Will “good” unbelievers go to hell?

I was watching YouTube the other day when a self-described agnostic asked Frank Turek this question:

I generally try to be a good person but I don't believe in the Christian God. Do you think I'm going to hell?

I've seen other stuff by Dr. Turek and he knows a thing or two about apologetics so I'm sure he's heard questions like this before. I don't know why, then, he seemed to dance around the subject for 5 minutes before saying, “If you don't bow your knee to a Creator and get the free gift of eternal salvation, God will not force into His presence against your will.” I'm not sure what the venue was but the crowd seemed sympathetic to Turek, judging by the polite applause that came at the end of the clip. Some of the unbelievers commenting on the video were a little less impressed with his answer.

I'm not going to bash Turek because we've all had those times where we are put on the spot and can't articulate our thoughts well. How many times have you, after some encounter, thought to yourself, “Oh, I wish I would have said....”? But having watched the video and taking time to reflect on the question, let me suggest how I might answer it.

The Bible commands us to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). If we love this girl, we will tell her yes, if she does not accept Jesus, she will go to hell. We say this not because we want her to go to hell or because we are judging her and her lifestyle. Instead, we tell her precisely because we don't want her to go to hell. We are telling her what the consequences of her decisions will be and it should be our goal to change her mind.

Stop and think for a moment – what is the point behind asking such a question? I'm asking rhetorically because it's obvious why: the girl is trying to make the Christian seem intolerant, narrow-minded, and mean. The question commits the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. Whether or not it seems unfair that “good” people can go to hell does nothing to demonstrate that it's not true. The question attempts to provoke a sense of outrage toward the seeming unfairness that a loving God would allow someone who tried to be good to go to hell. To not answer the question directly might make an apologist appear to embarrassed by the “unfairness” to give the obvious answer. It's exactly the kind of response the critic wants.

What if, instead, a person were to ask, “If I jumped out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, do you think I would die?” The answer is an immediate and urgent, “Yes! A fall from that height will certainly kill you. Please tell me you aren't seriously considering doing that!” We're not judging that person; we're describing reality. It wouldn't matter if the person sincerely believed he wouldn't die from such an act, we know he would and should do everything we can to stop him. Why are we any less convicted or urgent about their decision to reject God?

The girl started her question saying that she tries to be good. I would also ask her why she thinks it's important to be good? Since she is an agnostic and not an atheist, maybe she thinks there could be eternal consequences to doing bad. Notice that she said that she tries to be good; I would ask how well she's done. Does she think it's wrong to lie, for example. If so, then has she told lies? Certainly she has. Has she ever cursed at anyone? Has she ever stolen anything – even something little? If she fairly judged herself according to things she knows are wrong, she would see herself as a lying, thieving, murderer at heart. If there are eternal consequences to our actions, isn't she worried about all the bad things she knows she has done? Wouldn't it be great to know that she can have forgiveness for her sins?

The girl asked this question to try to argue. What an opportunity such a question is to share the gospel!

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 5 – Irresistible Grace

Intrinsic to the idea of predestination is the belief in Irresistible Grace. Obviously, the term suggests that if God has chosen us, we cannot turn away from His election. However, irresistible grace runs a little deeper than that. We've already talked about the fact that carnal man does not want to come to God. We are totally depraved – not only are we not able to come to God, we completely lack the desire. However, if God has elected us, we come willingly to Him. So He gives us not only the ability to call upon His name but an irresistible desire to do so.

Consider these two verses:

Ephesians 2:8-9, For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

John 1:12-13, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

According to Ephesians, not only are we saved by faith, one understanding of the verse is that even the faith is not your own – it is the gift of God. So even the ability to call on Him comes from Him.

The verse from John suggests something similar. Note that it says those who believe in His name were not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man. Instead, it says rather clearly that God Himself gave them the right to become His children. In other words, we believe in Him not because of our will but because of His will.

I would not describe myself as a Calvinist but certainly I'm sympathetic to Calvinism. It's a doctrine that is not completely without merit and there are many verses that have caused me to seriously consider the issue. However, there is one verse especially that gives me pause. I find it completely incompatible with Calvinism in general and the point of irresistible grace in particular.

Matthew 23:37, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.”

Jesus uttered those words before making His triumphant entry into Jerusalem. He knew that the crowds who flocked to see Him and hail Him as their Messiah would soon be shouting for His death. It says very plainly that Jesus longed for those Jews to embrace Him and that it was they who rejected Him.

