The question centers around the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament Prophecy regarding the Virgin birth found in Isaiah 7:14. The prophecy states “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with Child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”  The hebrew word for “Virgin” used in this verse is “alma” which can either be used to refer to a virgin or simply a young woman.

Because of this, it is argued by many Jews and atheists that the term “Virgin” was misapplied, and that the prophecy was only ever to indicate a “young woman” giving birth. However, This argument fails on many levels:

First: While it is true that the Hebrew word can be used to indicate either young woman or virgin, it was the universal understanding of Hebrew scholars at that time that in this context it was to mean virgin. How do we know? Because between the writing of Isaiah and the New Testament, the  Old Testament was translated into Greek 6 different times. In each translation done by different groups of people, Isaiah 7:14 was translated into the greek word that can only mean “virgin” – not “young woman”.

Second, we also know by the context of the passage. With each new prophecy and covenant the Lord gives he provides a sign as is clearly indicated with this verse “The Lord will give you a sign:” God had given plenty of signs in the past, he made the sun stand still, the walls of Jericho fell, The ten plagues of Egypt, He parted the red sea, etc… All of these signs demonstrated unequivocally God’s hand in the situation – that’s, of course, the point of having a sign from God. However, if God were to say “here’s my sign: a young woman will give birth” What’s that? That’s nothing! That happened several times a day as it was common for women to get married at age 12-14 at that time. A “young woman” prophecy would have been worthless because they would have been hanging on every new born baby in all the land to see if he would be the messiah. However, what actually would make it a “sign from the Lord” would be a miracle of some sort. Now, it didn’t have to be a miraculous birth – God could have marked it with any sign, or since it was to be a miraculous birth he could have had it be miraculous in any number of ways, but like it or leave it, the prophecy in Isaiah was that of a Virgin birth. This is confirmed by the Hebrew Scholars of that time and denied only today because to confirm it would be to confirm Jesus as the Messiah.

It is also worth noting that there are more than 100 other Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled by Jesus, so even if you take away the virgin birth Jesus is still the messiah 100 times over.

But why does it matter? Why is it such a big deal? Why does anybody even care enough to attempt to discredit or defend the doctrine of the virgin birth? Is it really all that important? The simple answer – Yes!

See, the Bible says in Romans 5 that all of us have a sin nature, that thanks to Adam’s fall in the Garden, we inherit the separation from God that Adam and Eve got for sinning, and must find our way back to God through Jesus.  However, in order for Jesus to be a sacrifice for our sins, he had to be perfect, he could not inherit that sin as the rest of us did. The only person who is perfect is Jesus to he had to come to earth. Now he couldn’t be born as a child of a human father because then he would inherit human sin, rather the bible says that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary (we don’t really know what that means) and she became pregnant with Jesus.  This is how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time – because his father had a holy (rather than sinful) nature, and his mother was human.

I don’t know if that all makes sense, but in the end it all boils down to one thing: the Virgin Birth is hugely important for two reasons: 1) It’s one of the big signs God offered that the messiah would come and it was fulfilled in Jesus, 2) The virgin birth is what establishes Jesus’ sinless and holy nature – the nature he needed in order to atone for our sins. To take away Jesus’ perfection is to remove a hingepoint of the Gospel.

Do not let anyone deceive you – Jesus is holy and the Bible is true.

1John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

In other words, the Christian need not be afraid of the punishment of God because he is made perfect through Christ and is loved by God. It is not that we should not tremble before the living God in awe of him, but we should not be afraid of the punishment he will wield on those he has justified – because the whole point of salvation is that he won’t punish those he has justified at any point.

Let’s move on to other common objections to eternal security:

Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin

This verse is supposed to be a clear indicator of proof that Christians can turn away from God. Why? Because it is clearly talking to the “brethren”, warning them against unbelief and the hardening of their hearts. The first verse in the Chapter even addresses the passage to the “Holy Brothers and Sisters”.  So God here is clearly describing how these things can happen to Christians right? Wrong.

Those who would cite this passage as evidence need only look at the top of their page and discover what the title of the book is to realize the flaw that has taken place in interpreting this place. The title of this book is “Hebrews”, the group of people it is being addressed to. The author is a Hebrew and he is writing to his countrymen to convey the Gospel to them in terms they will understand. (He spends the entire book explaining the Gospel through Israelite history, the priesthood, etc…) So when he says “Holy Brothers and Sisters” he is addressing the Hebrews, God’s Holy and Chosen people; the same as when he calls them brethren, he refers to his countrymen. This is different than when Paul refers to Brothers and Sisters, or the Holy ones in reference to Christians at large. This is a simple matter of understanding the context and who the author is addressing.  Paul’s letters are largely those of guidance to Christians he has already disciple, the Book of Hebrews is a largely evangelistic letter to, you guessed it, the Hebrews.

So when he says “Brethren” he is not referring to Christians. When he is talking about their unbelief and their hardened hearts he is comparing them to the Israelites in the time of Moses (read the whole chapter to understand the context), he is not telling them that they are Christians who have lost their salvation. A simple reading of the text reveals this and demonstrates that one who would use this text as a proof text has either not studied it, or is counting on you not to.

One of the most commonly made arguments made by the Arminian side is “God gave you the freewill to choose him when you are a sinner, are you saying that now that you’re saved he has taken away your freewill (to reject him)? In a word? Yes! Of course! That’s what the Bible says:

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? ²⁰ For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

In your sinful nature you used to make decisions as you wish. You were “your own” person. When you became saved you signed yourself over to God and you became the temple of the Holy Spirit. You are no longer your own, you are God’s. You can’t “disown God” because you don’t own him, he owns you. That’s the relationship you signed up for – total surrender to him. Need more?

2 Tim 2:13 says: “¹³ if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.”

A faithless person is not just a person who struggles with unbelief; it is a person who struggles with Sin. (after all, if you’re not “keeping the faith” what motivation do you have to stay pure?) Most Christians go through different periods in their life where they struggle in their life, many even “backslide” for a period of time due to being “faithless” rather than “faithful” but rather than losing their Salvation, God stands with them because he cannot disown himself. He indwells the believer and makes a permanent home there.

To be clear, why would God view this as disowning himself? Because when you were saved the holy spirit took up residence in you (you became the temple of the holy spirit) and so when God looks at you he sees the Holy Spirit rather than a sinful human being. Therefore, if you are faithless he can’t reject you because to reject you would be to reject himself (the Holy Spirit in you). Do you follow?

So, therefore, because you have turned the rights to your life over to God when you became saved and God set up shop in your heart, the answer, as shocking as it may be is simply “no, you no longer have the free will to reject him.” To those who would argue that this is a bad thing or somehow against God’s nature I would suggest there is a failure of logic in their thinking.

The idea being, if you were trapped in a burning building, until you saw a fireman, ran into his arms and followed him to safety he would be your savior. If you stood across the street watching that building burn and decided that you would rather be sitting in your comfy chair than standing out on the street and headed back into the fire to sit on your favorite chair until you burn to death, and he just let you do it, because after all, it’s your choice, he wouldn’t be much of a savior would he? But, if, like most firefighters, he saw you heading back toward the building and held you back by any means necessary, (1Cor 1:8,9 , 1John 5:4 ) not giving you the option, then he would truly be your savior, especially from your own foolishness.

God is the same way. He saves you and doesn’t provide the option to bail on the relationship because that would just be stupid and a waste of the salvation to begin with. There is no point in saving anybody from a fire if they are just going to run back into it. Anybody advocating for this idea 1) isn’t coming from a clear Biblical perspective and 2) Either actually believes that God is less loving and merciful than a human firefighter (who would do this by instinct) or simply hasn’t thought through the idea to its logical end.  When a person asks God to save them from their sins its like asking God to save you from yourself. How can that be true if he still allows you to run back in the fire?

Now, anybody familiar with the Arminian argument will likely be upset with me for skipping the previous verse as it is one of the most commonly cited verses to support their position:

2 Tim 2:12 says: ^“12 if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;”

This verse of course sounds rather convincing when presented by itself, but as we have just explored God cannot disown himself and he is present in every believer. So it follows that the very plain and simple interpretation of this verse is that the one who disowns Christ demonstrates that he did not in-fact have a relationship with God (and thus, God will disown him).

Now the context of this passage is centered on persecution of the saints. You see a lot about persecution in 2Tim.  (Hence: “If you endure… [persecution] if you disown… [when you are persecuted] if you are faithless… [when you are persecuted]”) So the “If we disown him” section is often debated by the Arminians who say that the word “we” means Paul must be speaking to Christians. In a way that’s true, but he’s speaking to a brand new group of “Christians” (as it was a brand new Church) in which there were many “false brothers” and “anti-christs”. These are people who did a good job of blending in, walking the walk and talking the talk -to a certain point. Here in this context Paul is referring to “Christians” as we know them to be (because we have to take people at their word, only God knows their heart so when Paul refers to Christians, Brothers, etc… he is forced to include false brothers. We all have false brothers in our Churches today but we would likely refer to most everyone in our church as a Christian for lack of any other information). Then he says essentially, persecution will reveal the false believers because they will disown Christ, the true believer wont. – Not that the true believer wont struggle in his faith wondering why he is going through such things (faithless), but he won’t deny Christ, he cannot. (God cannot deny himself)  We have seen this play out over and over again throughout history in the incredible stories of the persecuted church.

