A significant point of contention in regard to the book of Hebrews is whether a genuine believer can lose their salvation, or whether falling away from the faith merely evidences the fact that one had never truly come to share in Christ. At the center of this controversy are the warning passages, which are found in Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39, and 12:14-29. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Biblical evidence on whether a professing Christian who walks away from the faith forfeits their salvation, with a particular focus on the book of Hebrews.
A fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics is that the unclear passages should always be interpreted in light of clearer texts. This follows from the premise that the Biblical texts, being divinely inspired, though composed by different authors, are a unit. That is to say, they are internally consistent in all that they teach. When interpreting difficult and hotly debated texts in the book of Hebrews, therefore, we must ask ourselves first what the rest of the Scriptures teach about this topic. Ideally, we would particularly want to analyse any other books by the same author to provide illumination on his probable intended meaning in the book in which we are interested. Unfortunately, the authorship of Hebrews is widely debated among New Testament scholars and no clear consensus has been reached. However, irrespective of the actual author(s), the text does show evidence of reflecting Pauline thought, and was very likely composed by an associate of Paul, if not by Paul himself [1]. An examination of the Pauline corpus, therefore, can give us some insight into the broader theology of the author of Hebrews. We must then examine the book of Hebrews itself to determine whether other texts, beside the warning passages under investigation, provide illumination on the question before us. Finally, it is incumbent upon us to analyse the context of each of the five warning passages, and how they fit into the general argumentative flow of the book of Hebrews.
A Brief Survey of the New Testament as a Whole
Much could be written on what the New Testament has to say about eternal security. However, since the focus of this paper is the book of Hebrews, I will keep my comments brief. Various statements in the gospels seem to indicate strongly that one cannot lose one’s salvation. For example, Jesus stated that “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:37-40). Thomas R. Schreiner observes that “the parallelism establishes that comes and believes are synonyms. Thus, to say that those given by the Father ‘will come’ to the Son also means that they ‘will believe’ in the Son.”[2] Jesus further stated that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:44). The two references to “him” in this verse clearly allude to the same individual, namely, he who was drawn. The implication is that the one who is drawn will ultimately be raised up on the last day. Jesus later goes on to say, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” (John 10:27-29). In Greek, the phrase denoting “they will never perish” is οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The expression οὐ μὴ is a double negative, used in Greek for emphasis. It hence may be best translated “they will never ever perish.” Again, this supports the doctrine of eternal security.
One possible counter example that may be given to these texts in the gospels is the falling away of Judas, one of the Twelve. However, John 6:64-65 suggests that Judas was not a genuine believer even prior to his betrayal of Jesus: “‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” The use of the expression “Διὰ τοῦτο…” (“This is why…”) links verse 65 with verse 64, indicating that the reason Jesus foreknew who would forsake the faith is because he knew before time to whom the ability to come to Jesus had been granted by the Father. The foot washing episode at the last supper adds further support to the idea that Judas was not in fact a believer prior to the betrayal: “‘And you are clean, but not every one of you.’ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean,” (John 13:10).
Multiple texts outside of the gospels also support the doctrine of eternal security. In 1 John 2:19, the apostle John also speaks of false prophets, saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This is consistent with the view that falling away is not a forfeiting of one’s salvation but rather an evidence that one has never truly walked with Christ. The only viable alternative interpretation of this text is to read it as saying that they “went out from us because they were no longer of us.”[3] However, this is special pleading, since the Greek word οὐκέτι (“no longer”) is completely absent from this passage.
Peter indicates that believers “by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time,” (1 Peter 1:5). The phrase “being guarded” (φρουρουμένους) expresses the concept that the inheritance of a believer is preserved by God. 2 Peter, however, also contains a warning passage against falling away that is not unlike those found in Hebrews (2 Peter 2:20-22): “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’” Peter, then, seems to uphold both that salvation is conditional upon remaining in the faith and that those who are saved will persevere to the end.
What about the Pauline corpus? Does it provide any additional support for eternal security? One helpful text here is Paul’s statement to the Christians in Philippi that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 1:6). Similarly, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Corinthians 1:8, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). These affirmations would seem to point in the direction of perseverance in the faith being accomplished by God Himself. Paul also writes to the Romans that “those whom [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified,” (Romans 8:29-30). This text sets up an unbroken chain of redemption from God’s active foreknowledge to the calling of the believer, to their justification and ultimate glorification. In other words, everyone who is called and justified by God will certainly be glorified.
Of interest to the present study, however, there are also warning passages to be found in the Pauline corpus. For example, Paul writes “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister,” (Colossians 1:21-23). Paul also writes, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness,” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). The affirmation of eternal security, together with an affirmation that salvation is conditional upon perseverance, is something also found in Hebrews, as we shall see. Paul, however, holds those two apparently conflicting ideas together. He writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). In other words, while salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith, a true believer will not fail to persevere. Of course, this raises a question about the purpose of the warning passages in Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament: Why does one need to be warned if there is no danger of falling away? I shall return to this question later in this paper.
An Analysis of Clear Texts in the Book of Hebrews
Having briefly surveyed Biblical books outside of the epistle to the Hebrews, we must turn our attention to analyse any clear texts within Hebrews itself that might provide illumination as to relevant beliefs the author holds relating to the subject. Indeed, while the unity of Scripture is a justified working assumption that falls out of the doctrine of inspiration, we must be open to the possibility of this methodological presupposition being falsified.
The author of Hebrews tells us that a necessary consequence of coming to share in Christ is holding “our original confidence firm to the end,” (Hebrews 3:14). The implication here is that if one does not persevere in the faith then that individual has not come to share in Christ – confirming the numerous statements in other New Testament literature and thereby supporting our working assumption of Scriptural unity. Indeed, “Careful attention to the wording shows that these lines do not cite what will be true if they hold on, but what is already true of them, if in fact they endure. Their endurance through temptation will be the evidence of their vital connection to Christ. The writer asserts that their continuance in faith will demonstrate that they are members of God’s household, not that it will make it so in the future. Holding on to their confidence will reveal the reality they already have come to share in Christ, not what they will share. By continuing in faith, they demonstrate the work Christ has already begun and will certainly accomplish in them.” [4]
Another relevant text in Hebrews is the author’s statement that “[Christ] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them,” (Hebrews 7:25). This presents a theological conundrum for the view that salvation may be forfeited by falling away, since if Christ is standing making intercession on behalf of those who are His and yet they are falling away, the conclusion seems inescapable that the intercession and prayers of the Son are being rejected by the Father, thereby implying a dissension within the godhead.
Any attempt to understand the soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, must make sense of both the statements given above and the warning passages. It is to these warning passages that I now turn.
Are the Warning Passages Addressing Genuine Believers?
The first question we must address is whether the warning passages are addressed to genuine believers and speak of a falling away of someone who truly believed. Perhaps the most famous of the warning passages is that found in Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Verses 4-6 state that “it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” The contextual background of this text seems to be that the audience to whom the author was writing were failing to make spiritual progress and were in a state of spiritual infancy and lethargy (Hebrews 5:11; 6:12). The author thus warns them in the strongest of terms about the danger of falling away, a step they were on the verge of taking. Indeed, the author consistently refers to the potentiality of taking this next step rather than its actuality (Hebrews 2:1; 3:12-13; 4:11, 11, etc). Thus, he says in 6:9, “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things – things that belong to salvation.”
Throughout the homily of Hebrews, the author alludes to the danger of his audience drifting away from or neglecting the gospel of salvation (Hebrews 2:1,3), of throwing away their confidence, and shrinking back from faith (Hebrews 10:35, 38-39). They were on the verge of unbelief and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:12-13,19), disobedience (3:18; 4:6, 11), and rejecting God (Hebrews 12:25). Verses 26-31 say, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Verse 29 speaks of how the apostate has “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” The interpretation of this text rests in large measure on the identification of the referent of the pronoun of this verse. If the pronoun refers to the individual who deliberately carries on sinning, then this would suggest that the text is speaking of a genuine believer, who had undergone sanctification by Christ’s blood, who has fallen into consistent rebellion against God. Alternatively, a minority of interpreters, in order to avoid the force of this text, have suggested instead that the pronoun of verse 29 may be referring to Christ who was sanctified, since Christ is said earlier in the homily to have “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).[5] However, this seems to be an ad hoc interpretation. Randy Booth comments, “Some contend that the words ‘by which he was sanctified’ refer to Jesus (see John 17:19). Such an interpretation cannot be sufficiently supported. Moreover, even if they did refer to Jesus, it must be admitted that the word ‘sanctify’ is used in a different way than it is earlier in Heb. 10:14. Surely the sanctification experience of Jesus is far different from that which we experience.”[6]
Another interpretation, offered by Wayne Grudem, is that the sanctification being referred to here is outward and ceremonial, since it is found in a context where a comparison is being made to the Levitical sacrifices.[7] Thomas Schreiner points out, rightly in my view, two problems with this approach. One is that “a similar argument could be made regarding the cleansing of the conscience, for the author contrasts the cleansing of the conscience with that provided by the Levitical system. Thus, on Grudem’s own terms it is methodologically possible that the cleansing of the conscience is also external and not saving.”[8] Schreiner also points out that “the contrast with Levitical sanctification is intended to emphasize the superiority of Christ’s work. The contrast and comparison with the Levitical system does not indicate that the sanctification provided by Christ is merely external, for throughout Hebrews the old covenant outwardly symbolizes what is now an inward reality through Christ. Grudem, by relegating the sanctification in Hebrews 10:29 to ceremonial sanctification, actually contravenes one of the major themes of Hebrews, namely, what was anticipated in shadowy form in the Old Testament has now become a reality in and through the sacrifice of Christ.”[9]
The other three warning passages also appear to be addressed to believers. In Hebrews 2, the author cautions his readers against “drifting away from” (2:1) and “neglecting” (2:3) the “great salvation.” Given that a major theme of the book of Hebrews is the readers’ spiritual lethargy and disposition to return to the things of the old covenant (which were but shadows of the reality in Christ), the best way to interpret this text, in my judgment, is that it addresses genuine believers who are at risk of falling away. That this warning is addressed to believers is also suggested by the use of the inclusive pronoun ἡμᾶς (“we”) in Hebrews 2:1.