Yet men wiser than me have read this same verse and still view is as compatible with Calvinism. While commenting on this verse, Charles Spurgeon wrote:

The great destroyer of man is the will of man. I do not believe that man’s free will has ever saved a soul; but man’s free will has been the ruin of multitudes. “Ye would not,” is still the solemn accusation of Christ against guilty men. Did he not say, at another time, “Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life?” The human will is desperately set against God, and is the great devourer and destroyer of thousands of good intentions and emotions, which never come to anything permanent because the will is acting in opposition to that which is right and true.

I agree with his comments to a point and I can see how this verse could be used in defense of Calvin's first point, the total depravity of man. Yet I still can't see how this verse can be reconciled with the idea of irresistible grace. Matthew still says that Jesus desired them to come and they, by their own will, would not.

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 3 – Unconditional Election

The next point in Calvinism is Unconditional Election. This is really the meat and potatoes of Calvinism. It's the idea that God has already chosen who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost. The word “elect” in the Bible is always a reference to those who are saved. Unconditional election means that God has ordained the elect to be saved only according to His divine will and is not conditioned upon anything that we have done.

Of the five points, this one probably has the most compelling Scriptural support. There are several passages that can be used to support the idea of election but the following are perhaps the most persuasive:

Ephesians 1:4-5, 11, “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself,according to the kind intention of His will..... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”

Romans 9:10-16, “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

What I find especially interesting is Paul's letter to the Romans, when he says that God loved Jacob above Esau even “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.” At first hearing, it seems a clear cut example of God simply choosing one person over another. Jacob certainly had not done anything before he was born to earn God's favor so he received God's mercy unconditionally. Yet as clear cut as it might seem, we must still consider these passages in the light of the rest of Scripture. Look at the following passages:

1 Timothy 2:3-4, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

Acts 17:30, The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,

If God has already ordained that only some people will be saved and the others lost, how can He simultaneously not want anyone to perish? Perhaps it is because God is omniscient and already knows who will accept Him and who will not. Peter said that he was elect, “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter 1:1-2). It could be that God elects those He knows will believe and makes plans for them even before they are born.

God is not capricious. Because of His love and mercy, He has made salvation available to everyone; but because He is also just and holy, He has laid out a very clear method of redemption. God will have mercy upon whoever believes in His Son – even the most vile sinner.

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.

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 7

#9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Here we have a blatant appeal to emotion or what might be called an argument of outrage. Note carefully the language the video uses: “It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would an all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?” There is absolutely no substance in the question. It's merely an attempt to cast the Lord's Supper in a bad light through the use of loaded words.

Of all the questions asked in the video, this is perhaps the weakest. Actually, I might have said that already about the some other question because several are very weak but this one really is THE weakest. The makers of the video are either completely ignorant of the use of metaphor or they are intentionally invoking the argument of outrage in hopes that the viewer is ignorant of the symbolic nature of the Lord's Supper.

Isn't metaphor taught in middle-school English? When you compare two, unlike objects with the word, “is”, then you have a metaphor: “This car is my baby”; “My kids are my life”; “Love is a rose.” These are all metaphors. The Bible certainly uses metaphor: “I am the vine” (John 15:1); “I am the shepherd (John 10:11); “I am the door” (John 10:7). Likewise, Jesus said (paraphrasing) “This wine is my blood. This bread is my body” (Luke 22:19-20).

In the Bible, having a meal be representative of a historic event is not unique to the Lord's Supper. The Jews at the Passover eat the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread in remembrance of God delivering them from Egypt. Of course, it's hard to make that sound grotesque through loaded words. The Lord's Supper is very much the same thing: when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we do so to remember our Savior's death and look forward to His return (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). The bread and wine are merely symbols.

Metaphor is a common, literary device. It isn't hard to spot. Like I said, most middle-school kids can identify it. Why is it that seemingly bright and otherwise intelligent people suddenly can't read when it comes to the Bible?

#10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

The video isn't quite accurate on this fact. The truth is that Christians get divorced at nearly the same rate as the general population. Of course, the general population is overwhelming made up of self-identified Christians (75-80%) so it's no wonder the rates are about the same. In reality, though, many people who identify themselves as Christians are only nominal Christians. Anecdotally speaking, I've been to many weddings where the ceremony itself was the only time I'd ever seen either of the partners in church. Perhaps you've seen that as well. If you break the statistics down by faith groups, the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is noticeably lower than atheists or agnostics. Remember too that the rate of marriage among Christians is far higher than among atheists – the latter being more likely to cohabitate. When unmarried couples break-up, it doesn't count as a divorce thus skewing the statistics against Christians.

