Can a person lose his salvation? Part 3

Salvation is given by God. Can we all agree on that? I didn't earn it. I don't deserve it. God would be perfectly just to judge me according to my sins BUT because He is loving and merciful, He has made salvation possible through the shed blood of His only Son. By believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus and by accepting Him as my Lord, I am saved (Romans 10:). End of story....

or is it? You see, there are some people who believe that, while salvation may be a free gift, we have to work to keep it. So even though some call it a “free” gift, they still believe it comes with a lifetime of conditions. We could be the most vile sinner ever and be saved, right? But once we're saved, we'd better become sinless or we will meet the same fate we faced before coming to Christ. Before I even get into the Scripture, let me say that something about that just doesn't sound right. Christ will forgive a wallowing pig but will condemn a dirty sheep? Hmm.

In my second post of this series, I talked about the transforming nature of salvation. When we become saved, we are a new creature. Our old selves are passed away and we are born new of the Spirit. That is the picture of salvation given in the Bible. If we believe that we could lose our salvation, it makes salvation seem more of a status – something that could change. It's like going to work for a new company; as long as we work there, we enjoy the benefits of our employment but we could be fired or we could leave and then we would be the same person we were before. In this light, salvation isn't transforming but, rather, is conditional.

If we can all agree that salvation is given by God, my next question would be to ask who is responsible for keeping our salvation? Those people who believe we can lose our salvation obviously believe it is up to individual believers to keep their salvation but I don't believe such an idea can be found in Scripture. Instead, I think the Bible is clear that God not only saves us be He keeps us. Consider the following verses:

Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 1:7-8)

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25)

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1Peter 1:3-5)

You can see from these verses that the same God who saved us also keeps us. We aren't kept by feeble works of the flesh any more than we were saved by feeble works of the flesh. How can we possibly reconcile the idea of losing our salvation with the idea that our salvation is kept by the power of God? Is God able to save us but not keep us?

Jesus Himself often testified that He keeps those that the Father gives Him.

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.... Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:39-40, 54)

The flesh and blood in this passage is a reference to the crucifixion, where Jesus give His life as an atonement for the sins of the world. By “eating” His flesh and “drinking” His blood, Jesus says we have eternal life and with that He makes another promise - “I will raise him up at the last day.” There is nothing about that verse that is ambiguous.

Our salvation is not a “one and done.” The sacrifice of Jesus didn't only forgive some of our sins – those committed before accepting Him. His blood covers all of our sins, those we have committed and those we will commit. This is expressed in several familiar passages but I believe some people don't grasp what is being said. David said, “mercy will follow me all the days of my life” (Psalm 23:6). John said, “For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace” (John 1:16).

I wasn't just forgiven once; I'm forgiven continuously. Every day is new mercy. Every day is new grace. Every day God pours out new blessings upon me, not because of my obedience but because of Christ's obedience. Am I so vain that I think I can obey God in my flesh? Is my opinion of Christ's sacrifice so small that I believe His blood will not cover my next sin? Will I rob God of His glory by claiming it is my works that keep my salvation and not Him? No, no, and no!

Read the entire series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Conclusion

Can a person lose his salvation? Part 2

When we try to describe who someone is, there are certain qualities that are transitory and some that are permanent. I could describe a person as a teller at a bank. That's a transitory quality because he may not always be a teller. Next week, he could be working at a department store.

It's not always easy to decide if a quality is transitory or permanent. Take apples, for example; there are some varieties that are green, like Granny Smith. In that case, being green is a permanent characteristic of the apple. However, we sometimes use the word “green” to describe fruit that isn't ripe. So the phrase, “That apple is green,” is ambiguous. It could mean the apple isn't yet ripe – a transitory quality that could change as the fruit ripens or it could mean the apple is a Granny Smith – a permanent quality that will not change.

