The Impossibility of Apostasy

Recently, I was passed a tract from a local Amish group called "The Possibility of Apostasy". This is in part a response to that tract, but also a general criticism of the doctrine that a person can lose their salvation. I confess that I have a soft spot for those who hold to this doctrine. While there are some that are committed to this heresy, I have found that there are many who are simply overreacting against the abuses in mainstream Christianity. They correctly reject the ideas of carnal Christianity (that a child of God can live in unrepentant sin) and the sinner's prayer (that a person has to merely ask for forgiveness or recite a prayer to be saved). They know that the Bible teaches that it's impossible for a Christian to live a life of unrepentant sin. Therefore, they conclude that these 'carnal Christians' must have lost their salvation. However, I would like to make the case that it is impossible to lose your salvation, and that all cases of 'carnal Christianity' can be explained by recognizing that they were never saved to begin with.

I want to start by clarifying the nature of salvation and what one must do to be saved. First, the gospel message is that God came to Earth as a man and that this man Jesus died for the sins of the world, taking upon Himself the judgment that we deserve (1 Cor. 15:1-4). On this basis, God can now justify man (Rom. 3:25-26). God offers forgiveness to mankind, but commands that we must repent and trust/believe in Him (Mark 1:15). This is stated throughout the Bible, and nowhere is salvation promised to one who merely asks or says a ritual prayer. There is nothing wrong with praying and asking God for forgiveness, but unless accompanied by repentance, the words are empty.

With all this in mind, I hope it becomes clear that in the case of "Christians" who walk the aisle in their church, pray a sinner's prayer, and then live like the devil, we should not feel pressured to explain their descent back into sin. These people didn't even do what was necessary for them to be saved. They went through a silly superficial ritual that is unfortunately promoted by most of so-called Christianity. So, you see, it's not even possible for these people to have lost their salvation, because they never possessed it to begin with. In my experience, 95% of 'carnal Christians' that I meet show obvious signs that they never understood salvation. For those 5% that did at least appear to show some outward signs of repentance, it's perfectly reasonable to assume there was something going on in their heart that we couldn't see (perhaps a particular sin they weren't willing to part from). We see this clearly in 1 John 2:19, where John states that those who are truly converted would doubtlessly continue in the faith, and those who depart only reveal that they were never truly a part of the church. This easily explains what we see without invoking strange doctrines.

Now I want to explain why I call 'eternal insecurity' a strange doctrine that is incompatible with the Bible. Scriputure is clear that neither our salvation nor our continued spiritual growth is dependent on our works. As Paul puts it in Galations 3:3, "Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" It's also helpful to examine the promises that God makes regarding salvation. For example: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish" (Jn. 10:27-28), "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." (Heb. 13:5), "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So when you're saved, you have eternal life. By definition, eternal life can't be cut short. It's impossible to claim that someone can lose their salvation without also calling Jesus a liar in the above passages. Let me demonstrate my point again in a sort of syllogism using John 3:16 as an example:

Everyone who has been born again believes (trusts) in Jesus Christ.
Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish and will have eternal life.
Therefore, everyone who has been born again will not perish and will have eternal life.

So again, it's clear that every person who has been truly saved has God's unconditional promise that they will not perish in Hell. How could God make such a promise if it is possible for us to lose our salvation?

Additionally, this doctrine seems to make a small thing of the process of salvation. When a man is born again, he is made into a new creature to serve God (2 Cor. 5:17). He passes from death unto life (Jn. 5:24). He is no longer a child of the devil, but becomes a child of God (1 Jn 3:10). Do you suppose that men just bounce back and forth between being an old or new creaure, being alive or dead, and being a child of the devil or child of God? Furthermore, how can this doctrine mesh with the doctrine of chastening as laid out in Heb. 12? Do you believe that God's chastening is insufficient? Is God a failure of a father to those supposed formerly saved sons out there?