Having said all that, I concede that the divorce rate among Christians is too high. It's alarming and sad that God's people do not take marriage more seriously – especially given that marriage is an earthly reflection of Christ's relationship with His church (Ephesians 5:22-28). However, a high divorce rate among Christians is not evidence that God is imaginary. Instead, it attests to the fact that we are sinners. Jesus Himself said that God did not intend there to be divorce but only allowed it because of the hardness of our hearts (Matthew 19:8). To imagine that there should be no divorce among Christians because God has joined them together would be like saying that there should be no murders because God has forbid murder. God does not want us to sin but He doesn't stop us.

I am curious what these same skeptics would say if God did indeed keep married couples together against their wills. No doubt they would consider God cruel for forcing couples to stay together in an unhappy marriage. This may not be the weakest question, but it's another obvious fail.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 8

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 4

#3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

#5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Here again we have two questions that seem to make duplicate points. Therefore, as in my last post, I will respond to both in a single post. In a nutshell, the video is attempting to make the point that many Old Testament laws do not reflect how we think a just and loving God should act. The video cites Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 as examples of God condemning people to death for “trivial” crimes. Concerning slavery, the video cites Exodus 21:20-21, Colossians 3:22-24, Ephesians 6:5, and 1 Peter 2:18 (interestingly, the latter 3 are from the New Testament).

I'd like to clarify one very fundamental point that the video seems to not be aware of: there is exactly one penalty for sin – death (Romans 6:23). No matter what the crime, ultimately, the punishment is the same. The video seems to want to make hay that the OT condemns to death people who work on the sabbath. However, people who lie are also condemned to death as are people who lust, covet, gossip, and hate. The Bible makes it clear that all men are appointed to die and then they are judged (Hebrews 9:27). Some people die very old and some die very young. Some die peacefully and some die violently. When and how they die might vary but just as all have sinned, so all die (Romans 5:12). The mortality rate among humans is 100%. When you think about it, it's sort of silly to say that there's anyone who doesn't deserve to die. If everyone dies, then how can we say that a rebellious son or an adulterer isn't worthy of death?

I really shouldn't need to give much ink to proving that everyone dies. It's rather obvious. With that understood, one might ask why some OT laws called for immediate death in certain circumstances. A thorough treatment of this is beyond the scope of this post but let me give a thumbnail version. The various laws can be divided into a few categories: there are laws concerning worship, morality, civility, and health. The law governs our relationship with God and our relationship with others. In many cases, our relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with others. Marriage, for example, is a picture of Christ's relationship with His church (believers are collectively known as the “bride” of Christ). Sexual sins, therefore, are especially egregious on the same level as idolatry. Our relationship with our parents is a model of our relationship with God. A rebellious child, then, is akin to apostasy.

Furthermore, the Law was given specifically to govern God's people. They were a unique nation in history in that they had no earthly ruler. God was their King and He appointed judges who would interpret the Law whenever a situation arose. Sexual immorality, rebellion, idolatry, and other sins which the video might label as “trivial” were a poison to society. In that place at that time, God did not allow certain sins to continue for His people. We live in a different time now. God's people foolishly demanded a king who could rule over them like other nations and God gave them Saul. Ultimately, God still holds us accountable for our sins but He allows our earthly punishment to be doled out by our earthly rulers.

Which brings us to another point. Many of the laws were not given to reflect God's perfect will but rather to tolerate our own sinful nature. Jesus made this very point to the Pharisees when they asked about divorce (Matthew 19:7-9), “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Divorce, then, wasn't intended as God's perfect will but rather God made provisions that accommodated divorce in a fallen world. Such were the laws concerning slavery. This was not the kind of slavery that existed once in the US, by the way, but God gave laws that covered indentured servants or prisoners of war. This was not because God intended slavery but rather made provisions for it in a fallen world.

No sin is “trivial.” The video might dismiss blasphemy, sexual immorality, and rebellion as harmless but any transgression of the law earns God's judgment and the wages of our sin is death. Nobody is stoned anymore but we all have the same destiny - a grave. We all also have the same opportunity - salvation through His Son. When we stand before God in judgment (and we all will), I'm going to receive mercy because I have believed in His Son. Others are welcome to tell God He's being unfair.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

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.