The warning passage in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 also appears to be directed towards believers, since 3:12 says “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” The fact that the author addresses the audience of the warning as ἀδελφοί (“brothers”) suggests that his exhortation is directed towards fellow believers.
Finally, the warning in Hebrews 12:14-29 is best understood as being directed at believers. The author writes “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel,” (Hebrews 12:22-24). This strongly suggests that the addressees are genuine believers. In the verse that immediately follows, the author says, “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven,” (Hebrews 12:25). The second person plural pronoun (“you”) in this text refers to the same audience as that in verse 22, indicating strongly that the warning is given to individuals who are true believers.
For the reasons given above, it, therefore, seems most plausible to me that the “falling away” spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-6 and the other warning passages refers to genuine apostasy where a true believer forsakes the gospel of his salvation. If that is indeed the case, then it would appear that salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith. What is not as clear, however, is whether this implies that a true believer can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away. It is to this question that I now turn.
Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?
If, as I have argued, the warning passages of Hebrews are addressed to believers, does this imply that a Christian can lose their salvation? If so, we would be required either to re-evaluate our methodological presumption of the unity of Scripture, or to re-evaluate the numerous texts in the rest of the New Testament that I have argued support eternal security. Some interpreters have gone down this route and have argued that loss of salvation is indeed a possibility for the believer. For example, Scot McKnight has offered an analysis of all five of the warning texts, in which he argues that believers are indeed in view and that a Christian can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away.[10] Howard Marshall likewise argues that a Christian can lose their salvation by falling away, since, he argues, the warning passages are robbed of their meaning if a believer cannot in fact stray from the faith and forfeit their salvation by so doing. [11] Nonetheless, he argues that falling away is the exception rather than the rule, as revealed by the texts which speak of the preserving grace of God. According to Marshall, the relationship between God’s threats and promises is paradoxical and cannot be understood.[12] Marshall also reinterprets texts outside of the book of Hebrews that appear to teach eternal security of the believer. For example, he suggests that the golden chain of redemption spoken of in Romans 8:29-30 can in fact be broken by the believer.[13]
Another approach that has been offered in an attempt to get around the implication that a believer can forfeit their salvation is argued by Charles Stanley[14], R.T Kendall[15], and Zane C. Hodges [16] [17]. These authors argue that the warning passages, though directed at believers, actually concern the loss of rewards, or the loss of a happy and fruitful Christian life. According to this perspective, everyone who ever confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved, no matter what fruit (or lack thereof) is borne in the life of the believer. Kendall, for example, suggests that the kingdom of God spoken of in warning texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:21 refers not to heaven but instead to God dwelling in the hearts of believers[18]. Likewise, when it comes to the warnings in Hebrews, Kendall argues that the texts are warning about the loss of rewards, not their eternal salvation. [19] However, this approach errs in the divorcing of salvation from good works and perseverance in the faith. Numerous texts throughout the New Testament indicate that good works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith and provide the grounds of assurance of one’s salvation. Indeed, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” (James 2:17).
My own opinion is that, though the warning passages are indeed addressed to believers, and though the warning texts refer to a genuine apostasy, a Christian cannot lose their salvation. We have already seen that the apostle Paul upheld both the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith. If those ideas can indeed be held in harmony, then there is no reason to think that the book of Hebrews teaches that a Christian can forfeit their salvation.
I would argue that the interpretive key is found in Hebrews 3:14, discussed earlier in this paper, which says “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” This is consistent with what is said in the Pauline corpus concerning apostasy. For example, he writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). The soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, does not appear to be different from that of Paul and Peter. All three uphold both eternal security and the requirement of perseverance for salvation. Both hold those two doctrines together by maintaining that the test of a true believer is that they will persevere in the faith. In numerous texts, Paul indicates that certain behaviours, including perseverance, necessarily accompany true salvation and warns believers to test themselves to ensure that they are indeed in the faith (e.g. 2 Corinthians 13:5-6).
The Purpose of the Warning Passages
This still, however, leaves unaddressed the question of why Paul and the author of Hebrews feel a need to include the warning passages. If true believers will not fail to persevere, what sense is there in warning them that they must persevere in the faith in order to inherit salvation? The answer I find most satisfying is what Thomas Schreiner has called “the means of salvation” view. [20] That is to say, observing and taking heed of the warning passages is the means by which we obtain salvation. This is not works-based salvation, since, in my view, perseverance is a necessary expression of true faith and anchored in the sustaining grace of God. While works are necessary for salvation, those works are not meritorious. Rather, works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith. So powerful is God’s grace that it not only imparts to the believer salvation apart from any meritorious works on our part, but it also regenerates the believer. Indeed, “what is striking about the Scriptures is that the passages concerning the steadfastness of God’s faithfulness and the passages with admonitions are inseparable. We do not encounter a single passage that would allow anyone to take the immutability of the grace of God in Christ for granted.”[21]
A helpful illustration to convey the purpose of the warning passages is to be found in the shipwreck of Paul on route to Rome in Acts 27:13-44. Paul says to the sailors, “I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship,” (verse 22) since an angel had told Paul that “God has granted you all those who sail with you,” (verse 23). Nonetheless, “Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, ‘Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved,’” (verse 31). Here, Paul has been guaranteed by God that all of those with him on the ship will be saved. However, Paul also candidly warns the sailors that to be saved they must remain with the ship. In other words, their salvation was conditional upon their perseverance with the ship, but God fulfilled the condition by causing them to persevere. God uses means to accomplish His ends, and in this case, God used Paul’s warning to those with him on the ship that they needed to remain with the doomed vessel in order to be saved. I would argue that God uses means to bring about the perseverance of those who are being saved. One of these means is through the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in Scripture.
Some may be concerned that God guaranteeing that true believers will persevere in the faith – and, indeed, God’s sovereign election of His saints – conflicts with human free will. However, the compatibilist view is that God works through our free choices. So exhaustive is God’s knowledge of His creatures, even before they are born, that He knows how they will behave given different contingent counterfactuals. Thus, using this divine middle knowledge, God can create a world in which His purposes are accomplished (including the salvation and perseverance of His elect) without compromising human free will.[22]
The idea that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith is further supported by the Olivet discourse, where Jesus says, “See that no one leads you astray (Mark 13:5). Jesus goes on to speak of the terrible persecution that Jesus’ followers are to endure. He says that “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). However, notice how Jesus indicates that God also uses means by which the endurance to the end is brought about. He goes on to say that “in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days,” (Mark 13:19-20). In other words, God would providentially shorten the days of persecution for the sake of His elect, so that they would indeed persevere to the end.
Conclusion
In summary, I have argued that while the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament are directed towards believers and concern the real danger of apostasy, the New Testament teaches that this condition is fulfilled by God Himself, who causes true believers to persevere in the faith. If, then, someone fails to persevere in the faith, that provides evidence that they were never truly saved. I have argued that the warning passages serve as part of the means through which God ensures the perseverance of His saints. The Lord’s sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, which warns and admonishes them, lest they should stray from the path of salvation and perish.
Footnotes
[1] David Alan Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” Faith & Mission 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 3-26.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 32-62.
[3] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source, 1981), 357.
[4] Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. H. W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 207.
[5] James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice, Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises (Part II),” Eamon Younis, March 30 2020, http://eamonyounis.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-newness-of-new-covenant-better_30.html.
[6] Randy Booth, “Covenant Transition,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 298.
[7] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism, Volume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 177-178.
[8] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 49-50.
[9] Ibid., 50.
[10] Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59.
[11] Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969), 196-216.
[12] Ibid., 210-211.
[13] Ibid., 103.
[14] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990).
[15] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).
[16] Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981).
[17] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1989 and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).
[18] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 125-130, 159-184.
[19] Ibid., 177-178.
[20] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 32-62.
[21] Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance, trans. R. D. Knudsen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 116-117.
[22] Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereinty: A Molistinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010).
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3bo21og
Daniel Prophesied the Timing Of The Messiah
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
How did Jesus see himself? As we learn about Jesus’ Jewish context in the first century, we find that he made some staggering claims. First of all, Jesus spoke constantly about God’s kingdom. The phrase kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven appears more than 100 times in the Gospels. Jesus begins his ministry in Mark by saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near.” (Mark 1:15)
Okay, so what’s the big deal about that? And what does Jesus mean when he says the kingdom of God is “near”? Jesus was assuming that his audience would pick up on the ideas he was laying down. When a first century Jew heard the phrase “the kingdom of God,” their minds likely turned to a very specific prophecy in Daniel 2. Let’s provide some context before reading the prophecy. Daniel 2 describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an impressive statue crafted from four precious metals. As the dream unfolds, a large mountain grows from a mysterious stone, destroying the statue.
JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Let’s read the prophecy. Daniel 2:31-35 says:
The four parts of the statue represent four pagan empires, beginning with the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar is told by Daniel that he is the head of gold. Additionally, he tells him that a second kingdom inferior to Babylon will follow after him, symbolized by silver, and a third kingdom by bronze. Eventually, a fourth kingdom emerges that is initially strong like iron, but gradually weakens, as if it were a mixture of iron and clay. Note that the fifth kingdom — God’s kingdom — occurs during the time of the fourth kingdom (Daniel 2.26-43).