2 Peter 2:17-22 17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud” (2 Peter 2:17-22).

As I have underlined above the clincher in this verse is supposed to be verses 20-21 – a clear indication that you can know Christ and still return to the world. I would maintain that this is absolutely true! Satan himself knows God and he’s not exactly the epitome of Christendom. My point? Just because you know Jesus Christ doesn’t mean you have repented from your sin and made him Lord over your life and therefore become saved.

“But wait a minute!” Many would reply, “This verse says they have escaped the corruption of the world. That must indicate they were actually saved.” Far from it. Salvation includes things like escaping the corruption of the world, but at it’s bare bones, the truth of salvation is simply salvation from eternal death in hell. To be honest there are many ways you can escape the corruption of the world. I know a lot of people who find ways to live very nice, good, moral lives through Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, etc… Those belief systems do a fantastic job of keeping them moral and out of the corruption of the world, but it won’t keep them out of hell.

Unfortunately the same can be said for “Christians” who never actually have a salvation experience, but simply enjoy church, apply it’s moral teachings as their moral code, surround themselves by positive people, etc… As the verse above says they get to know Jesus, they escape the corruption of the world, through learning righteousness, etc… but you also can’t skip what verse 19 says “They themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him”.  Christians are slaves to Christ, these men are those who are slaves to depravity, they have been mastered by it – unable to repent and turn to Jesus.

This is why verse 21 says what it does about them being worse off. The average non-Christian is someone you still have the opportunity to approach with the gospel and share Jesus Christ with. But the person who fits the description above will have a much harder time coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ because they will approach any conversation in that regard with a “been there, done that, finished with it” attitude. They are a person full of false preconceptions about who Jesus is and what a true relationship with him looks like so overcoming such boundaries are that much harder.

Hebrews 10:26-31 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Yet another very commonly cited verse, but I am so grateful that this verse is not personally talking about me. How do I know? Because I am not an enemy of Christ!

Col 1:21-22 Says:  ²¹ Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. ²² But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—

What a tremendous promise! But how can both verses coexist? Again we have to understand the context of the verses from Hebrews. He is writing to the Israelites, people who would know their history and their Old Testament, most especially the books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deut.) This passage  (Verse 26 in particular) is actually referencing Numbers 15:30-31:

‘‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD and must be cut off from the people of Israel. ³¹ Because they have despised the LORD’s word and broken his commands, they must surely be cut off; their guilt remains on them.’’

In using this similar wording he was offering a “throwback” to the OT law so they could more easily understand what he was trying to convey. Again we need to remember this book is being written for evangelistic purposes, not to Christians. Essentially what he was saying was “If you receive the Gospel (hear it, comprehend it, etc…) and then reject it, then it’s like this OT law you already know about, only realize Christ can’t offer his sacrifice over and over. The wording in this passage would clearly resonate with a Hebrew and they would readily understand the point being made.

Hebrews is one of the most quoted books by the Arminians to support conditional salvation; however I have yet to see a verse properly cited. Again, when reading Hebrews we need to keep in mind that its primary audience was the lost of Israel and deals little with those already saved therefore it serves little benefit to the Arminian argument having to deal with losing your salvation. I will let this stand as my answer to any further verses having to do with the Book of Hebrews.

Jesus spoke of salt in a rather cryptic manner in his teachings. What he said is recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in nearly identical accounts. Matthew’s account is as follows:

Matthew 5:13 ¹³ “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Arminians use this verse because they believe Jesus is saying “Salt losing saltiness equals man losing salvation” and on the surface that would appear to be the case but not when we understand a little better what Jesus is talking about.

Jesus, as he often did, is simply referencing something very common that would be easily understood to the average person. To us however, this micro-parable makes little sense because we have never seen salt loose it’s flavor; not significantly anyway. To be honest, for the longest time I didn’t even know it could! I mean, salt is salt right? It is a flavor, how can it stop being one?

The reason this all made a great deal of sense to Jesus and the people he was talking to is that the vast majority of the Salt in Israel came from the Dead Sea and it was full of impurities. As a result, this salt quickly lost it’s flavor. Everyone he was speaking to could easily resonate with the idea of impure salt and it’s worthlessness.

The important point to note is that it’s impure Salt that loses it’s saltiness. The salt was not clean from the very beginning. To get a better idea of this, let’s take a look at the scripture immediately preceding this account in Luke:

Luke 14:33-35 ³³ In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples. ³⁴ “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? ³⁵ It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

Jesus is saying that the cost of being a disciple is total 100% surrender to him. Total repentance, and a commitment to making him Lord over your life.  Just like impure salt fades away and isn’t even good enough for manure, so the partially committed believer will quickly fade and his faith amounts to nothing. Jesus is saying, a True Christian, must make a genuine commitment. Such a Christian won’t lose his “saltiness” because they will be pure. (Like the salt we have today) This passage that the Arminians attempt to use to demonstrate that you can lose your salvation instead only serves to support the idea that you must simply be genuinely saved and then will never lose your “Saltiness”.

Are you positive this is a negative, wait… what? :

Romans 3:5 “⁵ The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.”

This is a regularly used verse due to the above underlined clause. The idea being that if God is saying “I will never blot out that person’s name from the Book of Life” then it must be the case that he does blot out other people’s names, otherwise, why would he say such a thing? Somehow this thinking seems a little flawed. After all, this type of interpretation isn’t applied to other similar scriptures.  Let’s take for example:

Hebrews 13:5 “…because God has said,  “Never will I leave you;  never will I forsake you.”

Are we to take this to mean that God regularly leaves and/or forsakes other people because he brought up the subject?  Or perhaps that he used to?

Or does it perhaps make more sense in both cases (Rev. and Hebrews) to think that perhaps God was simply writing such a statement to reassure us that he loves us and such an action would not be taken. Romans 3:5 does not say anything about him blotting out names, it says he won’t. This verse actually conveys the opposite idea of conditional salvation.

Our next passage,  1 Corinthians 15:2 has come up often in the Arminian argument for Conditional Salvation, let’s take a look at what that has to say.

1Corinthians 15:2 ² By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

This would seem to be quite conclusive, however, again we need to examine this passage in context. Let’s read it again including verse 1

1Corinthians 15:1-2 ¹ Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ² By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

As we have continued to see the Apostles were constantly fighting against false teachers and doctrine that continued to invade the early church. This was one of Satan’s most common weapons in his attempt to cripple these new Christians as they were just beginning to get a grasp on what this whole new relationship with Christ meant.  That is what Paul is describing in these verses.

I will begin by saying that this passage is not about a Christian’s ability to lose their salvation.  This passage is however, about believing in the Gospel in vain; which are two distinctly different things. Allow me to offer an example.

Mormons make a practice out of specifically proselytizing to Christians & Catholics. The reason they do this is, the Mormons use the Bible as one of their religious texts and Jesus as the central figure of their faith. If the Jews were the Old Testament, and The Christians are the New, Then the Mormons see themselves as the Newest Testament. While they use the Bible, their doctrines are repeatedly contradictory to what the Bible says. And while they refer to “Jesus” as the central figure of their faith, the Jesus and God they refer to does not resemble the one described in the Bible.

However, because they use the Bible and Jesus they “Evangelize” Christians as much as possible because they already have a good grasp of these things and the Mormons do what they can to convey that they simply have additional information about Jesus and the Bible. Many who call themselves Christians are swayed by these men.

In reality, if someone is so easily swayed to accept a false Gospel when claiming to believe the true Gospel, then the truth is they never actually had a full grasp on the true Gospel to begin with. You can believe in Christ and the Bible and the Church and so on, but if you are also able to cheerfully swallow what the Mormons tell you, then you never really knew Jesus.  Anyone who did can see them coming from a mile away (and I mean by their doctrine, not by their nametags)

That is what Paul is saying here. He is dealing with a similar situation with false teachers invading the Churches, specifically the Church of Corinth and is saying “Listen only to the Gospel that I presented you with. It is the only true Gospel.  Then in the verses that follow he goes on to clearly lay out the Gospel for them in writing again so they can be reminded of it and compare anything else they might be taught against the truth.

Again, someone can believe the Gospel, and not be saved. The first step in the journey to salvation is belief in the Gospel, but that is not what makes someone saved. Turning away from your sins, and making Jesus Lord of your life makes someone saved.

So in regard to verse 2  when he says “If you hold firmly to the word I preached to you” he doesn’t mean that Christians can lose their salvation if they are not faithful to Christ, he means that the only true Gospel is the one that he presented, the other things they are teaching are false teachings and they should be ignored, they should not waver in their faith. Anybody who teaches anything different from what he told them is false, the only true faith is what he told them, nothing more, and nothing less. And when he said “Otherwise, you have believed in vain” he simply meant that they will have been carried away from the Gospel in the same way as might happen with the casual church-goer of today who encounters a Mormon.

In fairness, I can understand why this verse would be misunderstood if someone were to carry the preconception of conditional salvation into it, but therein lies the problem.