Happy Meal Toy Ban: Caesar Wants to Help You Raise Your Kids

You know, I was half kidding the other day when I talked about “Happy Meal reform.” I know that whenever liberals talk about running our lives that they're being serious but I was sure no one else on the county board would take this seriously. I guess I should never underestimate megalomania. Here's what has happened; Santa Clara, CA, has officially banned toys and other promotions that come with high-calorie children's meals.

This is one of those defining issues that distinguishes the right from the left. Who has the final word about our personal liberties? It seems that the liberals think it's the government that does. Do I think fast food is usually unhealthy? Yes. Do I think people can become overweight from eating burgers and fries? Yes. But if I want to eat burgers and fries I will do it and if I want to buy my kids burgers and fries I will do it. On the other hand, if I don't want my kids eating burgers and fries I will tell them, “no.” I can decide what's best for my own kids without help from big brother.

What confounds me the post is understanding one what grounds liberals feel justified in micromanaging our lives. In the case of the toy ban, there are a few arguments I've heard in support of the ban. Primarily, toys in meals “induces” kids to eat unhealthy food which can lead to child obesity. Contingent upon this same point is the idea that the toy promotions make it harder for parents to say no when their kids ask for the toys. These may both be true but I still fail to see how that justifies government intervention.

If this ban is allowed to stand, think of the precedent it will set. If we allow the government to ban toys from fast food meals, then why couldn't the government also ban toys from Cracker Jacks boxes? They could also ban toys from cereal boxes. They could even ban cartoon characters from cereal boxes. Imagine the argument that the Trix Rabbit makes kids want to eat sugary cereal. What's the difference? They could ban the cartoon commercials from TY because it induces kids to want to eat sugary cereal which could lead to obesity. The cartoon character also makes it harder for parents to say, “no.”

Why stop at child obesity? Just ban all advertising of anything that's not healthy. Or even better, just ban the sugary cereal. Ban candy bars, cup cakes, and soft drinks while you're at it and throw in a ban on things like bacon and eggs for good measure. I know that New York is already trying to ban the use of salt in restaurants because it's unhealthy. If we say that the government is allowed to run our lives in one area, then we open the door for the government to run our lives in any area.

Another thought struck me too is the hypocrisy of liberals. Haven't we, as concerned parents, asked for cleaner TV programs? Haven't we wanted more family friendly movies and music albums? I believe Desperate Housewives being broadcast into my home is more detrimental to my kids than happy meal toys but in that case liberals say it's up to me to turn off the TV. Indeed I would have to turn off the TV because this stuff is on nearly every network. Why do liberals trust me to monitor my kids' TV viewing 24/7 but don't trust me to say no to cheeseburgers? If they really want to help, do something about the filth being broadcast into my home and not the greasy food I have to take my kids to a restaurant to eat.

I can't say I always have made the best decisions as a parent but I know that I – and not the government – have the best intentions for my own children. The Bible says we are to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Raising our children is clearly the God ordain responsibility of the parent. Thank you, Caesar, for offering to help but I think I can handle it without you.

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

A while back, I wrote a short series on the Five Solas of the Reformation. The first of the Five Solas is “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone). In a nutshell, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is God's sole written revelation and it is the final authority on all things relating to doctrine. A visitor to my blog, someone posting under the name, teak421, took exception to my points and left two comments to rebut. I visited his blog and read some of his links and it he seems to advocate two other sources of revelation: apostolic successors and the Church (namely the Catholic Church). As is sometimes my practice, I've decided to use his comments as an opportunity to elaborate out my previous post.

First, let me point out an amusing irony. To teak421's credit, he cited a few verses to bolster his argument but how ironic it is to attempt to use the Bible as evidence that the Bible is not the final authority on doctrine! If the apostles are the final authority on doctrine, then why doesn't he cite them? But let's look at those passages he mentioned:

One verse he cited is Ephesians 2:19-22 which says the house of God is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Of course this passage is true but in what sense was this building accomplished? I believe the answer is obvious: God used the prophets (of the OT) and the apostles (of the NT) to speak His words before there was a written revelation (see my post here). It is a great error to make the apostles more than what they are. Consider what the apostles said about themselves.