Here’s Daniel 2:44-45:
Daniel explains that the four majestic beasts refer to four kings who arise from the earth. (7:17) After the appearance of four beasts, a heavenly “son of man” appears who seems to share divine honors. Then Daniel 7:9, 13-14 says: “I kept looking until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire….“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom, So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”
This Son of Man is the king of the fifth kingdom, God’s eternal kingdom. Think about what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. He speaks of God’s kingdom. Then he declares that he is the Son of Man, the ruler of the kingdom that would come during the Roman Empire. An attentive first century Jew would understand that he is claiming he is the long-awaited Messiah who will end the reign of these beastly kingdoms on earth.
JESUS, THE “CUT OFF” MESSIAH
Jesus applies one more prophecy in Daniel to himself. According to him, the Son of Man must be handed over to the authorities and put to death. (Mark 8.31-32) Where does Jesus get this idea from? In a rather bizarre passage, Daniel 9 describes the Messiah being executed. Here’s Daniel 9:24-27:
There has been much ink spilled over this very difficult section of Scripture. For this video, I’m choosing to limit myself to three reasons why the passage has been interpreted as referring not only to the work of the Messiah, but when he would arrive. In the prophecy, 490 years, or about 70 weeks of time, will pass between Jerusalem’s restoration and the coming of the Messiah. The phrase cut off implies that this Messiah will die. Jesus treats the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and the Messiah in Daniel 9 as one person. Additionally, the prophecy links the death of the Messiah with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, meaning Jerusalem and the Temple . As a result, animal sacrifices will cease. Jesus himself mentions the abomination of desolation coming during his Olivet Discourse and predicts that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. Let’s now look at the dates for this astonishing prediction.
JESUS CAME RIGHT ON TIME
Many commentators believe that the “sending forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” happened when the Persian King Artaxerxes commanded the Temple to be rebuilt in 457 BC. (Ezra 7) From there there’s the seventy weeks of years, which equals 490 years. That’s 33 AD, that’s the year many scholars believe Jesus was crucified! This is when Daniel says Messiah will be cut off. And then by 70 AD the city and sanctuary were destroyed.
You don’t have to trust my math. Let’s look at what the Jewish historian Josephus had to say: “We are convinced…that Daniel spoke with God, for he did not only prophesy about future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time at which these would come to pass.” (Antiquities 10.267-68)
And here’s the French mathematician Blaise Pascal. (You know…the guy who came up with probability theory): “One must be bold to predict the same thing in so many ways. It was necessary that the four idolatrous or pagan monarchies, the end of the kingdom of Judah, and the seventy weeks, should happen at the same time, and all this before the second temple was destroyed.” (Pensees 11.709)
Scholars debate the exact dates of this prophecy, but regardless of how one calculates them, the 490 years between the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah occurred before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The prophecy of Daniel has to be fulfilled in the first century.
Summing up, this background from Daniel gives us a glimpse into what many Jewish people in the first century longed for. Their hope was in the coming of God’s kingdom and the messianic Son of Man. Furthermore, this data explains why Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple, is so surprised by Daniel’s predictions. It also explains why a first-century Jew like Jesus could describe his own coming death-along with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple-as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Daniel did more than prophesy that the Messiah would come; he also predicted when he would come, what would happen to him, and what would happen to Jerusalem and its Temple. And it came to pass. During the first century. 2,000 years ago. Jesus of Nazareth, the proclaimer of God’s Kingdom and the Son of Man’s coming, was crucified 490 years after Jerusalem was restored by King Artaxerxes. This is rather stunning. The fulfillment of the prophecy goes to show that Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic. He’s the long-awaited Messiah who came just when Daniel predicted.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original blog source: https://bit.ly/3LEzW9e
There is No Right To a Dead Baby | with Frank Turek
PodcastAfter 49 years and 63 million dead, the Supreme Court finally overturned Roe v. Wade. Do you have a constitutional right to a dead baby? Finally, the Supreme Court has answered properly… NO.
However, despite this good news, there is still much work to do, as now the decision goes back to the individual states. As Christians and concerned citizens, what do we do now? In this episode of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Frank addresses the following questions:
Politicians and citizens on both sides of this issue can no longer hide behind the excuse, “Well, the life issue doesn’t really matter because the Supreme Court has tied our hands.”
Well, they just untied them. We must make a case for our position, and we need to do it now.
Resources mentioned in this episode:
Why Does God Allow Evil? Online PREMIUM course with Dr. Clay Jones
Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
The Ethics of Abortion Self-Paced Course with Scott Klusendorf
The Case for Life with Scott Klusendorf
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Las cinco razones principales por las que la fe no es lo que crees que es
EspañolPor Richard Eng
La definición bíblica de la fe es simple, sencilla y directa. Pero hay influencias tanto dentro como fuera de la iglesia que confunden la definición bíblica. Imagina la definición bíblica como los ingredientes de un batido de frutas. Las malas influencias son el chocolate, la sal, la pimienta y el pescado. Cuando lo mezclas todo, la bebida que antes era deliciosa se convierte en un desastre pegajoso, no precisamente apetitoso; una definición de la que el mundo se ríe. La parte engañosa de la ilustración del batido es la siguiente: la información falsa que se mezcla con la definición bíblica de la fe parece atractiva, pero al final conduce a una definición tan distinta de la original que cambia el significado. Los cristianos no podemos permitir que los falsos maestros y el mundo definan nuestros términos. Cuando perdemos nuestras definiciones, perdemos el control de la conversación. Los profesores ateos, las personalidades de youtube y los entusiastas comentaristas de las redes sociales devoran a los cristianos desprevenidos cuando preguntan: “Entonces, ¿dices que crees en un dios sin pruebas? ¿Y eso es la fe? ¿Por qué no crees en algo basado en evidencias?”.
Pero ¿es la fe una creencia sin evidencia? ¿Es otra cosa? Aquí están las Cinco Razones Principales por las que la Fe No es lo que Tú Crees que es.
La fe no es ciega
Realmente creo que este malentendido proviene de una mala interpretación de un pasaje bíblico conocido. 2 Corintios 5:7 dice, “porque por fe andamos, no por vista”. (LBLA) La gente toma este pasaje para dar a entender que la fe no tiene vista o es ciega. Como si ser cristiano fuera andar con los ojos cerrados. El mejor consejo que he escuchado sobre la lectura de la biblia es este, nunca leas un verso de la Biblia. Es decir, no leas solo un verso- siempre revisa el contexto.
Incluso echando un vistazo rápido al contexto, el apóstol Pablo está hablando de que este mundo no es nuestro hogar. Su punto en 5:7 es llevar a los creyentes a que no estén tan centrados en este mundo que llegan a olvidar que este no es su verdadero hogar. En otras palabras, no se dejen arrastrar tanto por este mundo que se olviden del siguiente, el que todavía no vemos.
La fe no es “creer sin pruebas”
Nosotros en FreeThinking Ministries citamos a menudo a los ateos para ver de primera mano lo que se dice del cristianismo. Aquí está Richard Dawkins, “La fe es la gran excusa para evadir la necesidad de pensar y evaluar la evidencia. La fe es la creencia a pesar de, incluso tal vez debido a la falta de pruebas”. (nota 1) Seguramente ese es el hombre de paja que Dawkins quiere levantar, e incluso los cristianos tomarán esta definición y correrán con ella. Pero, ¿es realmente la definición de la Biblia?
Alan Shlemon, colaborador de Stand to Reason, escribe,
“Pero esta definición es ajena a la Biblia. La palabra griega para fe, pistis, se deriva del verbo pisteuo, que significa “convencer con argumentos”. Hebreos 11:1 explica que la fe es “la fe es la certeza de lo que se espera, la convicción de lo que no se ve”. Algunas traducciones sustituyen “convicción” por “evidencia”. La fe, entonces, es estar convencido de que las cosas que no podemos ver (por ejemplo, Dios, el cielo, la resurrección, etc.) son reales.” (Enlace al resto del artículo)
Shlemon señala que cuando el autor de Hebreos dice, “convicción de lo que no se ve” (Heb. 11:1) quiere decir que, sencillamente, ¡todavía no vemos esas cosas! No quiere decir que no podamos verlas, o que la única manera de saber que son reales sea viendo. Es una pregunta retórica: “¿Ves a Jesús delante de ti? ¿No? Entonces es una convicción en aquel que aún no podemos ver”.
La fe no es un salto
Soren Kierkegaard, un filósofo del siglo XIX, inventó, o al menos se le atribuye la frase “el salto de fe”. Esto se basa en nuestros puntos anteriores, porque Kierkegaard ha dado forma a nuestra comprensión de la fe en occidente, de una manera sustancial. La comprensión de Kierkegaard sobre la creencia era muy parecida a la nuestra; la creencia debe estar justificada y ser verdadera. Pero Kierkegaard separó la fe de la evidencia, e hizo que la fe fuera más una experiencia que una afirmación sobre la realidad. Decía que la fe debe ser satisfecha con una intensa auto-reflexión, y la vida de fe es en última instancia, someterse a algo que no puede ser conocido en ningún sentido real. Para Kierkegaard, la fe es cerrar los ojos y saltar de un avión. ¿Quizás aparezca Jesús y te dé un paracaídas a mitad de camino? Pero esto no es seguro. Para Kierkegaard, la fe es un salto de tipo moneda al aire: tal vez lo consigas, o tal vez no. Pero nuestra fe es segura porque Jesús es quien dice ser, y hace lo que dice hacer.
La fe no es Todo o Nada
Los predicadores y los pastores explican, explícita o implícitamente, que si usted no es 100% creyente, entonces no cree en absoluto. Pero la Biblia enseña una historia diferente.