If we say that someone is saved, we must determine if that is a transitory or permanent condition. We can do this by examining passages in the Bible that describe the nature of salvation. We'll start by considering 2 Cor 5:17:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

In light of this verse, it's hard to imagine how salvation could be transitory or temporary. When we become saved, our old self ceases to exist. How then can we go back to being that person? This verse describes salvation as a fundamental change to who we are. It gives the strong impression that salvation is a permanent condition rather than temporary. Of course, we should never take a single verse as a proof text on matters of doctrine. Instead, we should always interpret any passage in the context of the entire Bible. Consider also the following verses:

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)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Salvation is clearly being described as a change to our essential nature. We have passed from death to life. We are born again of incorruptible seed. These verses, and many others like them, see to affirm that the most obvious understanding of 2 Cor is indeed the correct one. Being saved means a fundamental change in our very nature. Jesus Himself described salvation as being “born again.” Read His conversation with Nicodemus regarding the subject:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 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? 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. (John 3:1-6)

Nicodemus scoffed at the idea a person could be born a second time. He was right in a sense because a second physical birth is impossible but Jesus wasn't talking about a second physical birth but a new birth – a birth from the Spirit. What would it mean to be born a second time of the flesh? You're already born so it would mean nothing new or different. Furthermore, how could a person ever become “unborn” of the flesh or “lose” his birth of the flesh? It doesn't make sense. When Jesus compared our spiritual birth to our physical birth, I believe He intended many of these parallels. If we could lose our salvation, what does that say about our spiritual rebirth? Do we become “unborn again”? It doesn't make any sense.

Are we agreed that salvation is a description of who we are? Next we will consider some passages that describe the permanency of our salvation:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)

Think about that verse for a moment. Jesus gives us eternal life and says His sheep will never perish. If you received eternal life, then lost it and perished, you have made Jesus a liar. There are many more verses along these lines.

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. (John 6:35)

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. (Romans 11:28-29) You might want to look up the definition of “irrevocable.”

Take special note of the words the Bible uses: eternal life, you will never hunger, God's gift is irrevocable. How can have eternal life and then not have it? It's like saying I used to be immortal but now I'm going to die. The use of these kinds of words suggests permanency of our salvation.

I believe people who think we can lose our salvation have the understanding that salvation is like a status, a condition that can change. It's as though being saved is like being a bank teller – you're a teller until you quit or until the bank fires you. I think this is an incorrect view that is contrary to Scripture.

Read the entire series:

Part 1
Part 3
Part 4
Conclusion

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 6 – Preservation of the Saints

The final point point, the letter “P” in the acronym, TULIP, stands for the Preservation of the saints or the Perseverance of the saints. It's the idea that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation and is sometimes referred to by the phrase, “once saved, always saved.” It's the single point in 5-point Calvinism that I absolutely agree with 100%.

This isn't exclusive to Calvinism and the idea of “eternal security” could be debated separately from the doctrine of Calvin. Many Christians who don't consider themselves Calvinists will still believe in the doctrine of eternal security. I've written about this subject on a few occasions and I'm sure I will write about it again in depth. However, in this post we will discuss the issue primarily from the perspective of Calvinism.

In the light of Calvinism, the key to eternal security lies in the fact that our salvation is entirely the work of God. That is, He elects us, He gives us the desire and ability to believe, and He preserves us in our salvation. Just like we could do nothing to come to Him, neither are we capable of turning away once we're saved. Such a notion is supported by more than a few Scriptures. Here are three examples:

Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 1:7-8)

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

These verses seem to make it clear that God does not save us then send us on our merry ways. He saves us and then He keeps us.

Arguments that I've heard contrary to the doctrine of preservation all seem rather weak. Some of them, for example, will take a passage where God promises to not take away our salvation and then use them as evidence that we could lose our salvation. Consider this example:

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Rev 3:5)

Now, when I read this passage, I understand it to mean that those who “overcome” (i.e. “are saved”) will not be removed from the Book of Life. However, one person commenting on this passage said the following:

“Notice that God's pencil, which wrote your name in the Lamb's book of life, also has an eraser at the other end. The name can be erased from the book of life if you don't overcome.”

I think it's rather bizarre when God promises to not do something, some people understand it to mean He might do it! Yet these same people often take passages like this and use them to argue the reverse of what they're saying. They are making sort of a negative argument where they focus on what could have happened rather than what is being promised. Negative arguments aren't necessarily a bad thing. I've used them myself. For example, the Bible commands us to study to show ourselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15); I guess that means if we don't study, God doesn't approve. I'm arguing the negative of what the Bible says.