In 1 Corinthians 1:12-14, Paul says, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” Paul is clear to point out that his teaching is not ultimately his own but rather is Christ's – it's Christ's crucifixion, His death, His baptism, His resurrection, His everything. It's not about Paul or the apostles; it's about Christ's work and teachings. And only a few verses later (v.19), we see another interesting practice employed by Paul where he cites Scripture to back up what he is saying. Which brings me to Acts 17:11, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Luke commends the noble Bereans for comparing Paul's teaching with Scripture to judge if what he says is true. The clear implication is that Scripture trumps the apostles!

Peter also recognized that no one but Christ had the words of life. He stated such overtly in John 6:68. When Jesus asked the apostles if they too would leave Him, Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” So I ask, who has the words of life – the apostles or Jesus?

But regardless of the role of the apostles, I have blogged before that I do not believe there are any more apostles. God has given us the cannon of Scripture and there is no more revelation. If anyone claims to have revelation from God that contradicts Scripture, he is a false prophet. Scripture is the final authority.

Now, to teak421's second point: the Catholic church. The claim of the Church is that there is an apostolic succession within the Church beginning with Peter as the first pope. I immediately disqualify that claim based on my arguments above. However, there are still the traditions of the Church that are supposed to have begun from the time of the apostles. Do these traditions carry equal weight with the Bible? The answer is a simple no. Jesus Himself rejected such an idea. I refer you to Matthew 15:3-6 where Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

I'm not sure how much more clear this could be. Jesus told the Pharisees that when traditions conflict with the written word of God, the Scriptures win.

In his comments, teak421 said, “Who decides who is right? You? Me? or a guy name Steve?” I would say, “Who, indeed! Me, teak421, the pope, the Catholic Church, or the Bible?” I still say the Bible.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

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

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

The final of the Five Solas of the Reformation is Soli Deo Gloria, or “Glory to God alone.” Certainly there can be no argument that we are to have no other gods before the Lord but the doctrine of Soli Deo Gloria goes beyond that and holds that all of creation exists for the glory of God. He is The Sovereign Lord over everything He has made and everything we do should be done for His honor and glory.

We see this in many passages of Scripture.

Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. Glory and honour are in his presence; strength and gladness are in his place. Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. (1 Chronicles 16:23-31)

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:11)

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

The list could go on: Revelation 1:6, Ephesians 3:21, Revelation 7:12, Romans 11:36, et al.

Of the Five Solas, this doctrine is perhaps the easiest to defend from Scripture yet is by far the hardest to live in practice. We are creatures of ego, vanity, pride, greed, covetousness, and selfishness. We often act with no other motive than our own self interest and for our own gratification. But the Bible is clear – whatever we do, we are to do it for the glory of God.

How would such a thing look in practice? I wish I could say exactly how it would be done but I would be a poor example.

We could be like the good servants who invested the talents of their lord (Matthew 25:14-30). As they went about their work while their master was away, they knew in their minds their labor was for his benefit.

We could be like the man freed from demons (Mark 5:1-20) who published abroad in the 10 cities what the Lord had done for him.

We could try to be like Jesus. What better Teacher could there be?

What are you doing now for the glory of God? That question shames me. Whatever I do, I know I could do more. All glory is due God. Soli Deo Gloria.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The next Sola we will review in this series is Sola Fide or “Faith Alone” which is sometimes referred to as “justification by faith.” It is the belief that we receive salvation only through faith in Christ; good works of any sort play no role whatsoever in our salvation.

Among the Five Solas this is may be the most controversial and is the dividing line between many most mainstream protestant denominations and other beliefs. For example, there are some groups that believe that after a person accepts Christ he must immediately be baptized before he is saved. So they believe in salvation by faith + baptism and not “faith alone.” Mormons (which is not a Christian group anyway) believe they must work toward their salvation and Jesus simply “makes up the difference” where they fall short.

I believe the Bible is clear about how we are saved. There are many verses that support this but let’s start with perhaps the most definitive: Romans 10:9:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This passage leaves very little wiggle room for interpretation. Of course, one text is not a proof text so we need to look at the abundance of Scripture that supports salvation by faith alone. Salvation by faith is the primary theme of John’s gospel consider John 1:12, John 3:15-16, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, John 8:24, John 11:25-26, John 12:46, and John 20:31. Indeed, from John’s gospel alone, one would be hard pressed to add to salvation any ingredient other than faith.

We also have the example of the publican and Pharisee (Luke 18:10-14). The Pharisee essentially bragged to God about how good he was in keeping the Law. The publican only prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Jesus said it was the publican and not the Pharisee who was justified.