“Jesús le dijo: “¿Cómo si tú puedes? Todas las cosas son posibles para el que cree. 24 Al instante el padre del muchacho gritó y dijo: Creo; ayúdame en mi incredulidad. 25 Cuando Jesús vio que se agolpaba una multitud, reprendió al espíritu inmundo, diciéndole: Espíritu mudo y sordo, yo te ordeno: Sal de él y no vuelvas a entrar en él.” (Marcos 9: 23-25 LBLA)
Si somos sinceros, todos podemos identificarnos con este hombre. “Creo; ayúdame en mi incredulidad“, es un resumen perfecto de la lucha interna que todo cristiano experimenta. Es como buscar a Jesús para que te saque del agua cuando tienes un peso atado al tobillo. En ese momento estás concentrado en las pesas que te mantienen debajo, pero tu corazón anhela mirar hacia arriba. Entonces, ¡mira a Jesús! El punto de este pasaje es el siguiente: incluso si sólo estás 51% seguro de que Jesús hará lo que dice, Él puede trabajar con eso. Esta es la cuestión, lo único que sabes con un 100% de certeza es que existes, porque eres un ser pensante, además de las leyes lógicas y matemáticas como “1+1=2”. Aparte de eso tenemos que estar tranquilos viviendo en la tensión de la duda y las preguntas sin respuesta. Jesús nunca promete responder a todas nuestras preguntas. La mayoría del tiempo dice algo como: “Confía en mí y déjame trabajar”. No tengas miedo de la duda o de las preguntas sin respuesta, porque Dios sale a tu encuentro. Nuestras creencias deben tener razones que las respalden, y deben corresponder lo mejor posible a la realidad. Pero si tu expectativa es que el cristianismo te lleve a un lugar de 100% de certeza, la carne te hará mucho daño cuando nunca llegues allí.
La fe no es una sustancia
Creo que esto te va a doler, porque veo que los que asisten a la iglesia se tragan estas cosas. Lo triste es que no los culpo. Está de moda, es “espiritual”, ¡y se encuentra más de esta falsa enseñanza en las librerías que en las Biblias! Este es el movimiento de la fe, o de la palabra de fe. Escribiré más sobre esto más adelante, pero como un pasajero con asiento de ventanilla en un vuelo a casa, pueden mirar por la ventana y notar algunos puntos de referencia clave.
Los falsos maestros más eficaces en la iglesia utilizarán el mismo vocabulario, pero usarán un diccionario diferente. En otras palabras, usan las mismas palabras para hacer que parezca que están predicando la doctrina ortodoxa de la iglesia cuando en realidad están colando ideas que son mala filosofía.
Permítanme pintar una imagen:
Tu hijo está enfermo en el hospital. Llevas meses orando fielmente para que se cure… sabes que su vida corre peligro. Tus oraciones son fervientes y continuas, pero junto a su cama de hospital, estás al límite. En ese momento, ves a tu pastor entrar en la habitación. Te abraza en medio de la desesperación y comienzas a explicarle la situación. Después de escucharlo todo, te ofrece este consejo: “Bueno, me parece que Dios quiere curar a tu hijo a través de tus oraciones… pero no tienes suficiente fe. Si tuvieras suficiente fe, Dios lo sanaría”.
¿Has oído alguna vez eso? “¿No tienes suficiente fe?” ¿Has pensado eso? Permítanme ser claro, en ninguna parte de las escrituras hay siquiera un indicio de esta idea. ¡La fe es confianza! ¡Seguridad! ¡Creer en una persona confiable! La fe no es una sustancia o cosa, es el camino seguro hacia Jesús. El dice claramente: “porque en verdad os digo que, si tenéis fe como un grano de mostaza, diréis a este monte: Pásate de aquí allá, y se pasará; y nada os será imposible”. (Mateo 17:20) No se trata de la cantidad de tu fe, sino del objeto de tu fe. Dios creó las montañas, ¡si quiere moverlas puede hacerlo!
Entonces, ¿qué es la fe?
La fe, en su definición más pura, es casi indistinguible de la palabra creencia, excepto por un componente clave: si la fe es el 51% o más, la confianza compensa la diferencia. La fe es confianza, seguridad y firmeza, pero el conocimiento nunca puede llevarnos al 100% de certeza. Siempre hay una buena dosis de preguntas sin respuesta con las que toda persona se enfrenta. La diferencia es que el cristianismo ofrece una persona, Jesucristo, en la que depositamos nuestra confianza en las preguntas sin respuesta. El Dios del cristianismo es un ser máximamente grande, no puede mentir, no puede pecar, es fiel, es bueno, es justo, es amoroso, etc. Las preguntas sin respuesta descansano en el carácter de Dios. No tengas miedo de dudar, pero lleva esas dudas al pie de la cruz. Que tu fe se caracterice por el hombre que en plena y total vulnerabilidad de su corazón clama: “Creo… ¡ayúdame en mi incredulidad!”.
Notas de pie de página:
1. Una conferencia de Richard Dawkins extraida de The Nullifidian (Dec 94)
2. http://www.str.org/articles/is-faith-blind#.VrTQzDYrJmA (accessed 2/5/16)
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alisa Childers
This article is in response to this piece from The Gospel Coalition. As a past TGC contributor, as an act of good faith, I did express my concerns directly to TGC before posting my article here.
**Update** The Gospel Coalition was gracious to publish a condensed version of my article on their site.
No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist. And neither was Jesus.
Many years ago, my Christian beliefs were challenged intellectually by a progressive Christian pastor. It threw me into deconstruction that took several years to fully come out of. I would find out later that he himself had already deconstructed and had hoped to propel his congregation into deconstruction so he could convert them to progressive Christianity. He was very good at it. In fact, he was almost totally successful. A few of us came back around to a historically Christian understanding of the gospel, but most did not.
Because of this, when “deconstruction stories” started popping up in my social media newsfeed, along with hashtags like #exvangelical and #deconstruction, I paid attention. I’ve been following along… seeking to understand what people mean by those words.
I witnessed a hashtag turn into a movement.
As of today, there are 293,026 posts on Instagram utilizing the hashtag #deconstruction. The vast majority are from people who have either deconverted from Christianity, become progressive Christians, embraced same-sex marriage and relationships, rejected core historic doctrines of the faith,and/or are on a mission to crush the white Christian patriarchy. There are a few photos of deconstructed clothing (apparently this is a thing?) and a scant few sneaky posts from evangelicals attempting (mostly unsuccessfully) to convince the deconstructors that Jesus is the way. A plethora of insults, mockery, and anger are hurled at the church, along with memes stating, “I regret saving myself for marriage,” and “Good morning! It’s a great day to leave your nonaffirming church.”
Online, there are countless deconstruction therapy and counseling sites which will facilitate your deconstruction and reconstruct you with mindfulness or the contemplative practices of progressive Christian favorites like Richard Rohr. There are conferences you can attend, one for which I personally paid good money (for research purposes) to be taught how to break free from toxic religion, reject Christian dogma, and learn to embrace what basically added up to warmed-over Buddhism.
Phil Drysdale, a deconstructed Christian and deconstruction researcher asked people on Instagram to name the accounts that have helped them through their deconstructions. A quick scroll reveals that the leaders and guides the vast majority are looking to are accounts/people like Lisa Gungor, Audrey Assad, God is Grey, Jesus Unfollower, Your Favorite Heretics, Jo Luehmann, The Naked Pastor, and a plethora of others dedicated to providing a space for Christians to examine, reinterpret and/or abandon their beliefs. None of these accounts are encouraging Christians to look to Scripture as the authority for truth.
My Kingdom for a Definition
In my book, Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, which chronicles my own deconstruction journey, I define deconstruction this way:
In the context of faith, deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way into atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.
I would add that it rarely retains any vestiges of actual Christianity.
Over the past year or so, it has become common for Christian leaders to begin to refer to deconstruction as something potentially positive. I get it. When I first heard that take, I thought, “Hmmm. That could work. Just deconstruct the false beliefs and line up what you believe with Scripture.” I was operating from the foundational belief that objective truth exists and can be known. But as I continued to study the movement, this understanding of deconstruction became untenable.
That’s because the way the word is most often used in the deconstruction movement has little to do with objective truth, and everything to do with tearing down whatever doctrine someone believes is morally wrong. Take, for example, Melissa Stewart, a former Christian now agnostic/atheist with a TikTok following of over 200k. She describes how lonely and isolated she felt during her own deconstruction, and how discovering the #exvangelical hashtag opened up a whole new world of voices who related with what she was going through. Her TikTok platform now gives her the opportunity to create that type of space for others. In an interview on the Exvangelical Podcast, she commented on the deconstruction/exvangelical online space:
My biggest experiences with it were people talking about what they went through—their stories—and it was very personal and it focused on the human beings who have come out of this, rather than on whether a certain kind of theology is right or wrong.
In my experience studying this movement, I think she nails it on the head. Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It’s built upon a postmodern-ish embrace of moral relativism. For example, if your church says a woman can’t be a pastor, the virtuous thing to do would be to leave that church and deconstruct out of that toxic and oppressive doctrine. Deconstructionists do not regard Scripture as being the final authority for morality and theology—they appeal primarily to science, culture, psychology, sociology, and history.
A Life of Its Own
Now, the narrative is evolving. I’m seeing more and more posts, including the previously mentioned Gospel Coalition article, that portray Martin Luther and even Jesus himself as deconstructionists. This, in my view, is inherently irresponsible. If deconstruction means nothing more than changing your mind, or correcting bad ideas, then I can say I deconstructed by switching from AT&T to Verizon. Martin Luther was trying to reform the church to get back to Scripture. This is most certainly not what the deconstructionists are doing. In most cases, the Bible is the first thing to go. And when people put Jesus in the deconstruction camp…it’s unclear whether they mean he deconstructed his own views or he deconstructed the views of others. Either way, it’s seriously problematic. Deconstruction is not an appropriate term to use in these contexts.