Here are similar, negative verses “free will” advocates use to defend that it is possible to lose our salvation.

But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. (Heb 3:6)

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; (Heb 3:14)

These verses say that we are made partakers of Christ and are of His house. Yet some people focus on the negative of the condition and say our salvation is conditional. That is, we are partakers of Christ only as long as we continue in the faith.

Another person used this analogy:

Someone might argue and say, "You are teaching that salvation must be earned through good works." No, I'm not. Salvation is free, but keeping it is costly. Suppose a friend gave me a brand new car which he paid out of his own money, and simply gave me the title and keys and said, "It's yours, Tom. Enjoy it." All I can do is reach for the keys and title and say, "Thank you!" Let me ask you a question. Is the car a free gift to me or did I have to earn it? It's free, right! But let me ask another question. Is it going to cost me money to keep and maintain the car? Sure it is. I'm going to have to put gas, change the oil, give it tune-ups, wax the car, and so on. The car is costly to keep, but it was free when I received it.

First off, the analogy is flawed. If someone gives me a car, sure it costs me to maintain it; if I don't, then the car might stop running. However, even if it stops running it is still my car! If the giver could came back to me and take it away, then the car was never really mine, was it? But besides that, as we have already seen, God not only saves us but also keeps us. I am confident that I will continue in the faith because it is God who works in me and not anything that I'm doing.

Negative arguments and analogies are the first resort when people argue that we can lose our salvation. Since that is the bulk of their argument, I believe their position is very weak.  

As I've already said, I could write more about this but this post has already gone on long enough. I'm getting off the subject of Calvinism anyway. I'll conclude by saying that the preservation of the saints is not only the fifth point of Calvinism, I also believe it is correct doctrine.

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 1

In Matthew 7:24-26, Jesus gives us a parable of two men: one man hears the words of Jesus and heeds them. Jesus says he is a like a wise man who builds his house upon a rock and it is able to stand against the wind and floods. The other man is a foolish man who does not heed the teachings of Jesus. He is like a man who builds his house upon the sand. When the rains come and the winds blow, the house cannot stand because it is built on sand.

As Christians, we are commanded to always be ready to give an answer to those who ask about our faith (1 Peter 3:15). While we do this, we must keep in mind who we are dealing with – foolish people. We are dealing with people who have built a worldview upon sand and their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. Over the many years that I've engaged critics of the Bible, I've consistently found that nearly all of them resort to some logical fallacy in their arguments. It's unavoidable, really. When one's worldview begins with a premise that there is no God, he stands in stark contrast with reality. Every other belief he builds upon that faulty foundation is simply another brick he adds to the house he's built on sand. It won't stand.

The word translated as answer in 1 Peter 3:15 KJV is the Greek word “apologia” (ἀπολογία). This is where we derive the English term, apologetics. Like many Greek words, it's a compound word. “Apo” is a preposition of separation. It means away or from. We see it in the English word apostrophe, which is a mark that sets a letter apart from the rest of the word. “Logia” is derived from the Greek word “logos” which is usually translated as word. It's used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the word....” When we talk about something like “the Word of God,” we're not referring to any single word but rather to everything God said. It's the entire body of thought. This is where we get the common suffix -ology as in biology or anthropology. From logos we also have the English word logic. Apologetics, therefore, literally means, “from words” or “from logic.” We are to give the critic a logical and reasonable defense of the Faith.

As we debate nonbelievers, we must always be careful of the arguments we are using and be alert to the arguments they are using. Remember that we have a house built on a rock while theirs is upon the sand. If we are not careful, we can get caught up in their foolish arguments and become removed from our strong foundation. Proverbs 26:4-5 warn us that we should not answer a fool by acting like a fool. Instead, we need to show him how foolish he is.

Studying formal logic is one of those things that intimidates a lot of people. Because of this, many people avoid it all together. It's really a shame, too, because the Bible says that we should love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Mark 12:30). Since we are commanded by God to give a reasonable defense of our faith, we owe it to Him to engage in a little mental exercise and study logic.