As an additional thought, we must be careful to understand that even faith could be considered a work. Look at Ephesians 2:8-9:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You see, we are saved “through faith”; we are not saved “because of faith.” We do not say to God, “God, I have faith so You are required to save me.” Even the faith we have is not of ourselves – God gives us even the faith through which He saves us! How wonderful is God!!

Though I believe the Bible is clear that we are saved through faith many people will use some passages to argue otherwise.

Some will point to passages that command us to obey the Law (such as Matthew 5:48). I concede that Christ expects us to try to follow the Law but following the Law is not what saves us. Indeed, no one except Christ has ever kept the Law. Read Romans 3:10. If we must do good works to be saved, then we have no hope for salvation because our works are nothing more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

Some people will point to Matthew 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” The irony is that, in context, the people discussed in v. 21 are the ones who rely on their works to save them: they cast out demons, prophesied, and performed miracles. However, Jesus still calls them workers of iniquity! Jesus tells us the will of the Father in John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Doing the will of the Father does not mean doing good works; it means we must have faith in the Son!

Still others read passages that discuss God judging our deeds and confuse our reward with our salvation (Matthew 16:27, Revelation 14:12-13, et al). At the White Throne Judgment, the lost are indeed judged by their works (Revelation 20:13) but they are all condemned because their names are not written in the Book of Life. Christians’ works are judged for our reward but our salvation is already secured. Read 1 Corinthians 3:14-15:

If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

In other words, when our works are judged we might lose our reward but we are still saved.

But the chief text cited by believers in salvation by works is certainly James 2. Consider, for example, v. 14, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” Wow! The clear implication of that verse alone is that faith by itself cannot save a person.

However, in the context of the entire chapter, James is talking about how works are the evidence of faith. A person who claims to have faith but demonstrates no evidence of faith (that is, continues to live like a sinner) likely isn’t truly saved. Look at v. 21-22, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” We see then that Abraham’s works were wrought by his faith. He had faith and so he performed the works. Likewise, if we truly have faith there should be evidence of our faith in our works. I believe James’s point is summed up well in v. 18, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Let me conclude by saying that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to cover my sins. When Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He meant just that. No more work is necessary. If we feel we must add something done by our own hands, we are basically saying to Jesus that His death wasn’t enough! I know that nothing I can do could compare to His sacrifice and so I will put my trust completely in Him to save me.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

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

Parents told: avoid morality in sex lessons

I admit it. I borrowed the headline for this post straight from my source article. It was so perfect that I couldn’t improve upon it. It’s true – in the UK the government has issued a new pamphlet coaching parents on how to discuss sex with their own children. The article says:

“PARENTS should avoid trying to convince their teenage children of the difference between right and wrong when talking to them about sex, a new government leaflet is to advise.

Instead, any discussion of values should be kept “light” to encourage teenagers to form their own views, according to the brochure, which one critic has called “amoral”.”

What more can I say?

Coincidentally, I’ve been discussing this very thing online over the last few days. In an effort to remain neutral toward religion, the government has become hostile to religion. Parents have the right to teach their kids morals and religious values. It seems to me that public schools are bent on undermining those values. After seeing this article, I’m speechless. Let’s just hope this particular attitude doesn’t catch on in the US but I fear it already has.

Jesus Himself told us that we should “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21). Raising our children in Christian values is the responsibility given to every Christian parent (Ephesians 6:4). It seems to me, Caesar is interested in teaching our kids his own values. The sad fact is too many parents are interested in letting Caesar do their jobs for them. They are giving the things of God to Caesar!

John 3:5 - What Does it Mean to be, “Born of Water”?

There are some Christian denominations that believe a person must be baptized in order to be saved (a doctrine called, baptismal regeneration). One text they often cite in support of their doctrine is John 3:5:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

The fundamental flaw in their argument is the unproven assumption that “born of water” means baptism. I don’t believe it does.

In all of Scripture, the term “born of water” occurs exactly once. Besides this verse, there is no other passage we can examine that might shed more light on the meaning of this term. Consequently, we only have the context of this verse to help us understand what Jesus meant by His statement to Nicodemus.

There are at least 4 possible meanings to the term, “born of water.”