Finally, I'd like to take a litle time to address passages commonly considered to be in support of 'eternal insecurity'. In general, most can be understood when you consider that the people being referred to are typically those who have been associated with the church and counted among the number, but were never truly saved to begin with. Hebrews 6 is one passage that I'd like to discuss directly. Verses 4-6 are often quoted in support of 'eternal insecurity', though they are simply an aside about unconverted Jews. What they often neglect to mention is that if they are right about this passage, v.6 makes it clear that if you lose your salvation, it's impossible for you to be saved again.

How do they claim you can lose your salvation? According to the tract I got saw from the local Amish, you can lose you salvation if you neglect to forgive someone, if you aren't bearing enough fruit, if you're sinning, if you refuse to take a stand for Christ, and if you refuse to separate from the world. They even suggest that whether or not you own a TV might be the clearest test of your conversion. So how much sin is "too much"? How much of a stand do you have to take? How much fruit must you bear? James 2:10 says "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". Sounds like one sin is too much, and would be grounds for you to lose your salvation, forever. Are you absolutely sure you were a perfect person yesterday? Have you always loved God with all of your heart and mind without fail? What about tomorrow? How certain can you be that tomorrow you won't blow it and condemn yourself to an eternity in Hell? People who believe in this doctrine should lose sleep every night.

Thankfully, that's all nonsense. If Jesus' blood is sufficient to wash away every sin in your past, then a single sin (or many) after your salvation is not going to break the deal. Of course, that's not a license to sin and everyone who has truly been saved wouldn't see it as such. Because, as shown before, salvation is a dramatic change that creates a new person who wants to please and serve God.

I don't know about you, but I'm still an imperfect creature. I lose my temper sometimes. I'm not as patient as I should be. I get frustrated with my wife and kids. I sometimes sit at home when I could be handing out tracts. I could go on. I'm just thankful that God is patient with me and continues to love, chasten, and teach me as I continue to follow Him.

In conclusion, I hope it is clear now that it's impossible for a Christian to lose their salvation. Carnal Christians are not Christians who have lost their salvation, but are simply people who made a superficial profession of faith, often the sinner's prayer, without ever being truly converted. 'Eternal insecurity' is a doctrine without Biblical support that turns salvation into a bargain that we have to keep instead of a merciful offer to those who repent. If you believe in this doctrine, reject it now. To the rest of you, I hope this has been helpful for your own edification, or as something to challenge someone you know.

Atheism's Hypocritical View of Design

Although atheism is generally considered an intellectual position, I'm convinced that the requirement for atheism is not intelligence, but intentional blindness to some obvious truths. This is clearly seen in some of the most outspoken atheists, who actively and publicly ridicule Christianity and the idea that there is a God who created the universe. These same atheists, if pressed on the matter, come up with some very peculiar ideas about how things came to be. It becomes clear that they are willing to believe almost anything, as long as it leaves God out of the picture.

I'll start off with a recent example. A few weeks ago I was working with the TV on in the background tuned to the science channel. It caught my attention when an astronomy program came on and started talking about Kepler-78b, a prominent example of a class of planets that baffles astronomers. The problem is that Kepler-78b is too close to its parent star...there's simply no way it should be there. Every model of planet/star formation would suggest that when you extrapolate back to when the planet supposedly formed, it would have been inside the star – an impossibility. Also, Kepler-78b has a fairly stable orbit, so it's not possible that it formed elsewhere and fell into its current position.

Yet, Kepler 78-b is an observed fact. So what was the top suggestion for how it can exist? Aliens put it there. Yup. Not making this up. According to the program, “This sounds far-fetched, but is based on sound science”. Actually, I agree with their logic. Given all the facts it makes the most sense to conclude that the planet was put there by some design. But if it's OK for some scientists to attribute its design to aliens, why would Christians get ridiculed for attributing its design to God? The program certainly didn't mention God as a possibility, and I guarantee that if I had been there to pitch the idea, I'd have been laughed out of the room. This is hypocrisy. They use the same logical steps to make the same types of arguments, but you only get your own TV show if you say “aliens did it”. If you say “God did it”, you get ridiculed.