I don't know if I can say that God invented logic. God Himself is logical therefore logic has existed for as long as God has existed. Since nature reveals the glory of God, we see some of His logical nature revealed in His creation. Logic, is also absolute. It exists as certainly as anything exists. One cannot credibly argue that logic does not exist because he could not logically defend such a position. Any argument the critic could articulate must presuppose that logic exists. Therefore, any argument against logic only proves that logic is real!

Since God is logical, Christians have a rational basis to use and apply logic. However, an atheistic worldview has no rational reason to believe there should be uniform laws of logic. If the universe is without purpose, there is no reason to expect order or uniformity. Of course, this doesn't stop atheists from appealing to logic to defend their beliefs. Such a tactic is demonstrative of their irrationality. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would have no foundation on which to base a logical argument. Logic exists only because God is real yet they appeal to logic to argue that God doesn't exist! In his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle uses the analogy of a man who argues against the existence of air. It is only because there is air moving past his vocal cords that he can form words. It is only because there is air to carry the sound waves that his argument can be heard. The more someone argues against air, the more he proves there is air. Yet this is what a fool does.

I thought it would be a good investment of time to do a short series on logical arguments and logical fallacies. Over the years, I've heard evolutionists and atheists use nearly every logical fallacy you could imagine. A Christian can hardly discuss anything with a critic without hearing some logical fallacy. Therefore, I have many real life comments that I can use for examples. I'm not sure how long this series will be but please check in often.

Further Reading

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

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

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

In an effort to attack Christian faith as a whole, many critics attempt to discredit the Bible. Many of their criticisms are similar and can be grouped into a few categories. Most of the criticisms in one category can be rebutted in pretty much the same way so it's important that Christians learn how to identify common criticisms so that we can give a proper response (1 Peter 3:15).

One such category is “reverse etymology” (as identified in “Exegetical Fallacies” by D. A. Carson). Reverse etymology occurs when we force our modern understanding of a term onto the original meaning of the term. Look at the following example:

“These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,... and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.” (Leviticus 11:13,19, NASB)

Now, everyone knows that bats are not birds and so this “proves” the Bible is wrong, right? Well, bats are not birds according to modern taxonomy. However, when Moses penned Leviticus, Linnean taxonomy was still a few dozen centuries away. As a matter of fact, the word “bird” likely did not even exist yet since it is an English word.

The word translated above as “bird” (“fowl” in the KJV) is the Hebrew word “oph” (עוף) which literally means “winged.” Regardless of how we define a bird today (feathered, egg-laying, etc), the Jews of antiquity were certainly not wrong to identify both birds and bats as winged!

In the same chapter of Leviticus we see a similar “problem” when the Bible says the hare chews its cud (Leviticus 11:6). Again, what is meant by the term “chew cud”? We have a specific, scientific understanding of the term but our modern understanding isn't what the ancient Jews would have understood. Cows have a divided stomach and regurgitate partially digested food to chew further. Rabbits do not have a divided stomachs but they do pass stools of partially digested food which they then eat and chew in much the same manner as a cow chews its cud. The difference between the two is a modern technicality. The Bible is certainly not “wrong” for not clearly distinguishing the hare from what are now identified as ruminants.

Still another example concerns the whale. Jonah 1:17 says that the Lord had prepared “a great fish” to swallow Jonah. However, later, in Matthew 12:40, Jesus said that Jonah was swallowed by a “whale” (KJV). Seeing these verses side by side, it looks as though the Bible is calling a whale a fish. Yet again, “fish” is a modern, English word that has a specific meaning (scales, gills, etc). The Greek word in Matthew is kētos (κῆτος), which is rendered in other translations as “sea monster.” A marine animal large enough to swallow a man can be correctly identified as a “sea monster.” The exact species of animal it was is unknown.

One final example from this category concerns insects. If we again look in Leviticus 11, vv. 20-23 seem to indicate that insects have only 4 legs. Here, the critic believes is an inescapable error; after all, surely the Bible can't have a different understanding of the word “leg,” can it? In a sense, that is exactly the case! The solution is found in Leviticus 11:21 – the four legs used for walking are distinguished from the two legs used for jumping.