It’s as if all of the sudden no one knows what the word means anymore, and they are somehow trying to redeem it or co-opt it to represent something like changing your mind or reforming your faith. Some in the deconstruction movement will argue that the current iteration of deconstruction is not to be conflated with the postmodern philosophy of Jacque Derrida, who is often referred to as the “Father of Deconstruction.” But I’m not convinced. Ultimately, Derrida didn’t believe that words could be pinned down to singular meanings. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose put it like this: “For Derrida, the speaker’s meaning has no more authority than the hearer’s interpretation and thus intention cannot outweigh impact.”[i]
Of course, for Derrida deconstruction had to do with text and words, not necessarily the dismantling of one’s faith. But it’s only a short jump from deconstructing the text of the Bible (which, I would argue, is typically the first stop on the path to deconstruction as it is manifesting today) to the complete unraveling of one’s orthodox Christian beliefs.
Here’s the irony. If we attempt to completely detach current deconstruction from Derrida and define it subjectively, we are literally deconstructing the word “deconstruction” a la Derrida. Why are we trying to co-opt a word and spin it into a positive? And if the meaning of the word deconstruction signifies any number of different things, at best we will be equivocating. At worst, we will have bought into the assumptions of postmodernism hook, line and sinker.
Matt Chandler is Right
Recent comments by Matt Chandler have made the rounds in which he characterized deconstruction as “the sexy thing to do,” hitting on the almost trendy type of cool factor the word now carries. Aside from giving the deconstructionists endless opportunities to make him the butt of their “Matt Chandler thinks I’m sexy!” jokes and memes, his comments (along with the recent comments by John Cooper of Skillet) have revealed that many Christians are using this one word in profoundly different ways. For example, Relevant magazine claims Chandler and Cooper have a “fundamental misunderstanding” of deconstruction. I disagree. I admit I’ve had a few quibbles with points Matt Chandler has made in recent years. But on this I think he understands something they don’t. He links deconstruction with the postmodernism of Derrida, and in a subsequent Instagram post, commented, “Deconstruction doesn’t mean doubt or theological wrestle or struggling through church hurt.” (All things he said he’s been through and has tons of mercy for.) I think he’s dead right.
We are Christians, and we should be deriving our vocabulary and categories from Scripture. I see nowhere in the Bible where anything like the current movement of deconstruction is promoted or condoned. I propose we leave it with Derrida and instead use biblical words and categories like doubt, reformation, discernment, and even sometimes, (gasp!) apostasy.
Let’s save deconstruction for what it presents itself to be. Here are some characteristics to look for if you think you might be deconstructing:
1. Some type of moral relativism is assumed, whether explicitly or implicitly. If Scripture is your authority, you are not deconstructing. That doesn’t mean you’re not struggling deeply with doubt, seeking healing from church abuse, or have profound confusion over what it means to be a Christian.
2. You are detaching from the body of Christ and seeking only the community of others who are also in deconstruction. If you are working through your doubts and questions in community with other believers, or at least have the intention of doing so, you are not deconstructing. Sometimes this will mean leaving an unbiblical church environment for a time, with the goal of finding a healthy one.
3. You are looking to non-Christian religious philosophies, history, or sociology—rather than Scripture— to determine authentic Christianity. Not that things like history and sociology are without merit, but if you are honestly seeking to derive your religious beliefs from Scripture, you are not deconstructing.
This doesn’t mean there’s no hope if you find yourself in actual deconstruction. Ten years ago, I found myself spiraling into deconstruction, and God in his unfathomable mercy and faithfulness led me out.
Let’s not Deconstruct Deconstruction
As Christians, we tend to protest when progressives and secularists take words and phrases like “love,” “tolerance,’ “biblical inspiration,” and “incarnation” and change the definitions to suit their preferences. Let’s not do the same with deconstruction.
Deconstruction has taken on a life of its own, and now is the time to be extremely careful to define our words accurately. After all, if the word means everything, then it means nothing, yet it carries the potential to suck unsuspecting Christians into a very dangerous vortex of ideas from which they might not return.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Olk2Cd
A Way To Simplify The Big Picture
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
Being able to make the case for the truth of Christianity means you have to understand it yourself. There are plenty of resources out there that can help you do that. I always try to share the best ones I know about. But right now, I want to offer you a visual tool as a way to simplify the “big picture.” This diagram helps categorize the facts supporting Christian Theism. It’s a way to organize the evidence for Christianity in your mind’s eye.
Confident Christianity
Last year, I developed this model into a book-length summary of the evidence for Christian theism. It is available now in both paperback and Kindle formats. You can order it here:
This book doesn’t make any claims about the theological nuances that are required to understand Christianity in detail. And it doesn’t address denominational differences between Christians. It is a simple summary of the evidence for “Mere Christianity” that we find in the real world. It’s a challenge to skeptics who may have dismissed Christianity as just another blindly-followed religious myth. And it’s an easy-to-read distillation of that evidence for Christians who may never have been exposed to all of it in one place. My goal in writing this book was to provide a basic, “big picture” overview for those who may have never been exposed to apologetics.
What Is Theism?
There are many different views of God. But they fall into three basic categories:
Christianity is a theistic religion. That means we should have evidence for some kind of theistic God who is separate from, but involved in, the universe. This is a God who created, sustains, and interacts with the world. Our diagram is a summary of the evidence for that kind of God.
First Things First – God Exists
I’ve summarized the case for God’s existence into three basic categories: Origins, Ethics, and Life. Here’s what I mean:
If this God exists, we must have evidence for the type of God who is a personal, moral agent. In order to create the physical universe, that God must exist outside of that universe. That means God can’t be part of the matter, energy, space, or time that makes up our world. He must be transcendent and non-physical. But it doesn’t stop there. Theism requires that God is also able to act within the universe he created.
These three foundational categories (origins, ethics, and life) contain all the evidence that explains things we know about our universe:
Obviously, there is a lot to each of these topics and I will provide resources to support each of them, but the takeaway is simply that our claim to believe that there is a God is not based on some kind of wishful thinking or irrational hope. It is based on evidence — concrete evidence about the way the world actually is.
Since we have evidence that there is a God and that this God’s attributes must be consistent with the evidence listed above, it follows that one of the theistic religions must be true. In order to determine which of the theistic religions is true, we need more specific information.
Specific Evidence For Christianity
The blue categories at the top of the diagram are what allow us to differentiate Christianity from the other theistic religions. Here, we look at data from archaeology and history. We can also compare the manuscript evidence from each of those religions in order to identify which of them is true. This is where the strength of the case for Christianity shines. No other religion even comes close to having the amount of evidence to support it:
That’s the case for Christian Theism in a nutshell. We can be confident that our faith is justified, not because it makes us feel good about ourselves, or because it “works for us,” but because it is actually true!
Now for the hard part.
The Ultimate Apologetic
If you aren’t already familiar with the information above, it won’t seep into your brain through osmosis. You have to be dedicated to familiarizing yourself with it. In the posts that follow, I will give you resources — videos, articles, and books — to help fill in the details of each of these categories of evidence. But remember, you don’t have to become a biblical scholar and master every subject listed above in order to prepare yourself and those you love to use them. Remember, the purpose of True Horizon is to look at the world with a view from 35,000 feet.
You simply have to understand the basics and be willing to go find answers. In the meantime, here are some fundamental things to understand about what this all means and how to use it:
Finally, always remember that you are not meant to convince people to agree with you. That’s not your job. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads them to the truth. You are not the one who saves them. That’s Jesus’ job.
Your mission is simple: know and speak the truth. “Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope you have” (1 Peter 3:15). You are only meant to train those in your little corner of the world to be prepared to engage people in a winsome way.
That’s your “job.” And when you’ve done it, relax … and let God do His.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3OvYYZk
The Babylon Bee vs. Postmodernism | with Kyle Mann
PodcastAre you ready to laugh and think your way through a timely update of a classic tale?
Kyle Mann, editor-in-chief of The Babylon Bee, joins Frank to discuss his new book, The Postmodern Pilgrim’s Progress (co-authored with Joel Berry). Part novel and part “sci-fi fantasy allegory”, The Postmodern Pilgrim’s Progress is a modern-day version of John Bunyan’s classic book and tackles subject matter that is unique to our culture today–including the prosperity gospel, deconstruction, humanism, evolution, skepticism, abortion, and more.
Here’s a short excerpt from the beginning of the book:
“On this journey, Ryan will learn something, which is more than most people who go on journeys can say. When he wakes up, he won’t remember the dream, but he will be a changed man. He will be made new somehow, even if he can’t explain exactly how. This will be the first in many thousands of dreams, interactions, moments, and strange coincidences that lead him to a moment every created being was created for: reconciliation with the Creator.”
In this episode, Frank and Kyle also talk about how The Babylon Bee got started, and the controversy surrounding their recent Twitter censorship. You don’t want to miss it!
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
La duda emocional y cómo combatirla
EspañolBy Brian Chilton
In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted that 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for all people, but it seems to be a more difficult concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men refrain from talking about their emotions. Many suppress emotional doubt and ignore it. However, these actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt can deal with issues related to the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.
Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated with a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some will say, “Wait, Brian! You’re talking about that psychology mumbo jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is a pretty good practice. Paul argues as follows:
“ Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any excellence or anything worthy of praise—think about these things.” (Phil. 4:6-8 ESV) [1]
The believer should focus on the things that strengthen his faith and not on the worries and fears that cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.
1.- Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You might say, “I’m sure I’m going to fail this test even though I studied hard for it. I’m too dumb to pass it.” Realize that these statements don’t correspond to reality. If you’ve studied hard for the test, then you’ve learned the information that will appear on it. You’re certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
2.- Eliminate your lies by arguing against them and giving reasons for your optimism. Secondly, argue against the lies you tell yourself with a positive and encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the exam it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, it is better to remind yourself that you have studied the material and that you have learned it quite well. Even if the worst happens and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it is, it is not as bad as you are making it out to be.