If you think this is just some random guys on TV, you'd be wrong. Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous modern atheist and critic of Christianity, holds a similar view. Near the end of the movie 'Expelled', Ben Stein interviews Dawkins and asks him a handful of questions related to God and intelligent design. Dawkins actually admits that he would be OK with intelligent design if you think about it in terms of aliens designing life on Earth. Again, why is it OK to attribute design to aliens, but mock those who attribute design to God? Hypocrite.

Francis Crick is another atheist worth mentioning. He's best known for being a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. He also openly mocked Christianity. However, his research on DNA put him face-to-face with the overwhelming impossibility of evolution. Crick refused to acknowledge God as creator, and predictably turned to alien life as his savior. He came to the belief that life was so complex that it must have been put there by aliens. He still mocked God. Hypocrite.

Perhaps the most widespread hypocrisy is in the area of biomimicry – copying or drawing heavy inspiration from designs of biological systems to solve problems in engineering. It should be self-evident that it's only useful to copy a design if it was made by someone smarter than you – nobody cheats off the class clown. But biology is interpreted through the lens of evolution, which supposes that all life arose from undirected processes. This philosophy would not lead you to expect beautiful, complex, elegant designs in nature, but merely something cobbled together by random mutation and natural selection. This is certainly not what we find. Even the most “simple” cell is a factory of nanomachines so advanced that it will probably be at least 100 years before we could even begin to duplicate it. Biomimicry only makes sense if you assume an extremely intelligent creator. But hey, if atheists want to think that they're dumber than random processes, who am I to argue?

All of this only supports my previous assertion that commitment to atheism requires the ability to turn a blind eye to the obvious. Any study of the natural world reveals obvious design. Hypocritically, atheists are willing to attribute this design to aliens or other forces while mocking God and marginalizing Christians. If you're an atheist, take off the blinders and look around. Use your God-given brain. It doesn't take much to realize the existence of the Creator, and it's only a few logical steps from there to listen to your conscience, realize your sin, understand God's justice, and know your need for a Savior. To my fellow Christians: don't be intimidated by the pseudo-intellectualism, but be bold in proclaiming the gospel. Help the lost to see their hypocrisy and foolishness, and show them their need to repent and follow Christ.

Biblical sovereignty and the rejection of Calvinism

A little over a month ago, I posted an article in which I described the major errors of Calvinism and how its poison has effected non-Calvinists as well. I also promised that at some future time I would offer a Biblical critique of Calvinism. Now is that time. First, I highly recommend reading the original article: Calvinism poisons everything. If you think this is just an arcane debate for bored theologians, that article will explain what is at stake.

From my previous article on the subject, it should be clear that I accept God's sovereignty, but also realize that the term is often misused, especially by Calvinists. As I mention in my previous article on Calvinism, what they call sovereignty is probably better referred to as “total active control” (TAC), so I'll be using this term throughout this article.

On this matter of TAC, there are varying levels of commitment among Calvinists. Some say that God controls every single outcome of every single action, that everything that happens is part of God's decree and will. Other give a little more leeway. Nevertheless, all Calvinists would argue that God has TAC over the salvation of every soul and that he's actively controlling world leaders at the very least. The idea that God exerts TAC over every single action is easy to refute. Simply ask yourself, “when I sin am I doing God's will?” If no, then obviously he's not actively controlling everything. If you answer yes to that, then you're OK with accusing God of sin and I simply can't help you other than to say you're lost and you need to repent.