We can see that arguments like these are very shallow and fail to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Still, these arguments and other like them persist and so we must be ready. Don't get caught off guard by such a simple canard.

Further reading

How Are Myths Born?

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

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

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

Another Case Study in Evolutionist Arguments

bobxxxx is back.

A mysterious poster left a comment on another blog that I had to moderate because it contained offensive language. Well, bobxxxx has returned and this time has left FOUR comments on my last blog (this time free of vulgarity)! Occasionally, I take the opportunity of a commenter’s remarks to make additional points. Since bobxxxx’s comments have typified several evolutionists’ comments, I wanted to use his comments as a sort of case study. Bobxxxx’s comments will be listed in green below and indented. I will respond in normal font and paragraph.

You obviously know nothing about science. What makes you think you're qualified to talk about it?

Apparently bobxxxx was not persuaded by my blog, What is the Scientific Evidence for Creationism. In it I made the point that non-scientists are allowed to form opinions on evolution. I gave the following analogy:

In the US, it’s average citizens who are called on to sit on juries. We're not all lawyers, scientists, policemen, or criminologists of any kind. Yet we go and listen to the testimony of the “experts”: the lawyers plead the case, the scientists present the forensic evidence, we hear from the eye witnesses, and then we (the average folks) are called on to render a verdict. Perhaps it's not a perfect system but most people feel it is the best system.

bobxxxx still seems to believe that only trained scientists are qualified to criticize evolution. I guess the rest of us are supposed to sit down and shut up? I’m not sure of bobxxxx’s qualifications but I would be surprised if he were a scientist. I guess non-scientists who believe in evolution are qualified enough to embrace the theory; it’s only us non-believers in evolution that need to study more.

We know a new species can develop from another species. Of course it's a very gradual process, but it has been going on for billions of years.

I’d like to make a couple of points here.

First, bobxxxx is equating speciation with evolution. This was another quibble that I had wanted to include in my blog, Evolution by Definition. If the trend seen among peppered moths had continued and only one variety of moth were left, or if the light/dark moths were somehow separated into separate populations, the new population of moths might be identified as a new species and then “macroevolution” is said to have occurred. Well, it has occurred by definition but it still doesn’t demonstrate how all life could have descended from a common ancestor.

But also, speciation usually occurs by removing traits from a population. I wrote about speciation in a previous blog titled, The Real Origin of Species. Evolution requires organisms to acquire traits. For a hairless reptile to become a hairy mammal, it has to acquire hair. I would be more persuaded by evolution if it proposed that dinosaurs were actually birds that LOST feathers – of course, that doesn’t explain how feathers evolved in the first place.

How can biologists be so certain of this? Because they can see the history of life with their own eyes when they compare DNA sequences of living animals. For example biologists now have the complete genome of the human apes and the chimpanzee apes. Biologists who compare the DNA of these two ape species are discovering every day more evidence for the fact these two animals are closely related.

Similar DNA is only assumed by evolutionary biologists to be evidence of common descent. If DNA codes for structure, shouldn’t similar animals have similar DNA? A human is more like a chimp than a fish; I would predict human DNA would be more like a chimp’s than a fish’s. Lo, that’s actually what we see! I made more comments on this point in my blog, Evolutionist spin on DNA.

Biologists are absolutely 100% certain people and chimps share ancestors who lived about 5 or 6 million years ago. Biologists are as certain about this fact as astronomers are certain about the earth's orbit around the sun.

Oh, I agree they’re 100% convinced. But that by itself is not evidence of anything.

Don't believe me? Then look it up. The powerful and rapidly growing evidence for evolution from molecular biology and genetics is available to anyone who knows how to use google.

Wait a minute! I didn’t think I was qualified to have an opinion on anything scientific. You mean ANYONE can look up scientific facts? Gee, I’m anyone so I guess that would include me too!

Creationists need to grow up and face facts. They disgrace their religion when they deny modern scientific discoveries.

This argument has always killed me. Why do people who seem to be so irreligious seem concerned that we “disgrace” our religion. They don’t seem to have any qualms about disgracing our religion. They seldom have anything nice to say about it.