I recently heard a teaching on servanthood where a Pastor used the parable of The Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 to demonstrate the eternal consequences of not taking care of those in need – the implication being, you lose your salvation.

I don’t have space here to include the entire 15 verses but I would encourage you to review the passage. This is where Jesus talks about the two groups of people who will stand before God in heaven and God will say to one group “When I was hungry you fed me, when I was naked you clothed me, etc…” and he will say to the other “When I was hungry you didn’t feed me, when I was naked you didn’t clothe me, etc..”.

Here’s where the teacher began to make his point:

Matt 25:41 ⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

First, before I say anything else, let me reiterate this, just because I cannot reproduce the passage here does not mean I want it to be read out of context. Please take the time to read this over and understand it. I wish the Bible to be understood on it’s own terms.

Now, in this verse, “Those on his left” were those who did not help him; essentially those who did not demonstrate the love of Christ.  The teacher presenting this message used this passage to make the case for Christians losing their salvation if they did not demonstrate the love of Christ. He also supported his position with the final verse in the chapter, Vs. 46

Matthew 25:46 ⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Of course, highlighting the first clause in the sentence pointing out that those Christians who fail to serve, thus failing to demonstrate the love of Christ lose their salvation.

If you read these verses in context you will notice that this parable is not comparing two different kinds of Christians (faithful and unfaithful) rather, it is simply generally comparing the two different groups that exist between all people in the entire world that Jesus describes as sheep and goats.

One thing to take note of here is that in this parable the Sheep (a section out of the whole world) are the ones granted eternal life and described as “righteous”.  The New Testament often refers to “Sheep” in the metaphorical sense, but always as God’s people. In reference to the Jews it describes them as “sheep without a shepherd” – Which is what Jesus came for, In John 10 Jesus says “I am the Good Shepherd. I know my Sheep and my Sheep know me… but you do not believe because you are not my sheep…my sheep listen to my voice…they follow me…” So when Jesus is talking about sheep he is talking about Christians. When he is talking about goats he is talking about everyone else. This parable is not talking about gathering all the Christians together at the judgment, dividing them up based on their faithfulness and declaring which ones are righteous and which one’s aren’t.

There should of course be more to substantiate such a position than just sheep. Remember that last verse in the chapter that the teacher used as his final support? It actually serves as the downfall to his position. Because while it does say “They will go to eternal punishment” it finishes the chapter with “The righteous [will go] to eternal life”.

The Bible makes it clear that only Jesus can make men “Righteous” before God and grant eternal life. So how is it that the Sheep were deemed righteous? Certainly not by their deeds. After all Isaiah 64:6 says their “Righteous deeds” appear before God like “Filthy rags”.  So the sheep must be deemed Righteous before God based on their relationship with him. So what about all this talk about actions throughout the parable? After all the whole thing is all about what the sheep and the goats either did or did not do.

The answer is simple. A genuine Christian will have the spirit of righteousness with in him which will compel him to naturally commit acts of Christ-like love, and they will perform their love as an act of worship to the Lord which is a very key factor. However anyone who is not a Christian will either be less compelled to do acts of kindness demonstrating Christ-like love, or even for those performing great acts of kindness, they will not be doing them as unto the Lord and therefore the Lord is not glorified through them.  Again, it is not the scripture here that is unclear, it is simply the one with the preconception.

I am astonished at how regularly this passage comes up in conversation with great enthusiasm as though it is supposed to be the great deciding factor in this debate.

Romans 11:19-23 “ ¹⁹ You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” ²⁰ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. ²¹ For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.  ²² Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. ²³ And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

The first thing to understand is the context of branches being broken off, etc… has nothing to do with an individual’s salvation. This “Branches” metaphor is a description of what happened with the old covenant Vs. the new covenant. (i.e. God’s previous relationship with the Jews that is now broken and his new relationship with the Gentiles).

Now that we understand that the whole passage isn’t dealing with a loss of salvation, let’s take a look at the emboldened area – “The Kicker” as it were. This clause is often considered to be clear evidence that you can destroy your relationship with God. However, this is not a clear reading of the text. Paul is writing here describing the relationship God had with the Jews and the damage that occurred to that relationship. As a result it was easy for Christians to get cocky about their new found relationship with God. After all, were they not now they favorites? Did he not just reject his very own people for them? So Paul is making sure they realize they are still dealing with God almighty. It is by God’s kindness they have salvation and a relationship with them, frankly it’s by God’s kindness we woke up this morning, there should be no arrogance about our salvation, because the Jews did not continue in God’s kindness and lost their salvation, all it would take is a simple decision on God’s part and boom we’re done.

Allow me to make this clear, this is not an allowance for conditional salvation.  This has nothing to do with our personal capacity to earn, or conversely, reject or lose salvation. This is simply the realization that we serve an all powerful God who, if so desired, could wrap up the universe tomorrow and throw it away. We have no reason to hold pride in our position with him and we should keep in mind that he cut his own people off from salvation, we should have no reason to think he wouldn’t do the same to us so we need to understand the God we are worshipping and not serve him with pride in ourselves.

More Branches?

John 15:1-8 ¹ “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. ² He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. ³ You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. ⁴ Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

⁵ “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. ⁷ If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. ⁸ This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

There are a couple things to notice as we start looking at this verse. One of the things that gets a lot of attention is the word “Clean” in verse 3. People point to this as evidence that the audience Jesus was addressing was cleaned from their sins or pure. However, the Hebrew word used for “clean” here is the same word for “prune” and would probably be better translated as such. What Jesus is saying from vs. 2-3 is “My father prunes every branch that does not bear fruit, but you have been pruned already…” If you felt it important to stick with the term “clean” that’s fine, but think about it more in terms of cleaning a plant of its trimmings and you’ll have a better idea of what Jesus was aiming at.

This passage is dealing with two types of people, Christians who wander, and those who were never saved. Just because you can’t lose your salvation does not mean you can’t backslide or struggle as a Christian. We have all seen Christians we know to be incredible men or women of God, get there by going through some rough worldly struggles.  Here Jesus is saying “Remain in me and you will bear fruit. No branch can bear fruit by itself. How often as Christians, as those trying to minister, do we try to do things on our own? We cannot bear fruit on our own, we must rely on Christ for him to work through this. When this goes to an extreme it becomes an issue of Church discipline as it did when Peter was rebuked by Paul.

It should also be simple enough to understand that the branches that get thrown into the fire and burned do not represent true believers. Throughout the New Testament it is repeatedly made clear that genuine salvation is evidenced by a life of fruitfulness. The most obvious places of note include Gal 5:22-23 which talks about the fruit of the spirit and Matt 7:19-23 which says:

Matt 7:19-23 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.  21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Again we see the plants and the fruit metaphor taking place here but we also see a very important follow up verse that says “By their fruits you will recognize them.” This helps to qualify the verses we were dealing with in John. This verse tells us that those fruitless branches refusing to remain in Christ that were thrown in to the fire can be recognized as people of the world and not Christians. The whole point is that Christians produce fruit. You can’t be saved, and be fruitless. Even the thief on the cross who was saved for a matter of hours, maybe minutes, took the time to preach to the other thief.

The passage in verse 21 is particularly profound “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” He follows that up by saying that people will cry out to him describing the great things they did as “Christians” but then he will tell them “I never knew you”. This is important. It doesn’t say “I knew you once but you walked away from me so I have cast you out.” It says, “I never knew you”. His description here is of those who would identify themselves as Christians in that they would call it their religion. They would even do great things in the name of God, devote their life to the Church, and perhaps be nearly indistinguishable from the real thing by human judgment. But when they are brought before heaven they will be surprised to find that their association with the Christian religion and their devotion to it has nothing to do with salvation and Christ will declare “I never knew you”. The truth is, you can walk the walk, and you can talk the talk, but it’s your heart condition with Christ that matters.

This “I never knew you” phrase is key because it demonstrates exactly how Christ views the “Christian” who has supposedly lost his faith – as one who never had it to begin with.

This is my third article in my series on Eternal security. My first made clear the Bible’s teaching that the true Christian is secure in his salvation; the following two (including this one) have addressed the common objections to this clear doctrine. These two articles, Part 1 and Part 2, have been far from comprehensive in dealing with the verses and arguments that are raised to deny the bibles clear teaching on eternal security. However, I believe I have dealt with these objections to such an extent that little more would be accomplished were I to continue.

I believe that I have fully established that the position of conditional security is based on poor scholarship, scripture consistently removed from context, and pre-suppositions regularly inserted into the word of God. You will find little else in a continuing assessment of Arminian arguments contrary to Eternal security.

If there is a particular scripture you feel needs to be dealt with more specifically, I would be more than happy to examine it specifically. Simply comment on this page.

As I close this series I would like to note that the purpose of understanding this doctrine is not for the judgment of any individual. Often it can be easy to slip into the judgment process of “Well, this person must be saved, or this person must not have been”. The truth is, we don’t know where a person stands with God. That is a personal heart issue. The purpose of understanding this doctrine is 1) Because God teaches it clearly through his word, so accepting false doctrine is learning falsehoods about God, 2) Because we want to teach people the truth of the Gospel, that when they are saved God forgives them of all their sin so they need not fear God because fear has to do with Punishment – 1John 4:18  3)To teach people when they are saved that service is an essential part of the Christian life as an act of worship to the one who saved them.

