Perseverance in the Hands of Jesus, What a blessing!

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is probably the doctrine of grace which is most accepted by non-Calvinists. They usually call it "once saved always saved" or "eternal security." I have said elsewhere why I think the Reformed phrasing is much more biblical. Of course, any Arminian who holds the doctrine, by whatever title, is acting inconsistently with his theological worldview.

For me, the knowledge that my eternal state is in the hands of Jesus, not my own, is a source of great comfort. The strength of His hands cannot fail: "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). The Father and the Son act together to keep me in their love, not just for the rest of my life, but for all eternity. What peace there is in that knowledge! I can understand why Arminians want to hold this truth, contrary to the rest of their free-will theology.

Paul also has a very tender statement about the doctrine of perseverance: "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:1-4). In a passage about the weaker brother, Paul tells us that it is not our solicitude for that brother that will keep him from falling. Solicitude is merely the natural outworking of brotherly love. Rather, it is the Lord who keeps him from falling! 

The Arminians who hold to eternal security do so for sentimental reasons, not theological. It feels good to be safe for eternity! And I am certainly glad that they have better sense in the sentiment than they do in their theology. However, their sentimentality comes from their failure to understand all that Scripture says about the grace of our sovereign God. I am glad that, when sentiment runs out, I have a sound biblical foundation for my assurance.

The Immortality of the Human Spirit

Both Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrine called "conditional immortality." This is not the same thing as annihilationism, but is related to it. According to their doctrine, a man's spirit is as mortal as is his body. If he believes in Jesus, then his spirit will be made immortal at the resurrection. However, in this life, they claim, there is no difference between the condition of the believer's spirit and the unbeliever's spirit. Only the believer has eternal life (and that doesn't become effectual until the resurrection).

That is not at all biblical.

Let's start with the logical fallacy of bait and switch which underlies the doctrine. The JW's and SDA's make eternal existence mean the same thing as eternal life. That would mean that only the believer, having eternal life, therefore has eternal existence. That equivalency is false.

Every human being, since Adam, and excluding Jesus alone, has entered life with a spirit with eternal existence, but dead: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). Contrary to the assumption of the conditionalists, men do not start in a neutral condition. They start out as spiritually dead, and enter continuing eternal death.

The unbeliever remains in his dead condition: "Whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). Therefore, when his body dies and he enters eternity, it is not as a person who now dies spiritually. That has always been his condition! Therefore, he enters eternity dead, and continues as such for all eternity in Hell (II Peter 2:9).

The believer on the other hand, at the moment he believes, becomes alive for the first time: "You, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him" (Colossians 2:13). The believer has changed condition, from death to new life, what the Bible calls being born again (John 3:3-7) and new creation (I Corinthians 5:17). He doesn't begin eternal life at the resurrection. he begins eternal life at the moment that he believes! And now, when his body dies, that principle of spiritual life remains, and he is immediately taken into the presence of the ascended Jesus (II Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21-23).

All of this goes to show that there is nothing conditional about spiritual immortality. What is conditional is whether a man will remain eternally dead, or will he become alive in the new birth by Jesus Christ. The JW and SDA doctrine has much too low a view of the new life, in my opinion.

Ellen White and the Biblical View of Women's Ordination

In I Timothy 2:11-12, the Apostle Paul leaves this instruction for the church: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." In the light of that text, I have a question for Seventh-Day Adventists: On what grounds do you overturn this biblical requirement by giving such prominence to the teachings of Ellen White?

The God-Centeredness of God

I love the first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to love God and enjoy Him forever." That one question gives a well-rounded purpose to a man's life and puts God at the center. I think that even Arminians will agree with the answer, though their theology is inconsistent with such a profession. The average professing Christian on the street, if asked, "What is the chief end of God?" would answer, "God's chief end is to love me and to cause me to enjoy my life of autonomy."

What is the biblical answer to that question? "God's chief end is to glorify and enjoy Himself forever."