They should learn how educate themselves without letting their religious indoctrination get in the way. They need to study and understand scientific discoveries first and worry about the religious implications later. It's a terrible waste of a life to never understand how the natural world works.

This is a typical argument that creationists are “science haters.” It’s a bald assertion. See my post, I Don’t Hate Science.

Now, I'm a full-blown, young-earth creationist (YEC). [quoting RKBentley]

That's disgraceful. Your idea that the earth is just a few thousand years old requires the denial of just about every branch of science.

Ditto my last comment. Also, see my blog, Defining Creation Away.

It's your life you're wasting, not mine. So I don't care what you believe. I just hope you have the decency to keep your breathtaking ignorance out of our schools.

Ah, but he does seem to care what I believe though he’s obviously unaware of my position about creation in schools. See my blog, The Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution.

I'm not a scientist [quoting RKBentley]

Yes, it's extremely obvious you're not a scientist. You don't even know what science is. (Hint - scientists don't invoke magic fairies. Even the most religious scientists know they can't say "Here a miracle occurred". They know invoking God is not doing science. Instead it's called preaching. No competent scientist in the world would invoke supernatural magic to solve a scientific problem.)

Hmmm. This just seems to be an elaboration of bobxxxx’s first point above. He wants to make creation a non-issue by definition. That is, “Creationism cannot be real because it’s not scientific.” I refer you again to my blog, Defining Creation Away.

Wow. This was too easy. bobxxxx’s arguments are so cliché that I had already answered most of them in advance of him making them. There are few original arguments made by lay-evolutionists. As Christian apologists, we need to be aware of the usual claims so that we’re ready to answer them (1 Peter 3:15). Read also my blog, A Case Study in Bad Arguments for some other examples.

I want to thank bobxxxx for visiting my blog and for the opportunity to use his comments as material for a new post. Future, profanity-free comments by bobxxxx likely be published but ignored.

Trial by Fire

The Bible often speaks of God trying His people by fire (Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:3, 1 Peter 1:7, et al). John the Baptist promised that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Luke 3:16). “Baptize” is a Greek word meaning literally “to immerse.” So John is saying that, while he immerses in water, Jesus will immerse believers in the Holy Spirit and in fire. The trial by fire awaits all of us both in this world and the next.

When God judges by fire this accomplishes two things: 1) it burns away the impurities and 2) it makes the gold, silver, or precious stones more pure.

The impurities represent the lost: they are the chaff in Matthew 3:12, the tares in Matthew 13:40, and those branches not abiding in the Vine in John 15:6.

But the believer also faces the fire. In this life, the fire is used to refine us and make us more like Christ. It burns away the unprofitable things in our lives (the chaff) leaving only those precious things that will be our treasure. As we face trials and tribulation, we must always remember than God has a purpose for us (Romans 8:28). Though we might not see the benefit of it at the moment, a great joy awaits us when Christ appears (1 Peter 4:12-13). And after this world is passed, we face one more trial where our works are judged for our reward (1 Corinthians 3:14-15)

I’m reminded of the story of the Silversmith:

"He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver." Malachi
3:3

This verse puzzled some women in a Bible study and they wondered what this statement meant about the character and nature of God. One of the women offered to find out the process of refining silver and get back to the group at their next Bible Study.

That week, the woman called a silversmith and made an appointment to watch him at work. She didn't mention anything about the reason for her interest beyond her curiosity about the process of refining silver. As she watched the silversmith, he held a piece of silver over the fire and let it heat up. He explained that in refining silver, one needed to hold the silver in the middle of the fire where the flames were hottest as to burn away all the impurities. The woman thought about God holding us in such a hot spot then she thought again about the verse that says: "He sits as a refiner and purifier of silver."

She watched as sweat poured from his brow due to the intensity of the heat from the fire he sat so close to. She asked the silversmith if it was true that he had to sit there in front of the fire the whole time the silver was being refined. The man answered that yes, he not only had to sit there holding the silver, but he had to keep his eyes on the silver the entire time it was in the fire. If the silver was left a moment too long in the flames, it would be destroyed.

The woman was silent for a moment. Then she asked the silversmith, "How do you know when the silver is fully refined?"

He smiled at her and answered, "Oh, that's easy - when I see my image in it."