This doctrine is essential to knowing more about who God is and the relationship we have with him through salvation, but this has nothing to do with judging others as it is often true that false believers will exist in our midst and we will not know them. We will leave that to God.

I pray that on whatever side of this issue you fall, this study has blessed you.

“We believe that we are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8,9) but we can fall from grace (Gal. 5:2-4). We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) but our faith can become shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19,20) and cease to exist (Lk. 8:13; Rom. 11:19-23). We are not under the law (Rom. 6:14,15) but if you live according to the sinful nature you will die (Rom. 8:13). Paul taught against legalism (Gal. 5:3,4) but he also taught that no immoral, impure or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Eph. 5:5-7). We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8,9) but to reap eternal life and not destruction you must sow to please the Spirit and not the sinful nature (Gal. 6:8,9). God is faithful to us (1 Jn. 1:9; 1 Cor. 10:13) but we must be faithful to him to the very end of our lives to escape the lake of fire or second death (Rev. 2:10,11). God surely loves us (Jn. 3:16; Mk. 10:21; Rom. 8:35-39) but those who inherit the kingdom of God love God (Jam 2:5; 1 Cor. 2:9) and to love God means to obey his commands (Jn. 14:15; 1 Jn. 5:3). We have freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1) but this freedom is not to indulge the sinful nature (Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet 2:16). God is to be obeyed and feared.” (Emphasis in the original)

While individuals may agree or disagree on a point here or there, this statement pretty well encapsulates the Arminian position on Eternal security along with many of the common scriptures they attempt to use to support their position. Let’s go through this paragraph and examine it for what it has to say. (Original in italics)

We believe that we are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8,9) but we can fall from grace (Gal. 5:2-4)

Of course there can be no disputing the belief that we are saved by Grace,  however let’s examine Galatians 5:2-4, the passage they cite as evidence that we can fall from grace:

² Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

“Falling away from grace” is one of the more common terms used to describe losing your salvation and it comes from this verse. This is however a failure of interpretation brought about only by taking this passage entirely out of context. As you read this passage in the context of Galatians you see that almost the entire book centers on correcting a false teaching the Church was following. The Galatians had begun following teachers (Judaizers) who were telling them that they could be Christians, but also had to be subject to the law (sound familiar?).  That’s why Gal. 1:1 says “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”

So what he was describing in Gal. 5:2-4 are false teachings the Church had received (and started acting on) that he needed to correct and let them know that they were not in line with the Gospel. He was pointing out that if you let yourself be circumcised “Christ is of no value.” He’s not saying they were losing their salvation, but he was saying that if they were going to be saved and submit to the dictates of the law anyway, then there wasn’t any value in being saved in the first place – (or more simply put, “Christ is of no value”). He went on to convey that because they were following this teaching of the law, they were somehow missing the whole point of the gospel and had “fallen away from grace” to strict adherence to the law. They hadn’t “Fallen out” of God’s grace; they were missing the point of the grace they had received. Something Paul was trying to correct through his teaching. When you read this passage in context this is clear.

We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) but our faith can become shipwrecked (1 Tim. 1:19,20) and cease to exist (Lk. 8:13; Rom. 11:19-23)

Let’s start by taking a look at the verse that describes a “shipwrecked faith”.

1 Tim. 1:18-20: ¹⁸ Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, ¹⁹ holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. ²⁰ Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Paul mentions Hymenaeus in his next letter to Timothy as well:

2Tim 2:16-18: ¹⁶ Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. ¹⁷ Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, ¹⁸ who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

Arminians would jump on the statement that they “departed” from the truth as meaning they must have been saved at one time. This is of course not a necessary or even likely interpretation. The statement in bold above is one that describes a cult leader. And as with any cult leader they start with God’s word and twist it.

As an example, it would be an easy an common thing for someone to say that Pastor Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church (The Church That Preaches “God Hates Fags”) Has departed from the truth of God’s word – simply meaning that he utilizes it, but not in truthful or appropriate ways. Similar things could be said about a guy like Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism). He started with God’s word and used it to deceive people rather that preach it’s truth, he departed from the truth of God’s word. I don’t think anyone (Christian) would ever make the claim that Joseph Smith was saved.

And Alexander:

2Tim 4:13-15: ¹⁴ Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. ¹⁵ You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

It is unknown for sure if this is the same Alexander from 1Timothy, but this is most likely the case (based on the matching spiritual description). If that is indeed so, what we see here indicates someone I don’t think it would be fair to say was ever truly saved. No one who actually knew the truth of God, had the peace and love of God in their heart, etc…(you get the idea), actually has the capacity to turn around and match that description.

The other thing to realize here is that, though this “shipwrecked faith” passage is a favorite among the Arminians, in reality it says very little. The only thing it shares is that these two guys rejected the faith. The idea that they were even a part of it for any length of time is an assumption on our part. Now I do believe these guys were a part of the church, but we have no information on who they are. The passage says they rejected faith and good conscience and thus suffered shipwreck in regard to the faith. This isn’t too tough a nut to crack. In seems that these guys were likely mediocre “Christians” at best, especially based on the other things written about them. (It’s not hard to spot a Christian who rejects faith and good conscience)  Note that I said “Christians”. I don’t really mean that I believe they ever had a relationship with Christ, but I believe they identified themselves that way, and the people around them probably did too. That’s why Paul says they were shipwrecked from “the faith”, not meaning belief, but more “our religion”.

Ok, so I’ve answered the “Shipwrecked” issue, the second part of that statement said that our faith can “cease to exist” supported by the following two passages:

Luke 8:13: ¹³ Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

Romans 11:19-23: You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” ²⁰ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. ²¹ For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

²² Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. ²³ And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

These are two more very commonly cited verses, however this argument is born of poor scholarship.  Luke 8:13 is an answer unto itself. No other scripture needs to be cited. As a youth minister I constantly see teenagers moved by excitement respond to an altar call, have a great first month, then end up right back where they started. (It happens with adults all the time too!) There isn’t really a great mystery as to what took place in that person’s life. They were moved by an emotional moment, encouraged by the new support they were receiving, etc… but when it time for their faith to actually play out in real life there became a realization that it’s not as much fun as it was on day 1 and they walk away back to their old world. That person never had a life changing salvation experience, they had an emotional experience “that never took root!” The very idea that the Gospel never really took root in their lives is right in that passage, and it is still cited on a regular basis. (Honestly, I cite it more often these days as evidence for Eternal Security)

The passage from Romans 11 is another disappointing passage to see regularly brought into this conversation. Disappointing because it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about so whenever someone brings it up it means they aren’t actually making an attempt to read the Bible for what it actually says,  they are just scrambling for anything they can find that proves the point they have already decided on.

This passage about those branches that were broken off because of unbelief, the natural branches, are the Jews, God’s natural, chosen people. Then they were rejected for their unbelief, the Gentiles were let in on salvation (grafted in), and you know the rest of the story. This is all made clear when this passage is read in context. In fact, right at the very beginning of this whole section of scripture it says “Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.” It’s the thesis statement that interprets the metaphors that follow.

It has been my experience that in examining the scriptural evidence for the Arminian position on this issue the vast majority of the commonly cited verses are taken blatantly out of context and understood clearly with a simple reading of the surrounding passages. This most basic failure of proper interpretation is clear indicator of a poor theology.

Let’s examine the next statement:

We are not under the law (Rom. 6:14,15) but if you live according to the sinful nature you will die (Rom. 8:13)

It is of course true that Christians are not under the law. This is a clear teaching that any proponent of the Eternal security tries to stress when teaching. Why? Because though Arminians across the board would make the statement that they don’t believe they are under the law they contradict this with their following statement: “If you live according to the sinful nature you will die”. Every human being on the planet still sins on a daily basis (Christian or non). So the question becomes, at what point have you sinned too much that God’s grace has run out and he’s had enough? There is no answer for this. The only way to answer this is to apply the law to the Gospel and measure our lives in that manner. But if we apply to the Gospel, we defeat the Gospel all together and Grace no longer exists. (This is what the Judaizers did, this is the corruption that existed in the early churches that Paul so often taught against in Galatians and throughout the NT).

But to be fair, they aren’t wrong, Romans 8:13 does say: “If you live according to the sinful nature you will die.” Word for word. I can’t deny it.  So what about that? You would think that a verse that says something like that might really pin me to the mat. Except, this time, not only has this verse (which is so often quoted in this manner) has not only been quoted out of context from the surrounding book, chapter, or verses, it is only one clause that doesn’t even make up half of the verse! Let’s take a look at what Romans 8:13 really has to say:

Romans 8:13: “¹³ For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”

That gives a much more complete picture doesn’t it? If we broaden the scope to the surrounding passages (I’ll let you look that up on your own) we see that Paul is teaching a lesson to Christians using a lot of basics. For example vs. 6 says “ ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.” And  vs. 9 says “You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.” Note that it does not say “if anyone has lost the spirit”

What’s the point? Throughout this whole Chapter he is addressing Christians directly but he has chosen an interesting way of teaching them some basic principles. Rather than saying “Here’s how you can know if a person is a Child of God” He says (essentially) “If you are child of God you do this, not this… your Spirit is led by God you don’t live in fear, and so on.” People write this way all the time today. It allows people the opportunity for self examination to ask “Do I actually have a relationship with God?” (i.e. if they are living in fear then they didn’t really understand the Gospel) and the self examination allows them to recognize the truth in themselves and apply it in presenting the Gospel to other people. It’s simply a method of teaching basic truths of the Gospel, not a way of telling someone “Examine yourselves. Are you in sin? Have you lost your salvation?” That cannot properly be read into the text when it is read in context.