In the Scriptures, while God certainly expresses His love for His people, we always seem to gloss over His expressions of love for Himself. We read of God's calling out of Israel to be His special covenant people (such as Deuteronomy 7:7). However, when was the last time that you heard anyone read this verse: "I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt" (Ezekiel 20:9)? Or this one: "I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came" (Ezekiel 36:21)? While Israel was certainly the beneficiary of God's covenantal love, that wasn't the reason that He gave it. It wasn't for their sakes, but for the sake of His own glory.

That's why God says, through His prophets, twice, "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11). And that is whether we are talking about another deity, another man, or even to the state. He reserves it to Himself. Both atheists and Arminians attack that concept as an ego trip. However, the accusation shows an irrational hatred of the sovereignty of God. Isn't an ego trip thinking of one's self as greater than is actually the case? Yet, how can God think of Himself - or we think of Him - more highly than He deserves? The accusation is self-refuting!

Faith Is a Gift, but Not One from Us to God

"Faith" has become a psychological term in modern America. Any time someone has a crisis, the advice he gets is that he "just has to have faith." Faith in what? Or in whom? Nothing, but just faith in faith.

Even among professing Christians, the word has lost its biblical content. While evangelicals still profess to believe that we aren't saved by works, they have come to mean "saved by faith" as saved by a merit that I offer to God. I have even been asked by a Mormon, "Isn't faith a work?" And the answer is no, it's not a work. Nor is it a merit that earns us salvation. God is not impressed with our giving Him our faith, as if He

were a wife impressed by roses from her husband. But isn't that the attitude that most people have? "Gee, God, aren't you honored that I place my faith in You?"

And, no, He isn't.

If the wife in my analogy told her husband that she wanted flowers, and gave him the money to buy them, would she feel special because of his "gift"? Obviously not! Even less if she handed him the flowers, to be handed back to her.

In the same way, God is not obligated to us by the faith that He creates in us. Oh, no! He didn't just say that! Yeah, I did.

"By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). These words from Paul are repeated frequently. And properly so! However, it is rare that the person spouting them actually pays attention to what he is saying. It is usually quoted to prove justification by faith. but is that exactly what it say? No, it's not. Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith. Faith is the instrument of salvation, the means by which it is applied, not its basis. It is grace that saves, according to these verses. What is grace? Grace is God's application of the merits of Christ. That is why Paul goes on to say that it is a gift!

The Christian is saved by grace, which produces faith in the believer. The believer does not produce faith. therefore, it cannot have merit before God. "Through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3 NASB). Here Paul explicitly states that faith is given by God, though in different levels in respective Christians (compare Mark 9:24).

That which God gives us cannot be then something that we can claim as merit before Him.

The Sabbath Must Last Through Our Mortal Existence

A common objection that I hear to the Fourth Commandment is that "Jesus is our Sabbath." It's a slogan, not something the speakers have ever actually thought through. Where does the Bible say that? What would it mean for Jesus to be our Sabbath? And, if Jesus fulfilled the Fourth Commandment, such that it is now abrogated, what about the rest of the Commandments?

What is the purpose of the Sabbath? There are several ways to answer that question. I will focus on just one in this article.

God answers this question in two places. Through Moses in Exodus 31:13, He said, "Above all you shall keep My Sabbaths, for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you." And again in Ezekiel 20:12, "I gave them My Sabbaths, as a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them." Both verses emphasize the role of the Sabbath as an occasion for God to sanctify us, to make us more like Him.

That explains what the writer of Hebrews meant (Hebrews 4:9), when he wrote, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." We do not yet experience that rest in this life because we are not yet fully sanctified, a process that continues through the rest of our mortal existence. Therefore, the Sabbath must also continue for just as long.

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Immortality of the Soul

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, upon death a person's spirit disintegrates, to be recreated by God at the resurrection. Their official website says, "the soul dies when the person dies; it is not immortal. Since a person is a soul, to say that someone died is to say that his soul died." In addition to being unbiblical, that sentence is deceptive. I will address the first problem, and then come back to the second.