3.- Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and last, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I can do all things through Him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13, parenthesis mine). Understand this as well ” And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28 ESV). With these truths in mind, doubts and anxieties begin to lose their control.
CBT is a biblical practice that all believers should embrace. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. We are often our own worst enemies by being too scared to take risks, by playing the “what if” game. Don’t let fear and anxiety steal the grace God has given you any longer. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim. 1:7).
Note
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in Liberty University’s doctoral program in Theology and Apologetics. Brian has been in ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original blog source: https://bit.ly/39MVToY
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque
Mass Shootings & Pro-Choice Hysteria: Three Questions that Show the Insanity of Modern Moral Outrage
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Adam Tucker
As I sit at my computer thinking about the incomprehensible evil of yet another mass shooting, this time in Uvalde, Texas, the floods of outrage, sadness, fear, and uncertainty grip me as I’m sure they do many of you. Ironically, news of the tragedy broke just minutes before attending the end-of-year ceremonies at my kids’ school. Tears filled my eyes as I watched the boys and girls sing and receive their awards knowing that so many parents will not get to experience such joys after this latest tragedy. I truly cannot imagine.
Yet, while the news coming out of Texas is very disturbing, there is something else I can’t get out of my mind. Just over a week ago, my family and I had the opportunity to take in some of the landmarks in our nation’s capital. As we navigated busy crosswalks and a drizzly day around the National Mall, we began hearing loud music and very angry people shouting over a PA system. Once we reached the front of the White House (the obligatory photo op), we could see the area just below the Washington Monument covered with thousands of people pouring into the streets holding signs and banging drums. Little did we know, this was one of nearly 400 “Bans Off Our Bodies” rallies organized across the country to protest the recently leaked documents from the Supreme Court that point to a possible overturn of Roe v. Wade.
The sadness I feel about the Uvalde school-shooting was equaled by the anger and heartbreak I felt seeing the narcissism, hedonism, and utter foolhardy reasoning occurring at that pro-choice rally.
What is wrong with this scenario? How can we (rightly) mourn the loss of “our most vulnerable” one day and cheer for the death of the unborn (those who are truly our most vulnerable) the next? More to the point, how can we pretend that these utterly contradictory attitudes are sane?
To be frank, we can’t, and we shouldn’t, because such attitudes demonstrate the literal insanity that has taken over modern moral sensibilities and outrage. We can demonstrate this insanity by asking three important questions.
What is a ‘Right’?
No doubt, in the days to come there will be vicious calls for more gun laws, and more debates will occur over the right to bear arms. Likewise, those from the “Bans Off Our Bodies” rally will continue to argue that they have a right to an abortion, and those opposing them will argue the unborn have their own right to life. We constantly hear about gay rights, trans rights, equal rights, etc. This language of “rights” gets thrown around all the time, but what exactly is a right? It will be most helpful to first determine what a right is not.
Rights can’t be merely subjective preferences. If that were the case, then no mass shooter, abortionist, protester, Supreme Court Justice, etc. could, in principle, do anything objectively wrong. At most, we could say their behavior is not our preferred behavior, but why should anyone care about your preferred behavior? In this case, we could not say that anything is actually wrong (or right for that matter). That certainly doesn’t seem correct.
Nor can we conclude that rights are the types of things that apply universally to everything. After all, we don’t put lions on trial for killing a gazelle or even another lion. Hence, there seems to be something specific to human beings regarding rights.
Similarly, rights can’t just be a matter of legislation from some government body. Things like slavery used to be perfectly legal, but we rightly concluded that such behavior is objectively wrong regardless of its legality. Governments are tasked with protecting rights, not granting them. This understanding was foundational to the formulation of America’s founding documents (even if it was inconsistently lived out). It was also understood when even governments themselves, like Nazi Germany for example, were charged with crimes against “humanity” despite the legal grounds in Nazi Germany for killing Jews.
So rights are the kinds of things that aren’t merely opinions. They are not simply based on what is legal, and they seem to apply specifically to human beings. We’re getting closer to understanding what a right is, but what exactly does it mean to be human, and why do humans have these things we call rights?
Why Do Humans Have Rights?
Classically understood, a thing is what it is according to its nature. In other words, all humans are humans because we instantiate a common human nature (in a moderate-realist sense) that makes us a human rather than, say, a dog or a cat. This seems rather obvious, but it is in fact something that has been abandoned in our modern rationale where anyone can “be” anything they want to “be.” In reality, however, we all know this simple fact about natures. No one intentionally goes to the veterinarian rather than a medical doctor when he’s sick. Why? Because he knows the difference between humans and dogs!
Because we can know the natures of things, we can know what constitutes a thing’s good. Correctly understood, “good” is that which fulfills the end or purpose of some thing according to that thing’s nature. To quote Thomas Aquinas, “Good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary.” For example, an eye that doesn’t hear well provides no useful information regarding whether the eye is good or not. An eye that doesn’t see well, however, is an objectively bad eye because it does not fulfill its purpose according to its nature as an eye. Such an understanding turns to moral goodness because humans have a rational nature. We are able both to know what is good for us and choose whether to pursue that good or not. Because the good of our intellects is knowing truth, and the good of our wills is pursuing what the intellect perceives as good, acting contrary to reason just is to act immorally. What does this have to do with rights? We’re getting there.
Notice that this is a completely objective standard of goodness. For example, no matter how much someone wants his eyes to hear, they are simply not the kinds of things meant for hearing. We discover such truths about reality because of our ability to know the natures of things. We do not invent these truths. This understanding of morality is called natural law (based on the good according to our nature as human beings), and it is broadly the basis for our Declaration of Independence and the civil rights movement. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ … To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”
This knowledge of natural law gives us the foundation to discover the objective and unchanging human rights to which we’re all entitled based on our shared objective and unchanging human nature. To see why, consider this. Because we are by nature social creatures, we rely on each other for our well-being in various ways (both positively and negatively). As Christian philosopher Dr. Edward Feser observes,
From this understanding we can extrapolate, among other things, the basic rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Of course, this does not mean that we are free to pursue our personal idea of “happiness” without limits. Quite the opposite. We are, after all, naturally directed to pursuing what is actually true and what is actually good. Much like my children having fun on the playground, they are free to play anywhere within the bounds of the playground (their “good” if you will), but they are not free to play in the street. As Feser goes on to say,
What are the Implications for Modern Moral Outrage?
Given the knowledge that human rights are based on the natural law thinking outlined above, we can ask our final question: what are the implications of this understanding for the modern moral outrage we see all around us?
While not all of our social ills can be blamed on any one thing, there is one issue that has contributed to societal downfall more than perhaps any other. That issue is sex. Let’s briefly examine this issue in light of our natural law reasoning. We can see that human sexual faculties are directed towards the dual purposes of procreation and emotional bonding with the opposite sex. Intercourse naturally results in children who require the long-term care of a mother and father. Adultery, pornography, promiscuity, homosexual behavior, and many other misdirected sexual behaviors are directly contrary to the good of our sexual faculties. Therefore, such behaviors are necessarily bad for us regardless of someone’s particular feelings or desires (after all, we all have desires on which we ought not act).
Recall the Aquinas quote above, “Good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary.” Since human rights are based in natural law, and natural law shows the necessarily evil nature of the modern sexual revolution, we can see that someone cannot rationally argue for sexual vice by claiming her “rights” are being violated. Why? Because no such rights exist (that is not to say that there needs to be government-enforced laws against every vice). Moreover, if someone wants to simply jettison this natural law reasoning all together, then she is also eliminating the very possibility of objective human rights, in which case, there is no rational argument to be made for keeping “bans off [your] bodies.” You can’t have it both ways.
Feser summarizes the situation well,
We are left with a culture whose moral reasoning is truly insane, having largely been blinded by decades of sexual vice masquerading as sexual freedom. This is how such a culture can in one breath rightly mourn the tragic loss of young lives, and use the next breath to hysterically shout about a “woman’s right to choose” to murder her unborn baby. It truly is a psychosis that must be countered with a generation of well-trained and sober-minded individuals who are prepared to tackle the insanity head-on.
In short, there can be no legitimate moral outrage apart from human rights. And there can be no actual human rights apart from natural law. But natural law shows that things like abortion, homosexual behavior, adultery, pornography, etc. are necessarily bad for us (i.e., evil). Thus, we have no “rights” to such things. These ideas stand or fall together.
The simple fact is, without moral sanity there can be no real social justice. To once more quote Feser’s summation of the issue,
One Last Thought
The astute reader may notice that no Bible verses have been quoted thus far. That may seem like a slap in the face to some, but it is indicative of the common grace and general revelation God has given all of us. A strong case can be made for objective morality apart from any appeal to God or the Bible. On the flip side, the reality of objective morality, based on natural law, can serve as the basis for a strong argument for the existence of God. In turn, such an argument can then lead to a demonstration of the truthfulness of Christianity as a whole.
May wise Christ-followers use the reality of modern moral outrage as a springboard for pointing others to the truth of the Gospel. Ultimate healing of broken homes, broken lives, and evil hearts can only come through the hope and salvation found in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As we live out the Christian life amidst the insanity around us, let us do so with 2 Tim. 2:24-26 in our minds,
Recommended resources related to the topic:
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adam Tucker is the Director of Recruiting & Admissions at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Ranked one of the Best Apologetics Graduate Programs by TheBestSchools.org, since 1992 Southern Evangelical Seminary has provided an integrated approach to theology, philosophy, and apologetics in order to equip Christians to persuasively proclaim the Gospel, engage the culture, and defend the Faith in a secular world.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3OxIJe9
Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? An Analysis of the Warning Passages in Hebrews
Theology and Christian ApologeticsA significant point of contention in regard to the book of Hebrews is whether a genuine believer can lose their salvation, or whether falling away from the faith merely evidences the fact that one had never truly come to share in Christ. At the center of this controversy are the warning passages, which are found in Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39, and 12:14-29. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Biblical evidence on whether a professing Christian who walks away from the faith forfeits their salvation, with a particular focus on the book of Hebrews.
A fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics is that the unclear passages should always be interpreted in light of clearer texts. This follows from the premise that the Biblical texts, being divinely inspired, though composed by different authors, are a unit. That is to say, they are internally consistent in all that they teach. When interpreting difficult and hotly debated texts in the book of Hebrews, therefore, we must ask ourselves first what the rest of the Scriptures teach about this topic. Ideally, we would particularly want to analyse any other books by the same author to provide illumination on his probable intended meaning in the book in which we are interested. Unfortunately, the authorship of Hebrews is widely debated among New Testament scholars and no clear consensus has been reached. However, irrespective of the actual author(s), the text does show evidence of reflecting Pauline thought, and was very likely composed by an associate of Paul, if not by Paul himself [1]. An examination of the Pauline corpus, therefore, can give us some insight into the broader theology of the author of Hebrews. We must then examine the book of Hebrews itself to determine whether other texts, beside the warning passages under investigation, provide illumination on the question before us. Finally, it is incumbent upon us to analyse the context of each of the five warning passages, and how they fit into the general argumentative flow of the book of Hebrews.
A Brief Survey of the New Testament as a Whole
Much could be written on what the New Testament has to say about eternal security. However, since the focus of this paper is the book of Hebrews, I will keep my comments brief. Various statements in the gospels seem to indicate strongly that one cannot lose one’s salvation. For example, Jesus stated that “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:37-40). Thomas R. Schreiner observes that “the parallelism establishes that comes and believes are synonyms. Thus, to say that those given by the Father ‘will come’ to the Son also means that they ‘will believe’ in the Son.”[2] Jesus further stated that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:44). The two references to “him” in this verse clearly allude to the same individual, namely, he who was drawn. The implication is that the one who is drawn will ultimately be raised up on the last day. Jesus later goes on to say, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” (John 10:27-29). In Greek, the phrase denoting “they will never perish” is οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The expression οὐ μὴ is a double negative, used in Greek for emphasis. It hence may be best translated “they will never ever perish.” Again, this supports the doctrine of eternal security.
One possible counter example that may be given to these texts in the gospels is the falling away of Judas, one of the Twelve. However, John 6:64-65 suggests that Judas was not a genuine believer even prior to his betrayal of Jesus: “‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” The use of the expression “Διὰ τοῦτο…” (“This is why…”) links verse 65 with verse 64, indicating that the reason Jesus foreknew who would forsake the faith is because he knew before time to whom the ability to come to Jesus had been granted by the Father. The foot washing episode at the last supper adds further support to the idea that Judas was not in fact a believer prior to the betrayal: “‘And you are clean, but not every one of you.’ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean,” (John 13:10).
Multiple texts outside of the gospels also support the doctrine of eternal security. In 1 John 2:19, the apostle John also speaks of false prophets, saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This is consistent with the view that falling away is not a forfeiting of one’s salvation but rather an evidence that one has never truly walked with Christ. The only viable alternative interpretation of this text is to read it as saying that they “went out from us because they were no longer of us.”[3] However, this is special pleading, since the Greek word οὐκέτι (“no longer”) is completely absent from this passage.
Peter indicates that believers “by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time,” (1 Peter 1:5). The phrase “being guarded” (φρουρουμένους) expresses the concept that the inheritance of a believer is preserved by God. 2 Peter, however, also contains a warning passage against falling away that is not unlike those found in Hebrews (2 Peter 2:20-22): “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’” Peter, then, seems to uphold both that salvation is conditional upon remaining in the faith and that those who are saved will persevere to the end.
What about the Pauline corpus? Does it provide any additional support for eternal security? One helpful text here is Paul’s statement to the Christians in Philippi that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 1:6). Similarly, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Corinthians 1:8, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). These affirmations would seem to point in the direction of perseverance in the faith being accomplished by God Himself. Paul also writes to the Romans that “those whom [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified,” (Romans 8:29-30). This text sets up an unbroken chain of redemption from God’s active foreknowledge to the calling of the believer, to their justification and ultimate glorification. In other words, everyone who is called and justified by God will certainly be glorified.
Of interest to the present study, however, there are also warning passages to be found in the Pauline corpus. For example, Paul writes “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister,” (Colossians 1:21-23). Paul also writes, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness,” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). The affirmation of eternal security, together with an affirmation that salvation is conditional upon perseverance, is something also found in Hebrews, as we shall see. Paul, however, holds those two apparently conflicting ideas together. He writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). In other words, while salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith, a true believer will not fail to persevere. Of course, this raises a question about the purpose of the warning passages in Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament: Why does one need to be warned if there is no danger of falling away? I shall return to this question later in this paper.
An Analysis of Clear Texts in the Book of Hebrews
Having briefly surveyed Biblical books outside of the epistle to the Hebrews, we must turn our attention to analyse any clear texts within Hebrews itself that might provide illumination as to relevant beliefs the author holds relating to the subject. Indeed, while the unity of Scripture is a justified working assumption that falls out of the doctrine of inspiration, we must be open to the possibility of this methodological presupposition being falsified.
The author of Hebrews tells us that a necessary consequence of coming to share in Christ is holding “our original confidence firm to the end,” (Hebrews 3:14). The implication here is that if one does not persevere in the faith then that individual has not come to share in Christ – confirming the numerous statements in other New Testament literature and thereby supporting our working assumption of Scriptural unity. Indeed, “Careful attention to the wording shows that these lines do not cite what will be true if they hold on, but what is already true of them, if in fact they endure. Their endurance through temptation will be the evidence of their vital connection to Christ. The writer asserts that their continuance in faith will demonstrate that they are members of God’s household, not that it will make it so in the future. Holding on to their confidence will reveal the reality they already have come to share in Christ, not what they will share. By continuing in faith, they demonstrate the work Christ has already begun and will certainly accomplish in them.” [4]
Another relevant text in Hebrews is the author’s statement that “[Christ] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them,” (Hebrews 7:25). This presents a theological conundrum for the view that salvation may be forfeited by falling away, since if Christ is standing making intercession on behalf of those who are His and yet they are falling away, the conclusion seems inescapable that the intercession and prayers of the Son are being rejected by the Father, thereby implying a dissension within the godhead.
Any attempt to understand the soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, must make sense of both the statements given above and the warning passages. It is to these warning passages that I now turn.
Are the Warning Passages Addressing Genuine Believers?
The first question we must address is whether the warning passages are addressed to genuine believers and speak of a falling away of someone who truly believed. Perhaps the most famous of the warning passages is that found in Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Verses 4-6 state that “it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” The contextual background of this text seems to be that the audience to whom the author was writing were failing to make spiritual progress and were in a state of spiritual infancy and lethargy (Hebrews 5:11; 6:12). The author thus warns them in the strongest of terms about the danger of falling away, a step they were on the verge of taking. Indeed, the author consistently refers to the potentiality of taking this next step rather than its actuality (Hebrews 2:1; 3:12-13; 4:11, 11, etc). Thus, he says in 6:9, “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things – things that belong to salvation.”
Throughout the homily of Hebrews, the author alludes to the danger of his audience drifting away from or neglecting the gospel of salvation (Hebrews 2:1,3), of throwing away their confidence, and shrinking back from faith (Hebrews 10:35, 38-39). They were on the verge of unbelief and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:12-13,19), disobedience (3:18; 4:6, 11), and rejecting God (Hebrews 12:25). Verses 26-31 say, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Verse 29 speaks of how the apostate has “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” The interpretation of this text rests in large measure on the identification of the referent of the pronoun of this verse. If the pronoun refers to the individual who deliberately carries on sinning, then this would suggest that the text is speaking of a genuine believer, who had undergone sanctification by Christ’s blood, who has fallen into consistent rebellion against God. Alternatively, a minority of interpreters, in order to avoid the force of this text, have suggested instead that the pronoun of verse 29 may be referring to Christ who was sanctified, since Christ is said earlier in the homily to have “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).[5] However, this seems to be an ad hoc interpretation. Randy Booth comments, “Some contend that the words ‘by which he was sanctified’ refer to Jesus (see John 17:19). Such an interpretation cannot be sufficiently supported. Moreover, even if they did refer to Jesus, it must be admitted that the word ‘sanctify’ is used in a different way than it is earlier in Heb. 10:14. Surely the sanctification experience of Jesus is far different from that which we experience.”[6]
Another interpretation, offered by Wayne Grudem, is that the sanctification being referred to here is outward and ceremonial, since it is found in a context where a comparison is being made to the Levitical sacrifices.[7] Thomas Schreiner points out, rightly in my view, two problems with this approach. One is that “a similar argument could be made regarding the cleansing of the conscience, for the author contrasts the cleansing of the conscience with that provided by the Levitical system. Thus, on Grudem’s own terms it is methodologically possible that the cleansing of the conscience is also external and not saving.”[8] Schreiner also points out that “the contrast with Levitical sanctification is intended to emphasize the superiority of Christ’s work. The contrast and comparison with the Levitical system does not indicate that the sanctification provided by Christ is merely external, for throughout Hebrews the old covenant outwardly symbolizes what is now an inward reality through Christ. Grudem, by relegating the sanctification in Hebrews 10:29 to ceremonial sanctification, actually contravenes one of the major themes of Hebrews, namely, what was anticipated in shadowy form in the Old Testament has now become a reality in and through the sacrifice of Christ.”[9]
The other three warning passages also appear to be addressed to believers. In Hebrews 2, the author cautions his readers against “drifting away from” (2:1) and “neglecting” (2:3) the “great salvation.” Given that a major theme of the book of Hebrews is the readers’ spiritual lethargy and disposition to return to the things of the old covenant (which were but shadows of the reality in Christ), the best way to interpret this text, in my judgment, is that it addresses genuine believers who are at risk of falling away. That this warning is addressed to believers is also suggested by the use of the inclusive pronoun ἡμᾶς (“we”) in Hebrews 2:1.