Paul taught against legalism (Gal. 5:3,4) but he also taught that no immoral, impure or greedy person has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Eph. 5:5-7).

This passage from Ephesians reads as follows:

Eph: 5:5-7: “⁵ For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. ⁶ Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. ⁷ Therefore do not be partners with them.”

As interesting a passage as this is, I am forced to point out that every Christian matches that description. After all, every Christian continues to sin after they are saved on a regular basis (though hopefully decreasingly so.) And according to James 5 if you have sinned once you are guilty of committing every sin in the book. Therefore no Christian could possibly be considered moral or pure could they? There are certainly times when each of us have been greedy, even repentantly so. If it is the intention of an Arminian to measure the Christian’s salvation by the above standards the common Christian will lose their salvation a couple times a day! At the very least a few times a week! This could not possibly be God’s intention!

In order to get a better perspective on this passage let’s take a look at two other very similar passages that are commonly cited by the Arminians to corroborate this one. We on the other hand will look at them in context. Note that the scriptures cited in bold are commonly excluded from being cited, because they dismantle the Arminian argument.

Col 3:5-9: ⁵ Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. ⁶ Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.^{[a] 7} You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. ⁸ But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. ⁹ Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices

1 Cor 6:9-11 ⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The passages above are commonly used alongside the verses from Ephesians to say “any Christian who acts like this loses his salvation” however, in citing these verses they fail to include the context: the verses that are emboldened. These are the verses that serve as the vital key to fully understanding what he is talking about. Because these descriptions all describe us. Sexually immoral? Jesus said that if you lust after someone you have committed adultery, who can’t say they haven’t done that? Slanderer? Who hasn’t torn someone down? Anger? You get the idea. But what is the key? You were washed, you were sanctified (made holy), you were justified. Though we still struggle against our flesh on a regular basis, we have been declared innocent of all such horrors in God’s sight.

If we are truly saved God has forgiven us of all sin and has made us the very righteousness of God: 2Cor 5:21: “²¹He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” He who does not have the righteousness of God is the “Wrongdoer” described above and awaits judgment. He who has that righteousness does not have such sin counted against him but is recognized as having the righteousness of God. Again, all it takes is a simple reading of the text, in context, to understand what this passage truly means. For the life of me I cannot understand why you would want to ignore what God is actually saying to prove a point that you have invented. Read the Bible for what it says!

We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8,9) but to reap eternal life and not destruction you must sow to please the Spirit and not the sinful nature (Gal. 6:8,9)

We have already covered  how they genuinely believe they are not saved by works. However, whenever you make the claim that you have to take any roll in your Salvation, whether it be not sinning to a certain extreme, keeping “the faith” to an extent, not rejecting God, whatever, the idea that you have to constantly “maintain” your salvation, is, whatever you want to call it, salvation by works. The Arminian belief is that you can fail your faith to the point of losing your salvation. This means, in order to stay saved, you must work to succeed in your faith. There isn’t really any getting around it. Call it what you like, it is salvation by works!

Let us examine the second part of that statement dealing with the passion of scripture in Galatians.

Galatians 6:8-9: “⁸ whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. ⁹ Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.”

This again sounds rather convincing. What about that “if we do not give up” clause? Doesn’t that mean if we do give up then we lose our Salvation? Well, it would seem so, except that this passage, so commonly quoted in this manner has yet again been quoted out of context creating an error in interpretation.

The verse that immediately precedes these two verses says:

Gal 6:7 “⁷ Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

Why does that matter? Because it’s the thesis statement for the words that follow. (if you sow in the flesh you reap destruction, sow in the spirit reap eternal life, etc..) Then in verse 9 he says, go and sow goodness and you’ll reap a harvest. But a harvest of what? Of Eternal life? No, we already talked about that in vs. 8.  Verse 7 tells us that we reap what we sow, therefore if we are sowing goodness he must mean that we will be receiving a harvest of goodness. Understanding that it can often be difficult to “Sow goodness” while waiting for the harvest (sometimes for a long time) he finishes the sentence with “if we do not give up”. This is an admonition to continue doing good in the face of adversity because if you continue, you will reap the good that you sow. Paul just figured he wouldn’t have to spell every little thing out and could count on people not to take every sentence out of context.

God is faithful to us (1 Jn. 1:9; 1 Cor. 10:13) but we must be faithful to him to the very end of our lives to escape the lake of fire or second death (Rev. 2:10,11)

I obviously have no dispute with the concept that God is faithful to us so let’s examine the verses they cite from Revelation:

Revelation 2:10-11: ¹⁰ Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. ¹¹ Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

I don’t see where this passage proves any point at all and actually serves to solidify the stance for eternal security. As I have emphasized above I think the key to this verse is that the purpose of the suffering is that it will be a test. A test for what? To see if their faith is true and genuine. A true Christian is unable to recant their faith. So Satan tests them, and God is telling them, for standing strong as my follower I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

The Bible is full of verses like these that call Christians to endure strong to the end, have strength through trials, etc.. and if they do God will have a reward or crown or something waiting for them on the other side. Some people have taken that to mean that it’s possible to fail through these trials, lose your salvation and walk away.  God makes it clear that is impossible (1John 5:4, 1 Cor 1:8). If that is impossible, then why would he say such things?  Simple. The Christian life is full of struggles and trials as Jesus promised it would be, and regardless of what we are going through God calls us to a high standard of faithfulness to him. In our humanness God knows that from time to time we would start asking the question, (as we often do) why am I still being faithful to a God who is allowing me to go through this? So he preemptively answered that question for us saying “hang on, remain strong, and if you can manage to do that, I’ll be on the other side of this struggle with a great reward.” That kind of thing gives us both motivation and strength to continue through struggles.  It’s no great litmus test indicating “If you do this, then you’ll stay saved.

God surely loves us (Jn. 3:16; Mk. 10:21; Rom. 8:35-39) but those who inherit the kingdom of God love God (Jam 2:5; 1 Cor. 2:9) and to love God means to obey his commands (Jn. 14:15; 1 Jn. 5:3). We have freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1) but this freedom is not to indulge the sinful nature (Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet 2:16).

I wholeheartedly agree! The idea that we disagree on this point is probably the greatest misconception on the part of the Arminians. Their belief is that Eternal Security is a theology of “Get Saved so you can have hell insurance, then go and do whatever you want, because you’re saved! You don’t have to worry about it!” Essentially Arminians believe that Eternal Security is a doctrine that teaches people they have a “license to sin”. This is the furthest thing from the truth.

Eternal Security says that a person who gets saved for “Hell insurance” sake is not truly saved. The only truly saved person is one who repents (turns away from their sin) turns their life over to God, and genuinely accepts Jesus as lord over their life because of what he has done for them. If this genuinely happens, then such a person has no desire to head off and live their life anyway they want, they have a desire to live their life in ever increasing service to the Lord who saved them.

It is the one who walks away from God who demonstrates clearly the true nature of his commitment to God (in that it wasn’t real). One who made Jesus Lord/master over his life couldn’t turn away from him right? One who turned away from his sin couldn’t still have one hand in it or be so easily turned back to it.

To love God does indeed mean to obey his commands. He who has committed his life to Christ understands this and commits his life to this as and act of worship to the Lord who has saved him from all his sins for all time. To the Arminian, he reacts to God serving him in such a manner as to obey him always in fear that he is always on the brink of damnation. That is not worship, that is not love, it is simply fear as one fears a dictator. That is not the relationship God wants with his people. The final sentence we have yet to explore is “God is to be obeyed and feared.” (Emphasis in the original)

I know the Bible says that God is to be both obeyed and feared, but it also balances that out by talking about the relationship we are to have with God through worship, love, prayer, etc… Yes we are to fear God with a clear understanding of his power and his authority, but it is because of that fear that makes his benevolence and love so much greater allowing us to come before him in worship. This makes him the approachable God allowing us to cry out “abba father”, not “Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!! God!!!!!!!”

Unfortunately, more than 8 pages in (as I write this in a Word Document) and I have only begun to scratch the surface of responding to the common objections to this clear doctrine taught in scripture. I will continue on in “Answering Objections Part 2″ so if I didn’t address a question you struggle with it may still be coming. If you want to make sure I address it, feel free to comment on this blog and I’ll include my reply as a part of my next blog. Thanks!

The Christian Doctrine of Eternal Security states that once a person has begun a relationship with Jesus Christ, that relationship can never be severed – not even by that person. This is a tremendous promise because the Bible tells us in James 2 that committing one sin equals having committed them all in God’s eyes. So if we were able to separate ourselves from God we would certainly be able to do so any time we sinned.

