appreciation and adoration and I fear too many people blur the distinction. As Christians, we must be clear about what our role is in this world. When God put Adam and Eve in the Garden, He gave them a few, simple instructions.

First, we are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). We’re different than the animals. When God made Adam, He gave him the task of naming the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). Adam saw that he wasn’t like the beasts or the birds; he was in the image of God. When God made Eve, Adam at last saw someone like himself. Upon seeing Eve he exclaimed, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). But some celebrants of earth day don’t draw the line between humans and animals. In fact, they state the opposite! Read how the Oakland Zoo is celebrating Earth Day:

Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo from 10:00am - 3:00pm for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!

So when kids go to the Oakland Zoo on Earth Day, they’re told they’re just another knot in the web of life. Lizard, bird, monkey, and man – it’s all the same.

Another commandment God gave to Adam and Eve is, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28, NASB). He gave this same command to Noah and his family after they left the Ark (Genesis 9:1). Procreation is a blessed event that God encourages within marriage. However, one of the driving motives behind the original celebration of Earth Day was “zero population growth.” US Senator, Gaylord Nelson, an early leader in the Earth Day movement, made the following quote:

"The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become ... We have to address the population issue. The United Kingdom, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'"

We can see that Senator Nelson’s goal was to limit the population growth. In this quote, he suggests limiting immigration as a method. Unfortunately, we sometimes see much more radical methods being employed by nations like China – such as forced abortions. The idea of limiting population is the antithesis of God’s command to fill the earth. He made the earth perfectly capable of supporting a population many times larger than we currently have (read about the overpopulation myth here). We need not adopt the same attitude as the people at Babel.

Still another thing that bothers me about Earth Day is the misguided notion that it’s somehow noble to leave the environment untouched. Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe we should be good stewards over the environment; but don’t forget that God said, “Let them [men and women] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26). Time and Date.com says, “Earth Day is usually celebrated with outdoor performances, where individuals or groups perform acts of service to earth.” Excuse me? Acts of service to the earth? The earth is here to serve us; we are not here to serve the earth.

Finally, I’m a little uneasy with the whole “nature worship” that seems to go on this day. Romans 1:25 talks about how people, “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” I remind you of the dreadful day of the Lord discussed in 2 Peter 3:10:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This earth and everything in it is going to pass away. While we’re here, don’t pollute, act responsibly, and let’s be good stewards over what God has given us. Beyond that, don’t get too caught up with this “Earth Day” craze. I believe it focuses on all the wrong things.

Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: and thy glory above all the earth;

Psalm 108:5