First, is the possibility that it does mean water baptism. There are a few problems with this view. First, the words “baptize” or “baptism” occur approximately 85 times in Scripture. And even though this ritual is frequently mentioned, nowhere is it called, being “born of water.” If someone wants to associate this term with baptism, the burden should be upon them to do so because Scripture doesn’t make the connection.

Furthermore, to say, “one must be baptized and born of the Spirit” is antithetical to the rest of Scripture which says we are saved by grace through faith and not by any outward acts such as good deeds or circumcision (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:9-12)

Another possibility is that being “born of water” means being cleansed by the washing of the Word. There are a few passages that could support this idea such as Ephesians 5:26. Consider especially John 15:3 where Jesus said, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” This is reinforced in the scene where Jesus washes the feet of the disciples (John 13:9-10):

"Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all."

If a saved person is considered “washed”, “cleansed”, or “bathed” (or maybe “born of water”), then Jesus’ words to Peter are clear: we never have to be “bathed” again. If we sin – that is, “get our feet dirty” – we only need to be restored by the washing of our feet. We do no need to become saved again.

I think “born of water” fits quite nicely with the idea of being washed in the Word. But we cannot dogmatically insist that it is the same thing. There are still two other ways to interpret this passage that could be equally valid.

A third possible way to understand this passage is to look at the Greek conjunction kai, (Strong's Number 2532, καί). kai can be translated as “and” but it can also mean “even.” In this view, the passage could be translated to say, “you must be born of water, even the Spirit.” This would be similar to point two above where being “born of water” means to be cleansed by the word. Only in this case, Jesus is identifying the Agent of the cleansing as the Holy Spirit.

While these three may all be valid understandings, I believe the most likely meaning is that “born of water” is simply a reference to the physical birth. Even today, the amniotic fluid is referred to as “water” and when we’re born, we’re quite literally “born out of water.” Let’s examine the context of the passage again.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3). It seems obvious that the phrase, “born again” necessarily compares the second birth (the spiritual birth) with the first birth (the physical birth).

Nicodemus apparently made the connection but became confused, thinking Jesus was referring to a second physical birth. John 3:4, “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

Now read the next to statements together (John 3:5-6):

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

I believe the passage is clear but let me paraphrase: “A person must be born physically AND spiritually. (because) That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Now, skip forward a little further, Nicodemus is still struggling with understanding the spiritual rebirth. Jesus makes the following statement (John 3:12), “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”

We see Jesus is again comparing spiritual truths to physical truths. Jesus often explained spiritual truths by comparing them to things we understand. Consider the number of times Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like…” In this passage, Jesus is comparing the rebirth - the spiritual birth - to the physical birth.

“Born of water” referring to the physical birth also agrees nicely with 1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” So we are first born of corruptible seed (the flesh) and then we are born again of incorruptible seed (the word of God via the Spirit).

I will let the reader decide for himself the meaning of the term. While it seems to me that “born of water” very clearly refers to the physical birth, I can also see that there are other possible ways to understand the term. Furthermore, I believe the “born of water means baptism” explanation is the least likely meaning.

Further reading: Acts 2:38: Repent and be Baptized for the Remission of Sins

Is Jesus God?

There are some people who deny the divinity of Christ. The typical argument goes something like, Jesus is the Son of God; He is not God. To justify their position by pointing to the many references where Jesus calls Himself the “Son of God” and further point out that Jesus never said, “I am God.”

So what are we to believe? Are there any verses that claim Jesus is God? There are actually more than I can list in a single blog. But we’ll look at a few of the most obvious examples. For the sake of certainty, I picked some verses from the OT which clearly describe God and compared them to some verses from the NT which clearly describe Jesus. See what you think:

The heavens are the work of God's hand and He laid the foundation of the earth. (Psalms 102:24-25)
The heavens are the work of Jesus Christ's hand and He laid the foundation of the earth. (Hebrews 1:8-10)

God is the Creator of the earth (Jeremiah 27:5)
Jesus Christ is the Creator of the earth (John 1:10)

God Himself is judge (Psalm 50:6)
Jesus Christ judges the quick and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1)

Only God is our savior (Isaiah 43:11)
Jesus Christ is our savior (Titus 2:13)

God is the first and last (Isaiah 44:6)
Jesus Christ is the first and last (Revelation 1:17-18)

To God, every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Isaiah 45:22-23)
To Jesus Christ, every knee will bow and every tongue confess (Philippians 2:1011)

Forgiveness is with God (Psalms 130:4)
Forgiveness is in the blood of Jesus (Ephesians 1:7)

Jehovah is God Almighty (Genesis 35:11)
Jesus Christ is God Almighty (Revelation 4:8)

Are you convinced yet? And as if these weren’t enough examples, consider this: When Moses asked God His name, God answered, “I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14). So I AM is a reference to Jehovah of the OT.