So obviously God doesn't exert TAC over everything. Then, how and what does he control? Does he actively control nations? Let's see what God says about this. In Jeremiah 18:6-11 God states that he is free to do what he wants with the nations as a potter with clay. Calvinists must stop reading there, because they fail to see that He goes on to describe exactly how he operates. He states that if he decides to destroy a wicked nation, but they repent, then God will also repent of what he was going to do to them (v.7-8). He says a similar things about nations he blesses that fall into sin (v.9-10). Does this sound like God is going around actively controlling everyone? Of course not. He's watching the nations and dishing out judgment/blessing to evil/good nations. But it's better than that. God says that if he pronounces judgment/blessing on a nation, but they start going the other direction, he will change his mind. This leads us to conclude: 1) As a rule, God is not actively controlling nations. 2) Man has an independent will that can choose good/evil. This is obvious from the fact that when God pronounces his will to destroy/bless a city, man can then change his mind by choosing to do good/evil. God's dealings with the ups and downs of Israel throughout the years demonstrate the principle he describes here. Nineveh also comes to mind as an example. To put it another way, God enforces the outcome of moral choices, but the choices are made by men.

An interesting example is found in Matthew 11:21-24. While Jesus condemns the unbelief of the cities where he has worked, he says that if the cities of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if he did the same works there. Now, we could speculate on why Jesus didn't appear in these cities and do his thing, and there are some very good possibilities, but ultimately it's just speculation. The important thing is that Jesus says they would have repented if he did signs there. Of course, this also means that they could have repented. This contradicts the Calvinist's idea of total depravity/inability. If Calvinism were true, Jesus shouldn't be able to even theoretically say these cities would have repented under different circumstances. It's clear that these cities did not repent because there was, at least to them, a lack of knowledge/evidence/signs. This contradicts the Calvinist's claim that they didn't repent because these people were predestined to damnation.

Saul is another important example of how God deals with kings and men. Did God specifically ordain Saul as king? Absolutely. Yet, as Saul's reign goes on, he disobeys, and God rejects him as king. God even says the he's sorry that he ever made Saul king in the first place. (1 Sam 15:11,35) Does that sound like a God who ordained and dictated Saul's actions as king? Obviously not, but it remains true that God did ordain him as king in the first place. It's also worth mentioning that even after God turned his back on Saul and didn't want him to be king anymore, he stayed in his position for some time. This gives us a good picture of God's sovereignty over nations. He does set up certain people as rulers, but also lets them make their own decisions. Also, just because a ruler is in power does not necessarily mean that God wants him there. Again, Saul remained king even after God turned his back on him.

It's worth mentioning that Calvinists love to talk about God's hardening of Pharaoh. I don't feel the need to spend a lot of time on this because I've already shown that TAC is not how God operates. Even if the hardening of Pharaoh happened exactly as the Calvinists would have us to believe, it would merely be an exception to the rule, at best. However, I think it's worth noting a could things with Pharaoh. First, Pharaoh hardened his heart first, so this is not an example of God overriding someone's will. Second, Calvinists often think of this as a sort of psychic intrusion whereby God tinkers with Pharaoh's brain/soul and hardens him. This is an unlikely assumption. We are not told how God hardened Pharaoh, only that He did. But comparing this with other passages, we see that hardening is likely done through circumstances. One of the best descriptions of how hearts are hardened is Isaiah 6:9-11. God tells Isaiah to harden the hearts of Israel by preaching to them. In other words, Isaiah is delivering the truth they don't want to hear. They refuse to listen, but Isaiah is credited with hardening them. This is nothing mystical, merely Isaiah putting people in a position where they have to either obey, or harden themselves to avoid conviction. It's entirely possible that God did something like this with Pharaoh. 

One final point on this matter of God's sovereignty over nations. Calvinists insist that God is in control of everything, so where does Satan fit into all this? Calvinists typically ignore Satan's role, but Scripture calls him the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Does this not imply some large degree of power or control? At the very least, he can lie and blind the minds of unbelievers. Certainly God doesn't want to lie to unbelievers and blind their minds. So again, it's obvious that God isn't enforcing his will all the time.

In conclusion, there is strong Biblical evidence for the free will of nations. In other words, nations of men make their choice to pursue good or evil and God acts accordingly by blessing or cursing. God does intervene in the affairs of nations by setting up leaders, and causing rise or fall of the nation, but does not intervene in any way that would override or invalidate man's moral choice. Furthermore, there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea that God forces his will on people by directly interfering with their thoughts or will. Therefore, Calvinism presents an anti-biblical view of God's sovereignty and should be rejected as the doctrine of devils.

For reference, here's a short list of other passages that present these same ideas. This is by no means intended to be exhaustive, but it should be sufficient.

Men responsible for their own hardness - Deut. 10:16, Acts 7:51, Matt 14:28-31

Men make free moral choices and God holds them accountable (In particular, if-then statements demonstrate man's ability to choose): Ezek. 3:17-21, Ezek. 18:4-32, Ezek. 33:7-20, Deut 11:22-23, Deut 12:24-25, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 6:14-15, Matt. 10:7-15

Analysis and aftermath of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate

Let's get this out of the way...Bill Nye won the debate with Ken Ham.

Ouch. In this debate, which was covered at least in some measure by major news outlets, Christians had an opportunity to take a crack at many atheists, but it ended in a bit of a flop. The pain of this failure is made worse by how rare these debates are. For the past few decades, in order to discredit creation and avoid the issues, atheists have made it clear that their tactic is to avoid debating creationists. This cowardly tactic is no secret or conspiracy theory, but is vocally promoted by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. Even in this case, many told Bill he shouldn't do this debate at all. So, I certainly respect Bill Nye for having the guts to stand up and argue for his position. Since I feel that Ken Ham's performance was poor, and in order to help bring about some good from this event, I'd like to offer some commentary and analysis. The point is not to slam Ken, but to learn from this experience to see what Christians can do better in the future when we engage with atheists.

First off, I'd like to explain why I say that Ken Ham lost the debate. It's quite simple really: he just didn't sell any of his points because of a failure to be assertive/aggressive. He made some good comments, but failed to hammer the point home. His initial 30 min. presentation was quite good, but he fell apart quickly after that. It's unfortunate because the rebuttal section is generally where debates are won or lost. Ken spent most of his first rebuttal talking about Christians who don't believe in creation, leaving Bill unchallenged and ignoring the topic of the debate, thus leaving a very weak impression. Bill Nye wasn't terribly on-topic either, but at least made a few clear points and drove them home. In the rebuttals, Ken lost because he just played defense and when he finally tried to make a positive attack on Bill's position, it was too little, too late.

Calling out Bill's bad arguments

I'd like to now analyze some things that Bill said and show how Ken should have called him out on it. As a reminder, let's clearly state the topic: Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? In general, Bill's tactic involved bringing up a lot of irrelevant things and acting like they proved his point. For example, he spent a lot of time discussing advancements in medicine, engineering, etc. but these are irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue. Bill also brings up the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as evidence for his position, but this again is irrelevant. The CMB appears in creation models also. In light of this, Bills argument melts away. What is his point? How is the creation model invalid? He never says.

It was also clear that Bill wasn't familiar enough with creation models to even know what he's arguing against. Bill brought up several issues that have already been well-addressed by creationists: feasibility of the ark, ice core dating, radiometric dating, etc. Reasonable models have been presented on all of these topics. (To get an overview of some of these issues, see A short course in creation/evolution). Again, I ask, in what way is the creation model invalid? Where is Bill's argument?

This is a little off-topic, but I think it's also worth addressing Bill's ignorance of the Bible. Frankly, a lot of the atheists I meet are just as ignorant. They make the same claim as Bill, “Well, the Bible is unreliable because it has been translated so many times and it's kind of like the telephone game.” Seriously guys, get some facts before speaking. Want to know how many times the Bible was translated to get an English text? Once. From the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. By the way, those Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible are the most well-established historical documents. Long story short, If you have a Bible translated from the textus receptus (KJV), you can guarantee that you hold in your hands a translation of what was written thousands of years ago. The evidence is that sound. Now, I partly understand the confusion of the atheist due to the multitudes of Bible versions out there, but that's another topic for another time.

The attack Ken should have made

Now for some offense. Here's a short summary of what I think Ken should have said: Compared to evolution, creation is a far superior model of origins. Evolution survives in the scientific community merely because of an imposed absolute adherence to naturalism. Evolution predicts that organisms would be simple things, able to be generated by many small steps, evolved to be little more than sufficient for their environment. Creation predicts that organisms will display complex patterns and well-engineered forms that evidence the work of an intelligent creator. The prediction made by the creation model is true, and is the grounds of a whole multi-disciplinary branch of science called biomimicry. Evolution predicts that natural selection and random mutation can work together to generate creatures of increasing complexity. Creation predicts that natural selection and random mutation acting on an initially perfect creation will have a detrimental effect, causing loss of complexity and ultimately disease. Modern genetics confirms the prediction of the creationist, that if positive mutations occur, they are few and far between, and that they get “washed out” in the sea of bad mutations. Therefore, creation is not only a viable model of origins, but indeed seems to be the correct one. I could go on in this comparison, but I think you get my point.

The Christian reaction to the debate – driven by laziness?

When I first set my mind to write this post, this section was not included. However, after reading so many Christian responses to the debate, I feel there are major issues that need to be addressed. I've seen many private comments that concerned me, but for now I'll focus on the response written by Al Mohler since it is a good representation of the problem. In general, many responses that I've seen from Christians intimate a dismissal of the whole debate, an attitude of “who cares” or “debates don't change anyone's mind/heart, so why bother?” This is particuarly ridiculous to me, because debates on the creation/evolution issue were helpful to me in coming around to a creation position, which then made me open to the gospel. If I determined 10 years ago that the Bible was merely a book of stories, I'm sure any Christian that tried to share the gospel with me would have a much harder time. In other words, I know this stuff is important because it was helpful to bring me to Christ.

Now, looking specifically at the article from Al Mohler, he expresses a sentiment that I see coming from many Christians when he says that the real problem is “autonomous human reason”. In essense, Mohler sees human reasoning as the enemy. He intimates in this article that human reasoning is corrupt and therefore only divine revelation will help the lost sinner. In other words, don't engage the sinner's reasoning because it can't possibly work. How silly. Mohler seems to imply that we should do nothing more than walk up to an atheist, deliver a monologue about the gospel, then expect God to save them. I've seen a lot of Christians saying similar things...or at least showing that they give up way to easily. What happened to pleading with the lost, reasoning with them (as Christ and the apostles did, by the way), working, and doing whatever it takes to bring them to an understanding of the cross?

Now, when sharing the gospel, there are certainly times to move on. If they stop listening and are merely mocking, don't waste your time, but find someone else. However, in my experience, that's only about 30% of atheists. The majority are willing to have a reasonable conversation, about creation, the gospel, etc. Oh, and don't think that apologetics aren't important. Yes, sharing the gospel is the most important thing, but using just enough apologetics to shake his naturalistic foundation is a wise move.

In all these responses, it seems that Christians have given up way too easily, so much so that we no longer expect dialogue or debate to do any good at all. I can only imagine that this is driven by laziness. There are so few Christians that share the gospel in the first place. So, to ask someone to go the next step and try to learn a thing or two in order to better engage with atheists...well, that's just asking too much, right? Is this how cold Christianity has become? Is our passion for reaching the lost so dead that we give up after a single half-hearted attempt? It's so much easier to just say, “well, he's entrenched, unreachable, etc.” than it is to examine ourselves and question if we are actually giving the atheist a compelling argument. If you have a desire to see people saved, don't fall into that trap. Try to put yourself in their position...if you were an atheist would you be compelled by the things Christians say? Try different things, learn, improve, find someone passionate about evangelism and learn from them. Eventually you'll get quite good at talking with atheists. But please, whatever you do, don't just act like it doesn't matter.