On the opposite side of the debate, a theology known as Arminianism would argue that a man has the capacity to lose or reject his salvation based on willful sin in his life.

The doctrine of Eternal Security is one of the most hotly debated topics in Christendom today. But why? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Is anyone’s salvation hanging on the line depending on what side of the issue they fall? And what makes this such a debatable topic anyway? Doesn’t that mean the Bible must just not be clear about the issue?

The most important answer is: No. No matter what you believe on this issue, it holds no bearing on whether or not you are saved.  There are a few basic truths (Christ’s sacrifice, redemption for sin, etc…) that are conditional for salvation and this is not one of them.

Does it matter? Most definitely! How you view this topic will dramatically shape how you view God and your relationship with him. Therefore it is well worth the discussion and personal investigation into scripture.

For example, if you believe you can lose your Salvation at no point in your life are you ever really sure if you are going to heaven. You aslo do not believe that Jesus sacrifice was powerful enough to cleanse you from all your sins but that you must continually earn or at least maintain your salvation through works. If you must earn your continued salvation through works then this leaves room for boasting in heaven as you will have earned your way there.(regularly forbidden throughout the NT) If you believe this it also means you do not believe that God has unconditional love – but that you have to meet conditions in order to receive his love.

If you believe in Eternal Security you hold faith that no matter what happens God’s grace has saved you and you will go to heaven. You believe what Jesus says:  John 6:37-40 – He will not lose any that are given to him.  You believe in the power of Christ’s Sacrifice and understand the frailty of man’s effort. (That Christ saved us once for all, and that nothing man can do could compliment his work on the cross, nor is it necessary). It means that you believe that God loves you without condition.

So, these matters are salvific in nature but they are clearly very important. Where you fall on these issues will make a difference in how you worship God, how you grow spiritually, how you study your Bible, and so on. However it is not my place to tell you what you should or should not believe based on mere emotion or whimsy. Let’s examine the scriptures for the truth of God’s word and find what he has to say about himself.

What the Bible Has To Say

The most obvious question at hand here is the question of whether or not you can know you are saved. Eternal security holds that you can absolutely have assurance. Arminianism leaves you always wondering. However, the bible makes it very clear that God wants us to know for sure:

1John 5:13 Says ¹³These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

If I can’t be assured of my salvation I don’t know how I can have the peace that God desires in my life and be “anxious for nothing” – Phil 4:6

2Cor 5:21 says ²¹He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

So I guess my question would be, how can we lose our Salvation if we are the very righteousness of God in Christ? You can’t possibly be any more sinless than that! And there is no possible way to overcome God’s righteousness! After all, God is righteous to the point at which God cannot even sin if he so desired because it is against his nature! (Titus 1:2, numbers 23:19, 1Sam 15:29, psalm 92:15, Rom 3:4, Heb 6:18) Therefore, if God is actually incapable of being unrighteous, and we are the righteousness of God, are we not incapable of being unrighteous before God?

I guess the next question would be, if it were possible to grieve God’s spirit to the point at which we did become too unrighteous for God’s righteousness, just how unrighteous does a person have to be to overcome God? And where is the measure for that laid out in scripture? I know where scripture lays out how to accept God’s righteousness, but I cannot find how to defeat it.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? ²⁰ For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

This passage is conveying the idea that we were bought and paid for. When we committed our lives to Christ we gave up the rights to own ourselves. We became slaves to Christ and no longer “own” the deed to our own body. If that is indeed the case, then how, in losing our salvation, can we repossess it? God is not exactly one to give up property, especially when the price he paid for that property was the torturous death of his only son.  So is the case really being made that you buy your life back from God with greater sin? The sin that Jesus paid for on the Cross? It seems like God is really getting the shaft in that deal.

The Bible makes it very clear that the Salvation we are offered through faith in Jesus Christ is Eternal (meaning lasting forever) from the moment of acceptance.

John 6:47 is Jesus saying that very thing:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.”

The question is quickly presented, how could anyone possibly lose eternal life? The very concept that something is eternal is that it lasts forever. I suppose someone might argue “Well, he will have Eternal life when he dies…” but that’s not what Jesus says. It says that he who believes has (present tense) Eternal Life. If something is eternal it doesn’t stop, it can’t be lost or taken away, it doesn’t disappear – it’s always there and always will be there. (I can’t have eternal life today and not tomorrow, that’s mortal life)  To question the validity of that statement would be to question the validity of God’s own claims to eternality.  (If you don’t trust Jesus when he said that person has life that will last forever then how can you trust God when he says he has always been and will always be)

2 Corinthians 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.

This is one of the most commonly cited verses for any evangelist and for good reason.  What an incredible promise to the lost! When you turn your life over to Christ your old self is gone and you become an entirely new creation! What I guess I can’t figure out is how this verse works in the context of Arminian Theology. If you can’t lose your salvation, then you are a totally new creature. If you can, then this verse comes with a footnote that says ***You are a totally new creation and your old self is dead. Unless of course, you screw up too much, then your new self dies, your old self rises from the dead and you are back to the way things were (only now you might be a zombie – the walking dead).  But wait!!! (according to Arminian theology) you can still repent again, turn back to God and get saved… again…   So now your old self would die…again…and your new self would rise from the dead… and you would be a Christian zombie??? (sounds like a cool name for a rock band anyway!)  Obviously the clear and plain statement that Paul was making to convey a simple truth falls apart instantly the moment Eternal Security is pulled from the equation.

This is of course all a little ridiculous, but I guess that’s my point. When you follow Arminian thinking to it’s logical end according to scripture it doesn’t play out.  1Peter 1:23 would concur: “²³ For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” In other words, you can’t give up your new creation. If you have new life, you can’t kill it and go back to your old one which you crucified. (Gal 2:20) You can’t do this because your new life is eternal and leaving an eternal life is, by nature, a contradiction.

Immediately following that verse is 2Corinthians 5:19 which reads “¹⁹namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

So I guess, the question for me becomes, if I lose my salvation when did he start counting my trespasses??? Which ones? And where does the Bible talk about this? Because at least here it says that he doesn’t.

Obviously one of the greatest concerns/criticisms/oppositions to the idea of Eternal Security is that someone might learn that God has forgiven them once for all things and they would “run” with that freedom just to go around doing as they wanted without “the fear of God” in them.  While that makes sense only logically, the Bible has already dealt with this objection:  1 John 2:4 says, “The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” So the concern that someone would take their Eternal Security “freedom” and run with it, should not be a concern at all, because someone who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit would have a desire to serve the Spirit, not his sinful nature.  If a “Christian” is not acting in that manner, it’s pretty safe to say they never made a genuine commitment to Christ in the first place.

The whole point of solidifying the idea of Eternal Security in your own heart is not that you can go sin as you please, but so that you might worship God and serve him with full peace of mind knowing you have an unbroken relationship with him. When coming from an Arminian perspective you are always worried about where you stand with God and your freedom in Christ does not exist. Rather you serve God in fear for your salvation rather in worship for the love he has shown you. This is not God’s clear desire for the relationship he wants with you as he has conveyed it in scripture.

John 6:37-40: “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.  ³⁸ “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.  ³⁹ “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.  ⁴⁰ “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day,”.

One of the most common objections to this passage comes at verse 39. Many would claim that the father’s will is not always accomplished – and therefore though it is God’s will that Jesus loses none, that is not necessarily the case.  However, in order for you to take such an interpretation you would have to carry that same method into verse 40. Applying it there however would mean that it must be interpreted to say that the will of the Father fails in that those who believe on Jesus won’t be saved and don’t have eternal life. This would go to contradict the entire Gospel as we know it.

So we are forced right here with this very passage alone to either accept Eternal Security as truth, deny it and compromise proper hermeneutics (rules of interpretation) or stand on the Arminian position and discredit the entire Gospel.

Besides, we would also have to dispute corroborating scripture like Romans 11:29 which says “²⁹ for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”

John 10:27-28 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand,”.

This passage seems pretty unmistakably clear. Critics would argue that they agree with the passage, but that it doesn’t say that a person couldn’t, themselves, “jump” out of his hand. In other words, this scripture is meant to indicate that no one other than yourself can sever your relationship with God. However, this seems like a stretch of both the imagination and plausible interpretation. There is no considerable reason why Jesus would be concerned with clarifying that someone else could not snatch them out of his hand. The greater point he was likely trying to make was no one (yes, that includes you!) can snatch them out of my hand. This makes even more sense in context with the previous statement which says “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish” If that’s the case, then how could even one of them? I don’t see a footnote or a condition on this verse.

1 John 2:19 says “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.”

This is a fantastic passage about what the difference between true Christians and look-a-likes are.  One of the biggest factors in this whole Eternal Security conversation is “What about the person who got “saved” was a Christian for a long time and then walked away from his faith entirely? Most of us have seen that happen and that’s the whole reason this debate exists.

The verse immediately preceding the passage above tells us that many anti-Christs have arisen; giving us the context for verse 19 which tells us that those anti-Christs were not from us (Christians).  A lot of people would be inclined to say that this has nothing to do with Eternal Security because those people were anti-Christs so they naturally would not have stayed.  That’s exactly the point that John was making that proves Eternal Security! He was saying that if they were Christians they would have stayed with them, but because they were anti-Christs they went out. By their nature they had to leave. They could only look and act like the real thing for so long before they began to stand out as something a little different. We see the same thing happen today.  People who appear to have a genuine faith, even a powerful faith, until little things here and there begin to add up wrong and they “wander away”.If you are a genuine Christian then you are not repelled by the things of God; you have no desire to leave.

Now, I know brothers who have struggled with sin in their lives and found themselves convicted by the spirit, and having a hard time facing that conviction ran away from the church for a period of time, but there wasn’t a moment they went not feeling that conviction and they returned to the church repentant. There is a clear difference between a struggling believer and a false believer.  The problem is that, because we don’t see into the hearts of man as our heavenly father does, we can’t always tell the difference as human beings. This has contributed to the confusion regarding salvation, but the Bible is no less clear on the issue.

1Cor 1:8,9 “He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.”

This is a promise that God will keep Christians strong to the end… until the day of the Lord.

2Cor 1:21,22 “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”

Eph 1:13,14 “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession– to the praise of his glory.”

These are very powerful verses and in the context of the ancient world the term “seal” had a significant meaning.  It’s not a very common term used today (at least not in that sense) but back then a ruler or rich man would place his seal on the important things he owned. It was his mark, his signature, that signified permanent ownership both of people and property. To place your seal on something is to place an indisputable and permanent claim on it. Also, the clause “Deposit, guaranteeing our inheritance/what is to come” seems rather plain and clear.

Some people might claim that you have the opportunity to return the deposit you’ve received. However, that belief would have to be based on the idea that God is not omniscient. After all, if the deposit was to guarantee what is to come, and “What was to come” was you just turning around and returning the deposit then wasn’t God really just wasting his time? And do we worship a God who wastes his time? No, God gives you his “Deposit” of salvation and doesn’t redeem it until you show up at the pearly gates.

1John 5:4 “for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.”

It seems John had a lot to say on this matter. Everyone born of God overcomes the world. That says it in a nutshell.  If that is indeed true, then, that person who was a “Christian” then walked away from their faith and “lost their salvation” has proven that they were never saved to begin with because they didn’t overcome the world. False Brothers and Sisters, anti-christs and alike are those who have appeared to have had a solid faith for a while only to have wandered off.

Hebrews 9:12 ¹²and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

This is the work of Jesus directly after his sacrifice, having entered the temple he made his sacrifice once to cover all sins for all time, not continually like the old priesthood as a person sins and repents.  In that act he made eternal redemption. Eternal (as we have already covered) means everlasting, not “Until you screw up”. This point is made even clearer in Hebrews 9:24-28:

²⁴For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;  ²⁵nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.  ²⁶Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.  ²⁷And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,  ²⁸so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

(The “second time” referenced here is the second coming of Christ.) This again makes it clear that Christ does not make a repeated sacrifice for our sins but that his one sacrifice covered all our sins from the very beginning. If that is the case, how could any sin we commit negate that sacrifice? And what would be the criteria for being saved again if Christ’s sacrifice was once for all? (The argument is that even if you lose your salvation, by repentance you can re-gain it – essentially, you can be saved again.)

Again, continuing in Hebrews along the very same lines, Hebrews 10:10,12,14 says : ¹⁰By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹²but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God ¹⁴For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

In the NIV verse 14 reads “¹⁴ For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”   I don’t know how you overcome such a statement.

Romans 4:5 ⁵But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

There is little to expound on here. This verse could not make the point more clearly.  The common objection to this verse is the passage in James 2 which deals with “Faith without works is dead” which is so often taken out of the context of scripture to suit the presumption of those citing it. We will deal with this objection later on.

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

These are simple and common Sunday School Bible Memory Verses and for good reasons: they teach good theology.  I should take a moment to point out that few people from the “No-assurance” point of view would openly contend that they believe in achieving salvation through works. And, on one level, that’s true. They believe that you are initially saved through faith. But whether they realize it or not, their doctrine that says they must maintain their salvation by their own actions, is a doctrine that they believe that at least some element of their salvation depends on human works. This is directly opposed to the Bible’s clear teaching.

Romans 8:38-39 ³⁸For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, ³⁹nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul could have simply said “Nothing can separate you from God” but he bent over backwards to stress the point. Nothing created (which includes you) nothing in the future or past (sin) and nothing else, can separate us from our Lord (referring to Christians). To dispute the clear meaning of this verse a person would have to apply improper hermeneutics (rules of interpretation), and twist it to suit their own preconceptions.

Another very basic promise given to us from Scripture we can find in Phil 1:6 “⁶For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”  The only objection here of course that could be made is that while Paul was “confident” that doesn’t necessarily make it so. Fair enough, but if you were going to take such a stand you would have to review a very large percentage of scripture for the personal influence involved and decide exactly which portions you would discredit on that basis. I think you would find you would be left with much less than you think. If you believe God’s word to be inspired through the human authors he gave it to then you would expect phrases like that to appear.

Romans 3:23-28 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. 26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness. 27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! 28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

So, no amount of Godly living can amount to righteousness and, if all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God then it should be no truer that such a principle would apply after salvation.

Ephesians 2:6 reads “⁶ And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” and Ephesians 1:3 says we are blessed in the heavenly realms

If we are already seated with God in the heavenly realms, when we supposedly lose our salvation do we lose our seat? When we regain our salvation do we get a new one?

Ephesians 4:30 says “³⁰ And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

It is a warning not to grieve the Holy Spirit, but not “in case you might go too far and lose your salvation”, rather the verse reiterates what we have seen above; don’t grieve him, because you were sealed with him. Apparently you can’t even grieve him enough to lose him. He is your seal that keeps you marked as God’s. This verse isn’t a warning about the potential cost of disrespect, rather a reminder of the love being shown by God.

The surrounding verses Eph 4:29,31-32 also present a problem for the “no-assurance” argument. As the passage lays out a rather lengthy list of behaviors that, as Christians, they should stay away from. Again these are listed as instructions and exhortations, not warnings with potential consequences.  We often saw Paul rebuking Churches in the NT for sin, and rather impressive sin, and sometimes even for allowing heresy, but never once did he warn them about losing their salvation. He simply recognized them as being young in their faith and steered them back on the right track. Each of those churches would have been considered to have lost their salvation by a “no-assurance” proponent.  Rather, Paul regularly reminded each of those churches that they were in-fact, sealed in Christ, and solid in their salvation.

John 5:24: says ‘‘Verily, Verily, I say unto you, he that hears My word, and believes on Him who sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but has passed from death unto life.’’ This passage is a one way street and carries no threat of reversal.

Judaizers

This entire issue is something that the very early Church was met with. There was a group in that time known as the Judaizers who repeatedly attempted to introduce this doctrine of works alongside the Gospel. As you can imagine they used the Christians as their recruiting fields and often appeared as false brothers. Paul regularly preached against them and their doctrine and even focused most of the Book of Galatians (specifically Gal 3) on dealing with this particular issue making sure the early Church knew it was a false teaching.  Here is how he dealt with this issue:

Galatians 3:10-14: “¹⁰ For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” ¹¹ Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”¹² The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”¹⁴ He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.”

Anyone who wishes to claim that they can lose their salvation (making it dependant on following the law) is directly contradicting this clear teaching from Paul. Paul is saying, “If you’re going to follow the Law, then you’re going to have to follow it to the letter, and it says you have to be perfect and you’re justified by your works, so go for it… If you’re going to accept the Gospel, put the law down, walk away, and have a relationship with Christ because you can’t be worried about following the law and have a relationship with God (vs.11).

Paul the greatest theologian of all, dealt with this issue from the very beginning and set it out quite plainly so it could not be disputed.

Conclusion

The scriptural motivation for Christian service should not be fear of losing one’s salvation but rather love to Christ. It is this very lesson that is taught throughout the entire Book of Job. Job’s friend’s give him seemingly great advice throughout his trials. “You should not be upset with God for your trials, nobody is holy before God, We all deserve the treatment you are receiving because you are all sinners…” It would seem to anyone with a good understanding of our relationship to God that this was a good theological response. However, in the end, God came down pretty hard on Job’s friends for what they were telling him. Why? Because everything they said had to do with “measuring up” to God’s standard and being righteous before him. This is impossible. When God appears at the end of the book he simply describes himself to Job and Job repents and learns to truly worship God for who he is. God doesn’t want our righteousness. Our works, our righteousness is worthless to him. That’s why Jesus Christ became sin: so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. (2 cor 5:21)

So if faith apart from works is the major point starting in the oldest book in the Bible (no, it’s not the first in order, but job is likely the oldest) why is there even a debate about what the rest of the Bible has to say about the issue?