In the New Testament, Jesus often referred to Himself as, I AM. The most famous example is in,John 8:58 where Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

But John recorded many instances where Jesus used the name I AM even though it was not translated as such. Another very good example is John 8:24, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” In the KJV, italicized words (such as “he” here) are not in the original Greek.

So any attempt to deny the divinity of Christ is easily refuted. Christ is the Son AND He is God. I’ll leave you with this final verse:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

Why was the Law given?

A lot of Christians today struggle with the belief that we are not under the law but are under grace. While it is true that keeping the Law does not save us (Ephesians 2:8-9), we must remember that Jesus did not do away with the Law. It still continues and serves much the same purpose today as it did when God gave it to us.

There are at least 3 functions of the Law:

First, it helps us live lives that are happy, joyous, and successful (Joshua 1:8) while at the same time are pleasing to God. The Law isn’t a list of restrictions that stop us from “having fun.” Rather, it shows us the best way to live. The Psalmist said that he delights in the Law and without it he would perish in his affliction (Psalm 119:92). It’s been my experience that people who habitually live immoral lives tend to be miserable people.

Next, the Law is our judge. For the Christian, we are going to be judged for our rewards (1 Corinthians 3:11-13). The lost person will be judged by his works for salvation (Revelation 20:12). But how can God be a just Judge if He has not made known to us His standard? If I’m arrested and thrown into jail, I want to know what crime I’ve committed. If the judge just says, “We’ll I’m sending you to prison just because you’ve been ‘bad’” then he would be an unjust judge; he has not shown me how I’ve broken the law. The Law of God, then, is the standard by which we will be judged. When the Christian receives his reward, and the lost person receives his fates, they will know that God has dealt with them justly because they know what the standard was.

Finally, the Law shows us the need of a Savior. Paul said, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24) If we do not see that we are sinners, then why would we believe we need a Savior? If you think about it, no one has kept ANY of the commandments (let alone all of them). If we stand before God in judgment, we would have no hope of salvation. But I will not stand before God alone; I have an advocate – Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1). It is only by His works that I am made righteous. I lament for that person who will stand before God thinking he’s been “good” but has rejected the only One who was good.

So, concerning the Law, remember the words of Jesus, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:17-18

Can Anyone Lose His Salvation?

An often asked question is, after a person becomes saved, can he ever lose his salvation? I knew a lady once who thought the term, “once saved always saved” was a quote from the Bible. Unfortunately, it’s not. However, I think the Bible is clear on the issue and we’ll look at a few verses to support it.

First, consider what salvation is; It’s a free gift (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8). So if we cannot work to earn our salvation by our works, it’s difficult to believe we must keep it by good works.

Next, consider these Biblical descriptions of being saved:

>“We know that we have passed from death unto life,…” (1 John 3:14)
>“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)
>“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4)
>“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24)

These verses and many others clearly demonstrate that being saved in not simply a description of a current status. It’s not like, say, working at a job – you’re there now but in the future you may not be. Being saved is a permanent change of who we are – new creatures no longer dead but passed unto life.

Also, there’s the simple term of “eternal life” (Matthew 25:46, John 3:15-16, Romans 6:23, Titus 1:2, et al). The Bible seems clear that believing faith brings ETERNAL life. Not life that lasts as long as you’re good. How can something end if it's eternal? If you had eternal life and lost it, then, by definition, you did not have eternal life.

Finally, we have the testimony of Jesus Himself. When He was speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well, He made this interesting comment:

“Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” (John 4:13-14)

So the “water” Jesus gives us becomes “everlasting life.” He then says we will never thirst again. But if we have eternal life, then lose it, wouldn’t that mean we would thirst again? Wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar?

There is yet another passage even more explicit. Jesus said:

“And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:39-40)

Wow! Jesus is saying that He will lose NOTHING the Father has given Him and will raise the one who believes in Him on the last day. So, if someone did once believe in Jesus, then later “fell away” and was not raised on the last day, wouldn’t that mean that Jesus lost him? Again I’ll ask, wouldn’t that make Jesus a liar?

I’m not sure how Jesus could have been much clearer. I think John summed it up well, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)