The Watchtower has a problem with selecting isolated verses, then putting their particular spin on them, while ignoring everything else the the Bible says on the matter. This doctrine is a case in point.

In Acts, chapter 7, Stephen the Deacon gives an evangelistic sermon to a crowd of Jews, who are incited against him. Incited so severely that they stone him. As he lay dying, Stephen uttered a final prayer: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59). Just by itself, this verse refutes the Watchtower doctrine. If Stephen's spirit would disintegrate when he dies, then what does he expect Jesus to receive? This man of the Lord obviously expected his spiritual essence, not just to survive the death of his body, but even to go to be with his Savior, thus ruling out any concept of Purgatory, too.

And now, for the deceptive element in the Watchtower comment quoted above. It correctly states that a person is a soul (Genesis 2:7). Then it says that to say a person has died is to say that his soul has died. That is equivocation of the most egregious kind. They use "soul" to mean a person and "soul" to mean spirit in the same sentence, treating them as identical. They aren't. If they are going to use "soul" to mean a person, which, I grant, is a biblical usage, then simple integrity would require them to have used "spirit" in the second usage. Yet, they didn't, deliberately obfuscating one thing for the other.

So, I have this question for Jehovah's Witnesses: If the Watchtower is going to use deception to prove their doctrine, why do you want to follow their teachings? Do you not want a religion based on integrity?

Salvation According to Scripture, Contrasted with Oneness Salvation

Oneness Pentecostals love to quote Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." They claim that it lays out an ordo salutis ("order of salvation"), in which a man repents of his sins, is then baptized as an act that brings remission of sins, and then receives the Holy Spirit (marked by ecstatic gibbering that they call "speaking in tongues"). They claim that the lack of water baptism as they understand it and of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as they understand it, means that a man cannot be saved.

Not even considering the contradiction of their interpretation - actually, misinterpretation - of Acts 2:38 with the doctrine of salvation in the rest of the Scripture, it is overthrown even by the actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts.

We see the Apostle Peter (the same speaker as in 2:38) in Caesarea, preaching to the friends and relatives of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48): "While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 'Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days."

So, we have Peter, preaching to a crowd of Gentiles, but the events aren't in the order of 2:38. The Gentiles heard the word preached, believed, received the Holy Spirit, including speaking in tongues, and then were baptized. If we assumed the Oneness interpretation, then we would have to claim that these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit before they were saved! Can even Oneness believers suggest any such thing?

However, there is no such conflict with the biblical Gospel: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Unlike the Oneness perversion of Acts 2:38, salvation in the Bible is by grace through faith, not by baptism or any other ritual or action of men. And then the believer receives the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13, John 7:39), without any gibbering (speaking in tongues having been temporary). Then he is baptized upon professing his faith in the church (we aren't addressing infant baptism here).

Jesus is God, but He's Not the Father

One verse that I consistently see in defenders of Oneness theology is John 14:9: "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know Me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" They claim that Jesus is here saying that He was the Father. Of course, modalists never go on to quote the next verse: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own authority, but the Father who dwells in Me does His works." Jesus goes on to explain to Philip, not that He is the Father, but that the Father is in Him. Even Oneness believers understand that He cannot be in Himself.

Another verse that modalists don't quote is John 5:37: "The Father who sent Me has Himself borne witness about Me. His voice you have never heard, His form you have never seen." So, here Jesus is saying that we do not see the Father by looking at the Son. Is He contradicting Himself in the two verses, saying in one that no one can see the Father, but in the other that we can see the Father in Him?

Not at all!

We have all heard someone say, "Oh, I see now," after having something explained to him that he had not previously understood. Do we think that he means that the meaning has popped up on the wall in front of him? Of course not! We understand that he means that he now understands, that the meaning has been revealed to him in a processable form.

In the same way, when we look at Jesus, we see the Father, not as a visible figure in front of us, but rather as He has now been revealed to us by and in Jesus Christ.