After such a lengthy list of verses (though, far from comprehensive) that work together to corroborate the very same concept: When you genuinely accept Christ you are saved for eternity, you would think there could not be any question left as to what the Bible says on this matter. However, believe it or not there is still a contradictory view that is prevalent in Christian circles today. As you can imagine, proponents of this view often cite scripture to support their position. I will deal with these commonly raised objections in my next post. If you have a particular verse, or point you would like me to address feel free to post a comment on this blog and I will address them in my next post.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, a couple months ago, all across the country, Facebook Status updates status updates started popping up everywhere from women. “Blue”, “Red”, “Black”, Etc… for days men were bewildered, and that was the point. Eventually word spread that the whole idea was for women to post the color of their bra. The idea being to be provocative, get people asking the question “why did they post that status” and raise awareness about breast cancer. However, all it seemed to really turn into is a bunch of guys getting a “sneak peak” in the top drawer of every women they knew. I found this especially inappropriate as I saw teenage girls posting this status, knowing that their teenage guy friends were not gaining a deeper appreciation for breast cancer but you can bet it had other things running through their heads.

Shortly thereafter came the “I like it on the…” campaign. Another facebook initiative designed to be provocative, shocking and get people asking questions.  This time status messages began to appear like “I like it on the floor”,  “I like it on the table”, “I like it on the counter”. The innuendo here is obvious, the inside joke we were later  let in on is that the question these girls were supposedly answering was “Where do you like to keep your purse?”  Somehow by posting this provocative message there was a belief that it would raise breast cancer awareness. I continually saw messages like this posted by upright and decent women who I can only suppose, in some twisted way believed they were doing something positive.  What these women failed to realize is that long before word spread about what these status messages meant the guys reading them just took them at face value and the vast majority weren’t going to ask questions that got to the deeper issue behind the status. Because they never really cared, the word was never as wide spread among the guys as it was with the girls. What I am trying to say is that rather than spreading the word about breast cancer, more than anything millions of women and teenage girls simply “advertized” themselves to every guy they know.

Now there is yet another facebook status update campaign going around in an effort to raise breast cancer awareness. This is one where you simply post the name of an alcoholic beverage (or two) in your status depending on your current romantic relationship situation. (Each drink represents something different. I just had a friend post a status update with two drinks in it which, naturally I took to mean she was headed out to party, only later to find out that those particular drinks translate to she is  “single but interested in getting married”.  Yet again, this campaign seems not only to undermine the character of those posting, without any indication of its purpose, it seems to actually undermine the cause of fighting Breast Cancer itself, as Alcohol consumption is one of the primary contributors to contracting it. Off all I would think that a Breast Cancer survivor would see this as a spit in the face to what they have accomplished.

Though these campaigns are clever and have been effectively viral I don’t believe they have fulfilled the purpose they have set out to accomplish. The only accomplishment these campaigns have had is in making large groups of women unwittingly embarrass themselves and tear down their own reputations before their family, friends, and co-workers, thinking they were supporting a good cause.

It should not have to be new advice to please, please, please, be careful what you post online. Realize anyone could be reading it, and try to think about how they might take it. So far, those in the know have thought of this as all in good fun, but to anyone who isn’t in on the joke they have made themselves out to be drunken sluts. Think about what you’re doing and the next time you want to promote breast cancer awareness, maybe you should post this link in your status:  http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/

This handy survival guide was brought to my attention by a friend and I thought it might be important that I share it with you. Gnomes, as we know, are a danger to us all. They sit quietly on our front lawns, in our gardens and bathtubs just waiting for the moment when they will spring to action and strike. When they do, will you know what to do?

This book will provide you with the defensive tactics you will need when the gnomes attack, how best to be prepared, and even how you can out gnome your gnome. You need to ask yourself, are you ready when your silent guardian becomes a ninja assassin?

Technology these days is doing great things for us. It’s bringing us things like the Ipad, the clapper, chia schooby-doo, Jumbo Remote Controls (I love mine!), and now Robot Penguins! That’s right ladies and gentlemen, the latest in high technology according to infoniac.com are Robotic Penguins that act just like the real thing.  (Actually there are two versions, one that can swim and one filled with helium that can fly through the air. A “super-penguin” to make all the real penguins jealous I suppose!)

These penguins (pictured above) clearly have a little ways to go before they get to actually looking like the real thing, but then again, I’m not entirely sure why that matters.  The article tells us that these Robot Penguins are not exactly a Child’s Play thing. They come fully equipped with  3D Sonar in order  to prevent it from colliding with other Robo-penguins and with solid objects like ice walls, polar bears, and I suppose it’s evil nemesis, robo-seal.

This article never offers the reason for the bizarre creation of a robo-Penguin, but excitedly mentions more than once that the design of the Penguin could have many “Industrial applications”. This is of great concern to me. Isn’t it bad enough that all our jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants? Now all of the sudden our industrial jobs are going to be taken over by armies of industrial robotic penguins? Just where do they get off…????

I say we stand up and fight against the robotic penguins! We cannot allow this robotic industrial revolution to occur! We will join with the robo-seals and fight until every last flipper has fallen!

Will you join me?

(Abraham Obama)

Before his election in 2008 (and subsequent inauguration) there was an awful lot of talk about how President (at that time, Senator) Obama had so many things in common with Abraham Lincoln. We heard from all over how it may very well be possible that Mr. Obama may very well be the next Pres. Lincoln, if that’s even possible. There even several occasions on which he himself alluded to it, up to and including his insistence that the Lincoln Bible be taken out of mothballs for his inauguration.

I find it strange however (not really) that I am unable to find a single article dated after January 2009 making any of these great comparisons between Mr. Obama and one of our nation’s greatest Presidents.  Could it be that rather than being the president who ended the greatest divide our country ever had (the civil war) Mr. Obama has instead served to create the greatest divide our country has seen in recent history?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to beat up on our President.  I’m really not trying to say anything against him, but as someone who has a great respect for our founding fathers it seems to me as though our President may have missed the mark on this one.  Not all is lost however! I have recently been informed that Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln may both yet share one great stage of honor together. If there is one Lincoln legacy Mr. Obama leaves the Whitehouse with, perhaps this will be enough:

ch-ch-cha -Chia!

A recent article posted in the Rochester area local news has me quite upset, and you should be too! The article is a story all about a new pizza parlor in NY that goes by the name “Naked Pizza”.  As catchy, fun, exciting, and provocative a marketing ploy as you might think that is, it turns out that this pizza parlor is nothing but pure evil.

You see, the reason they call it “Naked Pizza” is because they have stripped everything bad out of it (making it “Naked”), put a bunch of good stuff in it, and made it a healthy pizza! Apparently they actually produce a Ten-inch pizza that is only 500 calories!

I know what you’re thinking, Naked Pizza is not only Un-American, it’s Un-Italian and they must be destroyed! Who do they think they are, making a mockery of the icon of American cuisine. This will not, this cannot be tolerated. I tell you this is not “Naked Pizza” this is Pizza Porn and it must be stopped before it floods our streets and degrades the hearts and minds of honest hard working pizza shop owners everywhere who strive day in and day out to produce the 2,000 calorie, artery clogging, grease dripping, 12-topping, stuffed crust, deep dish, tripple thick pizza pies we have all come to know and love.

As a true pizza lover I’m telling you now “Naked Pizza”, we don’t want you! You lost the right to call yourself a pizza shop the minute you used the word healthy. Take your pizza porn back to the tofu shop it came from!

I just saw a news story about the Pope’s new stance on condoms. Now I’m not Catholic and I don’t hold their stance on birth control (That it should not be used) so I don’t consider the use of condoms a sin issue one way or another but Pope Benedict seems to have an interesting take on the matter.

The Pope said that his stance on condom use regarding birth control hasn’t changed and that it was still a sin, however, the Catholic Church does endorse the use of condoms for protection against HIV. Pope Benedict gave the example of condom use by male prostitutes as “a first step toward moralization”.

So…hold on a minute, let me get this one straight, the Catholic Church is against Condoms if you’re Married, but all for them if you’re going to sleep with a Prostitute, or if you are one? What????? Wouldn’t “The first step toward moralization” be “Stop being a male prostitute”.

What the Pope is doing is saying that “It’s bad to be a male prostitute, it’s worse to pass along HIV. Since the Catholic Church believes condoms are a sin, let’s make them ‘half’ a sin so if you’re going to be a prostitute at least you can be a nice one and not kill people.”

I guess my big question is rather than making allowances for people to get away with sin condoned by the church why would he not just stick to his guns and cry out against legitimate sin? If the pope is so concerned about the spread of HIV why would he make any allowance for prostitution at all and simply cry out against it? Why wouldn’t he cry out against pre-marital sex, extra-marital affairs, and homosexual relationships? These are issues covered directly in scripture that he can take a hard line on and doesn’t have to make any allowance for.

If you’ve ever had kids or worked with them you know that it would be ridiculous to say to them “ok here are the rules: Don’t have any parties while I’m gone, if you do have any parties don’t let there be any alcohol, if there is alcohol don’t let it get out of control.” Why don’t you tell your kids that? Because all your kids here is “Sweet! My parents said I can have a party with beer!!!” If you’re serious about what you’re  saying you don’t make allowances, you say “No Parties while I’m gone” and you hold them accountable to that.

If the pope is serious about what he’s saying then it’s not “You shouldn’t be a prostitute, but if you are, wear a condom.” It’s “Don’t be a prostitute! – And you won’t spread HIV!” How old is this guy, and I’ve got to be telling him?