The warning passage in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 also appears to be directed towards believers, since 3:12 says “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” The fact that the author addresses the audience of the warning as ἀδελφοί (“brothers”) suggests that his exhortation is directed towards fellow believers.
Finally, the warning in Hebrews 12:14-29 is best understood as being directed at believers. The author writes “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel,” (Hebrews 12:22-24). This strongly suggests that the addressees are genuine believers. In the verse that immediately follows, the author says, “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven,” (Hebrews 12:25). The second person plural pronoun (“you”) in this text refers to the same audience as that in verse 22, indicating strongly that the warning is given to individuals who are true believers.
For the reasons given above, it, therefore, seems most plausible to me that the “falling away” spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-6 and the other warning passages refers to genuine apostasy where a true believer forsakes the gospel of his salvation. If that is indeed the case, then it would appear that salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith. What is not as clear, however, is whether this implies that a true believer can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away. It is to this question that I now turn.
Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?
If, as I have argued, the warning passages of Hebrews are addressed to believers, does this imply that a Christian can lose their salvation? If so, we would be required either to re-evaluate our methodological presumption of the unity of Scripture, or to re-evaluate the numerous texts in the rest of the New Testament that I have argued support eternal security. Some interpreters have gone down this route and have argued that loss of salvation is indeed a possibility for the believer. For example, Scot McKnight has offered an analysis of all five of the warning texts, in which he argues that believers are indeed in view and that a Christian can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away.[10] Howard Marshall likewise argues that a Christian can lose their salvation by falling away, since, he argues, the warning passages are robbed of their meaning if a believer cannot in fact stray from the faith and forfeit their salvation by so doing. [11] Nonetheless, he argues that falling away is the exception rather than the rule, as revealed by the texts which speak of the preserving grace of God. According to Marshall, the relationship between God’s threats and promises is paradoxical and cannot be understood.[12] Marshall also reinterprets texts outside of the book of Hebrews that appear to teach eternal security of the believer. For example, he suggests that the golden chain of redemption spoken of in Romans 8:29-30 can in fact be broken by the believer.[13]
Another approach that has been offered in an attempt to get around the implication that a believer can forfeit their salvation is argued by Charles Stanley[14], R.T Kendall[15], and Zane C. Hodges [16] [17]. These authors argue that the warning passages, though directed at believers, actually concern the loss of rewards, or the loss of a happy and fruitful Christian life. According to this perspective, everyone who ever confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved, no matter what fruit (or lack thereof) is borne in the life of the believer. Kendall, for example, suggests that the kingdom of God spoken of in warning texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:21 refers not to heaven but instead to God dwelling in the hearts of believers[18]. Likewise, when it comes to the warnings in Hebrews, Kendall argues that the texts are warning about the loss of rewards, not their eternal salvation. [19] However, this approach errs in the divorcing of salvation from good works and perseverance in the faith. Numerous texts throughout the New Testament indicate that good works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith and provide the grounds of assurance of one’s salvation. Indeed, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” (James 2:17).
My own opinion is that, though the warning passages are indeed addressed to believers, and though the warning texts refer to a genuine apostasy, a Christian cannot lose their salvation. We have already seen that the apostle Paul upheld both the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith. If those ideas can indeed be held in harmony, then there is no reason to think that the book of Hebrews teaches that a Christian can forfeit their salvation.
I would argue that the interpretive key is found in Hebrews 3:14, discussed earlier in this paper, which says “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” This is consistent with what is said in the Pauline corpus concerning apostasy. For example, he writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). The soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, does not appear to be different from that of Paul and Peter. All three uphold both eternal security and the requirement of perseverance for salvation. Both hold those two doctrines together by maintaining that the test of a true believer is that they will persevere in the faith. In numerous texts, Paul indicates that certain behaviours, including perseverance, necessarily accompany true salvation and warns believers to test themselves to ensure that they are indeed in the faith (e.g. 2 Corinthians 13:5-6).
The Purpose of the Warning Passages
This still, however, leaves unaddressed the question of why Paul and the author of Hebrews feel a need to include the warning passages. If true believers will not fail to persevere, what sense is there in warning them that they must persevere in the faith in order to inherit salvation? The answer I find most satisfying is what Thomas Schreiner has called “the means of salvation” view. [20] That is to say, observing and taking heed of the warning passages is the means by which we obtain salvation. This is not works-based salvation, since, in my view, perseverance is a necessary expression of true faith and anchored in the sustaining grace of God. While works are necessary for salvation, those works are not meritorious. Rather, works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith. So powerful is God’s grace that it not only imparts to the believer salvation apart from any meritorious works on our part, but it also regenerates the believer. Indeed, “what is striking about the Scriptures is that the passages concerning the steadfastness of God’s faithfulness and the passages with admonitions are inseparable. We do not encounter a single passage that would allow anyone to take the immutability of the grace of God in Christ for granted.”[21]
A helpful illustration to convey the purpose of the warning passages is to be found in the shipwreck of Paul on route to Rome in Acts 27:13-44. Paul says to the sailors, “I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship,” (verse 22) since an angel had told Paul that “God has granted you all those who sail with you,” (verse 23). Nonetheless, “Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, ‘Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved,’” (verse 31). Here, Paul has been guaranteed by God that all of those with him on the ship will be saved. However, Paul also candidly warns the sailors that to be saved they must remain with the ship. In other words, their salvation was conditional upon their perseverance with the ship, but God fulfilled the condition by causing them to persevere. God uses means to accomplish His ends, and in this case, God used Paul’s warning to those with him on the ship that they needed to remain with the doomed vessel in order to be saved. I would argue that God uses means to bring about the perseverance of those who are being saved. One of these means is through the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in Scripture.
Some may be concerned that God guaranteeing that true believers will persevere in the faith – and, indeed, God’s sovereign election of His saints – conflicts with human free will. However, the compatibilist view is that God works through our free choices. So exhaustive is God’s knowledge of His creatures, even before they are born, that He knows how they will behave given different contingent counterfactuals. Thus, using this divine middle knowledge, God can create a world in which His purposes are accomplished (including the salvation and perseverance of His elect) without compromising human free will.[22]
The idea that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith is further supported by the Olivet discourse, where Jesus says, “See that no one leads you astray (Mark 13:5). Jesus goes on to speak of the terrible persecution that Jesus’ followers are to endure. He says that “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). However, notice how Jesus indicates that God also uses means by which the endurance to the end is brought about. He goes on to say that “in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days,” (Mark 13:19-20). In other words, God would providentially shorten the days of persecution for the sake of His elect, so that they would indeed persevere to the end.
Conclusion
In summary, I have argued that while the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament are directed towards believers and concern the real danger of apostasy, the New Testament teaches that this condition is fulfilled by God Himself, who causes true believers to persevere in the faith. If, then, someone fails to persevere in the faith, that provides evidence that they were never truly saved. I have argued that the warning passages serve as part of the means through which God ensures the perseverance of His saints. The Lord’s sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, which warns and admonishes them, lest they should stray from the path of salvation and perish.
Footnotes
[1] David Alan Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” Faith & Mission 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 3-26.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 32-62.
[3] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source, 1981), 357.
[4] Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. H. W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 207.
[5] James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice, Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises (Part II),” Eamon Younis, March 30 2020, http://eamonyounis.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-newness-of-new-covenant-better_30.html.
[6] Randy Booth, “Covenant Transition,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 298.
[7] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism, Volume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 177-178.
[8] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 49-50.
[9] Ibid., 50.
[10] Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59.
[11] Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969), 196-216.
[12] Ibid., 210-211.
[13] Ibid., 103.
[14] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990).
[15] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).
[16] Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981).
[17] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1989 and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).
[18] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 125-130, 159-184.
[19] Ibid., 177-178.
[20] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 32-62.
[21] Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance, trans. R. D. Knudsen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 116-117.
[22] Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereinty: A Molistinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010).
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3bo21og
Can We Create a Turning Point? | with Charlie Kirk
PodcastFrank has been speaking at 15-20 college campuses per year since 2007. The reason he goes there is because the college campus is probably the most anti-Christian piece of real estate in the United States of America. When we conduct a session on campus—it takes our team and a Christian host group on campus to do so—we are throwing a lifeline to the Christian students who attend, and we are putting a stone in the shoe of the skeptics who show up. But too few people are doing this. So when we find someone who is—and doing it remarkably effectively—we want to tell you about that person.
In this episode, Frank welcomes his friend Charlie Kirk who heads an organization called TurningPoint USA. TPUSA has thousands of college and high school chapters that encourage students to defend conservative and biblical values.
Frank and Charlie discuss many important topics including:
What are the top objections Charlie hears on college campuses?
How do you respond to them?
How can we prepare our kids before they go to college?
Where can you go for good worldview training?
What events are coming up for young adults and pastors that can be helpful?
What about starting a classical education school in your neighborhood?
How do you respond to people who say that getting involved in politics can turn people off to the gospel?
And more…
Links referred to in the program:
https://www.tpusa.com/
https://www.tpusa.com/pastors
https://www.tpusa.com/faithresources
https://www.tpusa.com/SAS
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher