Refuting Compromise: The Folly of Trying to Cram Evolution Into the Book of Genesis – Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Video starts at 1:20.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Old Is The Earth? – Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Originally from here.

Evolutionists fallaciously think that billions of years of time makes particles-to-people evolution possible. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5 billion year timeline that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.

On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a timeline of the world constructed on Biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15 inch (39 cm) timeline as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the Biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed Biblical timeline, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution timeline.

This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.

The Rocks

The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:

Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.

The “deep time” indoctrination comes with the statement “often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.” However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (“the present is the key to the past”) is often called uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word “uniformitarianism” has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called “methodological uniformitarianism,” as opposed to what some have called “substantive uniformitarianism.”

It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general “slow and gradual” principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood.

However, a cataclysmic globe covering (and fossil forming) flood would have eroded huge quantities of sediment, and deposited them elsewhere. Many organisms would have been buried very quickly and fossilized.

Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state produced 25 feet (7.6 meters) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!1 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit 3 to 4 feet (about 1 meter) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field. Sedimentation experiments by the creationist Guy Berthault, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers can form by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles.2,3

In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together.4 The journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.5

So when we start from the bias that the Bible is God’s Word and is thus true, we can derive reasonable interpretations of the data. Not that every problem has been solved, but many of them have been.

Conversely, how does the “slow and gradual” explanation fare? Think how long dead organisms normally last. Scavengers and rotting normally remove all traces within weeks. Dead jellyfish normally melt away in days. Yet Teaching about Evolution has a photo of a fossil jellyfish on page 36. It clearly couldn’t have been buried slowly, but must have been buried quickly by sediments carried by water. This water would also have contained dissolved minerals, which would have caused the sediments to have been cemented together, and so hardened quickly.

The booklet Stones and Bones6 shows other fossils that must have formed rapidly. One is a 7 foot (2 m) long Ichthyosaur (extinct fish shaped marine reptile) fossilized while giving birth. Another is a fish fossilized in the middle of its lunch. And there is a vertical tree trunk that penetrates several rock layers (hence the term polystrate fossil). If the upper sedimentary layers really took millions or even hundreds of years to form, then the top of the tree trunk would have rotted away.

Ironically, NASA scientists accept that there have been “catastrophic floods” on Mars7 that carved out canyons8 although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 km) if it were completely uniform, and even now covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface! If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible teaches it, they probably wouldn’t have any problem with a global flood on earth. This demonstrates again how the biases of scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence.

Radiometric Dating

As shown above, the evidence from the geological record is consistent with catastrophes, and there are many features that are hard to explain by slow and gradual processes. However, evolutionists point to dating methods that allegedly support deep time. The best known is radiometric dating. This is accurately described on page 35 of Teaching about Evolution:

Some elements, such as uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce other elements. By measuring the quantities of radioactive elements and the elements into which they decay in rocks, geologists can determine how much time has elapsed since the rock has cooled from an initially molten state.

However, the deep time “determination” is an interpretation; the actual scientific data are isotope ratios. Each chemical element usually has several different forms, or isotopes, which have different masses. There are other possible interpretations, depending on the assumptions. This can be illustrated with an hourglass. When it is upended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was upended from the quantities of sand in both containers and the flow rate. Or can we? First, we must assume three things:

Hourglass illustration

An hourglass “clock” tells us the elapsed time by comparing the amount of sand in the top bowl (“Parent”) with the amount in the bottom bowl (“Daughter”).

1. We know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is upended when the top container is empty. But if this were not so, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level.

2. The rate has stayed constant. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, it would flow more slowly now than in the past. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than it would if the sand had always flowed at the present rate.

3. The system has remained closed. That is, no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that, without your knowledge, sand had been added to the bottom container, or removed from the top container. Then if you calculated the time since the last upending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be longer than the actual time.

Teaching about Evolution addresses assumption 2:

For example, it requires that the rate of radioactive decay is constant over time and is not influenced by such factors as temperature and pressure—conclusions supported by extensive research in physics.

It is true that in today’s world, radioactive decay rates seem constant, and are unaffected by heat or pressure. However, we have tested decay rates for only about 100 years, so we can’t be sure that they were constant over the alleged billions of years. Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests that decay rates were faster during creation week, and have remained constant since then. There is some basis for this, for example radiohalo analysis, but it is still tentative.

Teaching about Evolution also addresses assumption 3:

It also assumes that the rocks being analyzed have not been altered over time by migration of atoms in or out of the rocks, which requires detailed information from both the geologic and chemical sciences.

This is a huge assumption. Potassium and uranium, both common parent elements, are easily dissolved in water, so could be leached out of rocks. Argon, produced by decay from potassium, is a gas, so moves quite readily.


There are many examples where the dating methods give “dates” that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was “dated” by the potassium argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.9 Another example is K-Ar “dating” of five andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The “dates” ranged from < 0.27 to 3.5 million years—but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975!

What happened was that excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess 40Ar* causing “dates” of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.10

  • If excess 40Ar* can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was “dated” by the K-Ar method at c. 45 million years old!11 Other fossil wood from Upper Permian rock layers has been found with 14C still present. Detectable 14C would have all disintegrated if the wood were really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these Upper Permian rock layers.12[Update: see also Radiometric dating breakthroughs for more examples of 14C in coal and diamonds, allegedly millions of years old.]

According to the Bible’s chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence, but we are not yet sure of the true cause in all cases. A group of creationist Ph.D. geologists and physicists from the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research are currently working on this topic. Their aim is to find out the precise geochemical and/or geophysical causes of the observed isotope ratios.13 One promising lead is questioning Assumption 1—the initial conditions are not what the evolutionists think, but are affected, for example, by the chemistry of the rock that melted to form the magma. [Update: it turned out that Assumption 2 was the most vulnerable, with strong evidence that decay rates were much faster in the past. See the results of their experiments in Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth volumes 1 and 2.]

Evidence for a Young World

Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:

  • Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14 
  • The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
  • Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16

  • A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17

  • The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1½ inches (4 cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric “dates” assigned to moon rocks).18 
  • Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19

A number of other processes inconsistent with billions of years are given in the booklet Evidence for a Young World by Dr. Russell Humphreys.

Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many “proofs” for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W. B. Provine admits: “Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.”20 Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to “prove” that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which can be shown to be consistent with much data.

Addendum: John Woodmorappe has published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric “dating,” including the “high-tech” isochron method: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999).

References and Notes

1. S. A. Austin, Mount St. Helens and catastrophism, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R. E. Walsh, R. S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986; for a simplified article, see Ken Ham, I got excited at Mount St Helens! Creation 15 (3):14–19, June–August 1993. Return to text.

2. Don Batten, Sandy stripesCreation 19 (1):39–40, December 1996–February 1997. Return to text.

3. P. Julien, Y. Lan, and G. Berthault, Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixturesJournal of Creation 8 (1):37–50, 1994. Return to text.

4. G. Berthault, Experiments on lamination of sedimentsJournal of Creation 3:25–29, 1988. Return to text.

5. H. A. Makse, S. Havlin, P. R. King, and H. E. Stanley, Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures, Nature 386 (6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also A. Snelling, Sedimentation experiments: Nature finally catches up! Journal of Creation 11 (2):125–6, 1997. Return to text.

6. Carl Wieland, Stones and Bones, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1994). Return to text.

7. R. A. Kerr, Pathfinder tells a geologic tale with one starring role, Science 279 (5348):175, 9 January 1998. Return to text.

8. O. Morton, Flatlands, New Scientist 159 (2143):36–39, 18 July 1998. Return to text.

9. S. A. Austin, Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcanoJournal of Creation 10 (3):335–343, 1986. Return to text.

10. A. A. Snelling, The cause of anomalous potassium argon “ages” for recent andesite flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for potassium argon “dating,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, p. 503–525. This document lists many examples. For example, six were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic composition of argon in modern surface rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8 (2):109–117, April 1970; five were reported by G. B. Dalrymple, 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6 (1):47–55, 1969. Also, a large excess was reported in D. E. Fisher, Excess rare gases in a subaerial basalt from Nigeria, Nature Physical Science 232 (29):60–61, 19 July 1971. Return to text.

11. A. A. Snelling, Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflictCreation 20 (1):24–27, December 1997–February 1998. Return to text.

12. A. A. Snelling, Stumping old-age dogmaCreation 20 (4):48–50, September–November 1998. Return to text.

13. Institute for Creation Research, Acts and Facts 27 (7), July 1998. Return to text.

14. C. Wieland, Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19 (4):42–43, September–November 1997; based on research by M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The real Jurassic Park, Earth, June 1997, p. 55–57. [Update: see Squirming at the Squishosaur and the linked articles for more recent evidence of elastic blood vessels in T. rex bones.] Return to text.

15. D. R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2 (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 113–126; J. D. Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is youngCreation 20 (2):15–19, March–May 1998. Return to text.

16. L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990); J. D. Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away: Helium gives evidence that the earth is youngCreation 20 (3):19–21, June–August 1998. Return to text.

17. K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh, 1994, p. 175–184; J. D. Sarfati, Exploding stars point to a young universeCreation 19 (3):46–49, June–August 1998. See also How do spiral galaxies and supernova remnants fit in with Dr Humphreys’ cosmological model? Dr Russell Humphreys himself explainsReturn to text.

18. D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. 2, ed. R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks, 1990, 79–84; J. D. Sarfati, The moon: the light that rules the nightCreation 20 (4):36–39, September–November 1998. Return to text.

19. S. A. Austin and D. R. Humphreys, The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionistsProceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, 1990, 17–33; J. D. Sarfati, Salty seas: evidence for a young earthCreation 21 (1):16–17, December 1998–February 1999. Return to text.

20. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr. Will B. Provine; available online from (cited 18 February 1999).

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why Should Christians Write and Make YouTube Videos? – John Boruff

Write the vision and make it plain on tablets, that he may run who reads it.
–Habakkuk 2:2–

Sometimes I’ve met Christians who don’t understand writing at all. I mean, they don’t understand why writing is valuable. These same Christians read the Bible though, which was produced through writing. Why should Christians make YouTube videos? I heard one guy say, “I don’t want to have a YouTube ministry,” and he said it in a down-putting tone. He might as well have said, “I don’t want to have a theological writing ministry,” like the Old Testament prophets, the New Testament apostles, and every theologian and leader in church history. To me, YouTube is just a high-tech form of writing. The Bible refers to writing being useful for historical memorials. Exodus 17:14: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it.'” This is the first time writing is mentioned in the Bible. The book of Psalms, which is a Biblical hymnal, shows that writing is useful for songs and poems, which are forms of emotional expression. Writing can be used for communication and correspondence–as a substitute in your physical absence. 2 John 12: “I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face.”

But most often, in the Bible, and for theologians (whether academic or folk), writing is used for theology, spiritual teachings, or actual prophecy. Exodus 24:4: “Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said.” Exodus 24:12: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to Me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.’” God was so committed to writing down spiritual laws, that He made a second draft of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 34:1: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.'” Joshua 24:26: “Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God.” Isaiah 8:16: “Bind up this testimony of warning and seal up God’s instruction among my disciples.” Isaiah 30:8: “Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness.” Jeremiah 30:2: “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.'” Again, the Lord was so serious about writing down prophecy, that he had a prophet make a second draft. Jeremiah 36:28: “Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up.” Habakkuk 2:2: “Write the vision and make it plain on tablets, that he may run who reads it.” The Gospel of Luke was written as a historical memorial. Acts 1:1: “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.” While the apostle Paul, as an evangelist, traveled around preaching in the streets and in churches, his ministry largely consisted of writing theological letters to pastors. 2 Timothy 4:13: “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” Along with Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament, the apostolic fathers, the church fathers, and all of the theologians down through church history have decided to turn to writing as the primary way of communicating. While there are special times and places for actual physical speaking, it has always been understood that so much more can be communicated through the written word. So with Luther, and the Puritans, and Wesley; with Finney, and Seymour, and Wigglesworth; with Gee, and Wimber, and Ravenhill, and Wilkerson, so I continue this tradition of theological writing through WordPress and YouTube. The question now is, “If the Lord has laid things on your heart, do you got somethin’ to say?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Methodist Bishop from the 1800s Refutes “Once Saved, Always Saved” – Randolph Foster

This is taken from his book Objections to Calvinism As It Is, ch. 6: “Perseverance.” Originally from here.

In this chapter we shall treat of the perseverance of the saints–a subject of scarcely inferior importance to those already considered. It falls in at this point naturally, and forms an indispensable part of this most wonderful system; for, certainly, whatever else may be said of Calvinism, it must be admitted that it is a complete system. Starting out with the radical principle, that all events are fixed by eternal decree, it infers that those who will be finally saved must be so decreed to salvation–then the means must be fixed–then they must operate infallibly–then they must accomplish the end; the elect must be kept to the end.

What the Calvinists Teach About “Once Saved, Always Saved”

They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth, also, the certainty and infallibility thereof.

Nevertheless, they may, through the temptation of Satan and the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein; whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, and come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. (Westminster Confession, ch. 17)

The perseverance of the saints is one of the articles by which the creed of the followers of Calvin is distinguished from that of the followers of Arminius. The latter hold, that true believers may fall into sins inconsistent with a state of grace, and may continue in apostasy to the end of life; and consequently, may finally fall into perdition. In opposition to this tenet, our Confession affirms, that true believers can neither totally nor finally fall away from a state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. We affirm, that the total apostasy of believers is impossible, not in the nature of things, but by the divine constitution; and, consequently that no man, who has been once received into the divine favor, can be ultimately deprived of salvation. (Robert Shaw’s An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

As the grace of God, which is conceived to derive its efficacy from his power of fulfilling his purpose in those for whom it is destined overcomes all the opposition with which it is at first received, so it continues to be exerted amidst all the frailty and corruption which adhere to human nature in a present state. It is not exerted to such a degree as to preserve any man from every kind of sin; for God is pleased to teach Christians humility, by keeping up the remembrance of that state out of which they were delivered, and to quicken their aspirations after higher degrees of goodness, by leaving them to struggle with temptation, and to feel manifold infirmities. But, although no man is enabled, in this life, to attain to perfection, the grace of God preserves those to whom it is given from drawing back to perdition. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints flows necessarily from that decree by which they were, from eternity, chosen to salvation, and from the manner in which, according to the Calvinistic system, the decree was executed; and all the principles of the system must be renounced, before we can believe that any of those for whom Christ died, and who, consequently, became partakers of his grace, can fall from that grace, either finally–by which is meant, they shall not, in the end, be saved–or totally–by which is meant, that they shall, at any period of their lives commit sins so heinous and presumptuous, and persist in them so obstinately, as, at that period, to forfeit entirely the divine favor. (George Hill’s Lectures in Divinity, pages 215-216).

Upon this subject professed Christians are divided in sentiment, as, indeed, they are upon every article of faith. The doctrine of our Church, in which I believe all the reformed Churches concurred, is expressed in the following words: “They whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (John Dick’s Lectures on Theology, vol 2, p. 283).

We assert, then, that true believers cannot fall totally or finally; but they are intended to oppose the doctrines of Arminians, who affirm, that although a saint may fall totally from grace, he may be restored by repentance: but, since this is uncertain, and not always take place, he may, also, fall finally, and die in his sins. Now we affirm, that the total apostasy of believers is impossible, not in the nature of things, but by the divine constitution: and, consequently. that no man, who has been received into the divine favor, can be ultimately deprived of salvation. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those who are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance. (John Dick’s Lectures on Theology, vol 2, p. 284).

As justification is an act completed at once, so those who are justified cannot come into condemnation. The sins which they afterward commit, cannot revoke the pardon which God has graciously given them; but they may subject them to his fatherly displeasure and temporary chastisement. Here we must revert to the well-known distinction between judicial and fatherly forgiveness. Though God, in the capacity of a judge, pardons all the sins of believers in the most free and unconditional manner, in the day of their justification, yet that forgiveness, which, as a father, he bestows upon his justified and adopted children, is not in general vouchsafed, without suitable preparation on their part for receiving and improving the privilege. (Robert Shaw’s Exposition).

May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace? (Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 79).

True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God, and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance, their inseparable union with Christ, his continual intercession for them, and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

If it should be objected to this statement, that, although Calvinists believe in the necessity of the salvation of those for whom Christ died, yet they believe it is conditional, or is made to depend upon the faith of the believer, I reply, it is admitted that Calvinists teach that faith is a condition of salvation; but now observe, they teach that it is irresistibly communicated–if it is a condition, it is not a condition dependent, in any sense, upon the believer himself, but is an effect wrought in him without his consent.

The covenant of redemption secures the continuance and growth of the principle of grace, until the believer shall be perfected in Heaven. In this life he never utterly falls for one moment from grace. The holiness of the Christian continues to the end.

Upon this proposition Dr. Dwight delivers one of his most labored sermons to prove the necessary final perseverance of the saints.

Upon this point it will scarcely be necessary for me to adduce a larger number of quotations. Those already given are full and authoritative. This, indeed, is a point where less reference to authority is required than almost any other of the Calvinian creed; here they all harmonize. The final perseverance of the saints, with them is a frankly avowed and cherished sentiment. To rob them of this, would be to rob them of one of their gods. If their view of election is true, this is consequentially true; if their doctrine of effectual grace is true, this must follow. So that they are, at least consistent with themselves in believing and teaching it; they could not do otherwise. It is an integral part of the same great system of fatalism and irresponsibility, which has been examined in this book. The doctrine, as taught in the above quotations, may thus be stated:

1. Persons once regenerated may fall into grievous sins, and continue therein for a time indefinite.

2. They cannot totally fall away, but, however sinful they may become, will continue to be children of God.

3. They cannot finally perish, but must necessarily come to eternal life. Such is the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as taught by their Confession of Faith and standard authors. To it we find many and, to us insuperable objections. Read and judge for yourselves.

1. And first, we object, the doctrine is without warrant from the Word of God. It is admitted that passages are found in the Scriptures, which, disconnected from their relations, might allow, of a construction partly favorable, a doctrine resembling the above. But no passage clearly teaches it; none necessarily infers it; no principle of revelation sanctions it; if it could be true, its truth never can be derived from the Bible. This, then, is our first ground of objection, and to a Christian it is sufficient; he need go no further; here he will be content to put an end to his inquiries. It is not of the Bible, it cannot, therefore, be received, will be his reasoning.

2. But second, I object further, and as growing out of the foregoing, not only is this doctrine not taught in the Bible, but, what is more fatal to it, the Bible teaches that it is false, by teaching that precisely what it denies is the truth. It is to be discarded not alone because the Bible does not teach it, but because the Bible asserts its falsehood. Revelation is not silent upon the point, but it is expressly, fully, unmistakably against the assumption. The doctrine itself is false, or the Bible. I cannot better express this objection than in the following language of Mr. Wesley, in his tract on Perseverance. He thus presents the Scripture argument:

For thus saith the Lord: “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” (Ezekiel 18:24) That this is to be understood of eternal death appears from the twenty- sixth verse: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them [here is temporal death], for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die [here is death eternal].”

It appears, farther, from the whole scope of the chapter, which is to prove, “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (verse 4)

If you say, “The soul here means the body,” I answer, “That will die whether you sin or no.”

Again, thus saith the Lord: “When I shall say to the righteous that he shall surely live, if he trust to his own righteousness [yea, or to that promise as absolute and unconditional] and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remembered; but for the iniquity that he hath committed shall he die.” (33:13)

Again: “When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.” (verse 18)

Therefore, one who is holy and righteous in the judgment of God himself may yet fall as to perish everlastingly.

But how is this consistent with what God declared elsewhere? “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, I will visit their offenses with the rod and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. I have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not fail David.” (Psalm 89:30-35)

I answer, “There is no manner of inconsistency between one declaration and the other.” The prophet declares the just judgment of God against every righteous man who falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist declares the old loving kindnesses which God sware unto David in his truth. “I have found,” saith he, “David, my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him. My hand shall hold him fast, and my arm shall strengthen him. His seed, also, will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of Heaven.” (verses 20, 21, 29.) It follows: “‘But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break. I will not fail David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.” (verse 30, &c)

May not every man see, that the covenant here spoken of relates wholly to David and his seed or children? Where, then, is the inconsistency, between the most absolute promise made to a particular family, and that solemn account, which God has here given, of his way of dealing with all mankind.

Beside, the very covenant mentioned in these words is not absolute, but conditional. The condition of repentance, in case of forsaking God’s law, was implied, though not expressed; and so strongly implied, that, this condition failing–not being performed, God did also fail David. He did “alter the thing that had gone out of his lips,” and yet without any impeachment of his truth. He “abhorred and forsook his anointed,” (verse 38) the seed of David, whose throne, if they had repented, should have been “as the days of Heaven.” He did “break the covenant of his servant, and cast his crown to the ground.” (verse 39) So vainly are these words of the Psalmist brought to contradict the plain, full testimony of the prophet!

Nor is there any contradiction between this testimony of God by Ezekiel, and those words which he spake by Jeremiah: “I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee.” For do these words assert, that no righteous man ever turns from his righteousness? No such thing. They do not touch the question, but simply declare God’s love to the Jewish Church. To see this in the clearest light, you need only read over the whole sentence: “‘At the same time,’ saith the Lord, ‘I will be the God to all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.’ Thus saith the Lord, ‘The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I caused him to rest.'” “The Lord hath appeared of old unto me,” saith the prophet, speaking in the person of Israel, “saying, ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee. Again I will build thee and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel.'” (31:1-4).

Suffer me here to observe, once for all, a fallacy which is constantly used by almost all writers on this point. They perpetually beg the question, by applying to particular persons assertions or prophecies which relate only to the Church in general, and some of them only to the Jewish Church and nation, as distinguished from all other people.

If you say, “But it was particularly revealed to me, that God had loved me with an everlasting love.” I answer, “Suppose it was–which might bear a dispute. It proves no more at the most than that you in particular shall persevere; but does not affect the general question, whether others shall or shall not.”

Secondly, one who is endued with the faith that purifies the heart–that produces a good conscience, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the inspired apostle: “War a good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck.” (I Timothy 1:18, 19)

Observe first: these men [such as Hymenaeus and Alexander] had once the faith that purifies the heart–that produces a good conscience; which they once had, or they could not have “put it away.”

Observe second: they “made shipwreck” of the faith, which necessarily implies the total and final loss of it; for a vessel once wrecked can never be recovered; it is totally and finally lost.

And the Apostle himself in his second Epistle to Timothy mentions one of these two as irrecoverably lost. “Alexander,” says he, “did me much evil: the Lord shall reward him according to his works.” (II Timothy 4:14) Therefore, one who is endued with the faith that purifies the heart–that produces a good conscience, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

“But how can this be reconciled with the words of our Lord, “He that believeth shall be saved?”

Do you think these words mean, “He that believes” at this moment “shall” certainly and inevitably “be saved?”

If this interpretation be good, then by all the rules of speech, the other part of the sentence must mean, “He” that does “not believe” at this moment “shall” certainly and inevitably “be damned.”

Therefore, that interpretation cannot be good. The plain meaning, then, of the whole sentence is, “He that believeth,” if he continue in faith, “shall be saved; he that believeth not,” if he continue in unbelief, “shall be damned.”

“But does not Christ say elsewhere, “He that believeth hath everlasting life?” (John 3:36) and, “”He that believeth on Him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life?”‘ (John 5:24)

I answer, 1. The love of God is everlasting life. It is in substance the life of Heaven. Now, everyone that believes, loves God and, therefore, “hath everlasting life.”

2. Everyone that believes, “is,” therefore, “passed from death”–spiritual death–“unto life,” and

3. “Shall not come into condemnation,” if he endureth in the faith unto the end. According to our Lord’s own words, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved;” and, “Verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” (John 8:51)

Thirdly, those who are grafted into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the apostle: “Some of the branches are broken off, and thou art grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree. Be not high-minded, but fear: if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold the goodness and severity of God! On them which fell severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou shalt be cut off.” (Romans 11:17, 20-22)

We may observe here, 1. The persons spoken to were actually grafted into the olive tree.

2. This olive tree is not barely the outward, visible Church, but the invisible, consisting of holy believers. So the text: “If the first fruit be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” (verse 16) And, “Because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou by faith.”

3. These holy believers were still liable to be cut off from the invisible Church, into which they were then grafted.

4. Here is not the least intimation of those who were so cut off being ever grafted in again.

Therefore, those who are grafted into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

But how does this agree with the twenty-ninth verse, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance?”

The preceding verse shows: “As touching the election [the unconditional election of the Jewish nation], they are beloved for the fathers’ sake:” for the sake of their forefathers. It follows [in proof of this, that “they are beloved for their fathers’ sake,” that God has still blessing in store for the Jewish nation]: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” for God doth not repent of any blessings he hath give them, or any privileges he hath called them to. The words here referred to were originally spoken with a peculiar regard to these national blessings. “God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent.” (Numbers 23:19)

“But do you not hereby make God changeable.” Whereas, “with him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17) By no means. God is unchangeably holy; therefore, he always “loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity.” He is unchangeably good; therefore, he pardoneth all that “repent and believe the Gospel.” And he is unchangeably just; therefore, he “rewardeth every man according to his works.” But all this hinders not his resisting, when they are proud, those to whom he gave grace when they were humble. Nay, his unchangeableness itself requires, that, if they grow high-minded, God should cut them off that there should be a proportionable change in all the divine dispensations toward them.

“But how then is God faithful?” I answer, “In fulfilling every promise which he hath made, to all to whom it is made–all who fulfill the condition of that promise.” More particularly, 1. “God is faithful” in that “he will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able to bear.” (I Corinthians 10:13) 2. “The Lord is faithful, to establish and keep you from evil”–if you put your trust in him–from all the evil which you might otherwise suffer, through “unreasonable and wicked men.” (II Thessalonians 3:2, 3) 3. “Quench not the Spirit; hold fast that which is good; abstain from all appearance of evil; and your whole spirit, soul, and body, shall be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” (I Thessalonians 5:19, &c. ) 4. Be not disobedient unto the heavenly calling; and “God is faithful, by whom ye were called, to confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Corinthians 1:8, 9) Yet, notwithstanding all this, unless you fulfill the condition, you cannot attain the promise.

“Nay, but are not ‘all the promises, yea and amen?'” They are firm as the pillars of Heaven. Perform the condition, and the promise is sure. Believe, and thou shalt be saved.

“But many promises are absolute and unconditional.” In many, the condition is not expressed. But this does not prove there is none implied. No promises can be expressed in a more absolute form, than those above cited from the eighty-ninth Psalm. And yet we have seen a condition was implied even there, though none was expressed.

“‘But there is no condition, either expressed or implied, in those words of St. Paul: “I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”‘ (Romans 8:38, 39)

Suppose there is not–which will bear a dispute–yet what will this prove? Just thus must: that the apostle was, at that time, fully persuaded of his own perseverance. And I doubt not but many believers, at this day, have the very same persuasion, termed in Scripture, ‘the full assurance of hope.’ But this does not prove that every believer shalt persevere, any more than that every believer is thus fully persuaded of his own perseverance.

Those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches,” may nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

For thus saith our blessed Lord himself, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away. I am the vine; ye are the branches. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:1-6.)

Here we may observe, 1. The persons spoken of were, in Christ, branches of the true vine. 2. Some of these branches abide not in Christ, but the Father takes them away. 3. The branches which abide not are cast forth–cast out from Christ and his Church. 4. They are not only cast forth, but withered; consequently, never grafted in again. Nay, 5. They are not only cast forth and withered, but also cast into the fire. And, 6. They are burned. It is not possible for words more strongly to declare, that even those who are now branches in the true vine, may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly.

By this clear, indisputable declaration of our Lord, we may interpret those which might be otherwise liable to dispute; wherein it is certain, whatever he meant beside, he did not mean to contradict himself. For example: “This is the Father’s will, that of all which he hath given him,” or, as it is expressed in the next verse, “everyone which believeth on him,” namely, to the end, “he ‘will raise up at the last day,'” to reign with him forever.

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

In the preceding text the condition is only implied; in this, it is plainly expressed. They are my sheep that HEAR MY VOICE, that FOLLOW ME in all holiness. And “if ye do those things, ye shall never fall.” None shall “pluck you out of my hands.”

Again: “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.” (John 13:1) “Having loved his own,” namely, the apostles–as the very next words, “which were in the world,” evidently show–“he loved them unto the end” of his life, and manifested that love to the last.

Once more: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are one.” (John 17:11)

Great stress has been laid upon this text, and it has been hence inferred, that all those whom the Father had given him–a phrase frequently occurring in this chapter–must infallibly persevere to the end.

And yet, in the very next verse, our Lord himself declares, that one of those whom the Father had given him, did not persevere unto the end, but perished everlastingly. 

His own words are, “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.” (John 17:12) [Judas Iscariot]

So one even of these was finally lost!–a demonstration that the phrase, “those whom thou hast given me,” signifies here, if not in most other places, too, the twelve apostles, and them only.

On this occasion, I cannot but observe another common instance of begging the question–of taking for granted what ought to be proved. It is usually laid down as an indisputable truth, that whatever our Lord speaks to or of his apostles, is to be applied to all believers. But this cannot be allowed by any who impartially search the Scriptures. They cannot allow, without clear and particular proof, that any one of those texts which related primarily to the apostles, as all men grant, belong to any but them.

Those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions and perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the apostle Peter, “If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, [the only possible way of escaping them,] they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” (2 Peter 2:20, 21)

That the knowledge of the way of righteousness, which they had attained, was an inward, experimental knowledge, is evident from that other expression–they had “escaped the pollutions of the world;” an expression parallel to that in the preceding chapter, verse four, “Having escaped the corruption which is in the world.” And in both chapters, this effect is ascribed to the same cause; termed in the first, “the knowledge of Him who hath called us to glory and virtue;” in the second, more explicitly, “the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

And yet they lost that experimental knowledge of Christ and the way of righteousness; they fell back into the same pollutions they had escaped, and were “again entangled therein and overcome.” They “turned from the holy commandment delivered to them,” so that their “latter end was worse than their beginning.”

Therefore, those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly.

And this is perfectly consistent with St. Peter’s words, in the first chapter of his former epistle: “Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” Undoubtedly, so are all they who ever attain eternal salvation. It is the power of God only, and not our own, by which we are kept one day or one hour.

Those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness, and the fruits of the Spirit, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

For thus saith the inspired writer to the Hebrews: “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” (Hebrews 6:4, 6)

Must not every unprejudiced person see, the expressions here used are so strong and clear, that they cannot, without gross and palpable wresting, be understood of any but true believers?

They “were once enlightened;” an expression familiar with the apostle, and never by him applied to any but believers. So: “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power, to us-ward that believe.” (Ephesians 1:17-19) So again: “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (II Corinthians 4:6) This is the light which no unbelievers have. They are utter strangers to such enlightening. “The God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them.” (verse 4)

“They had tasted of the heavenly gift, [emphatically so called,] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” So St. Peter likewise couples them together: “Be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” (Acts 2:38) whereby the love of God was shed abroad in their hearts, with all the other fruits of the Spirit. Yea, it is remarkable that our Lord himself, in his grand commission to St. Paul, to which the apostle probably alludes in these words, comprises all these three particulars. “I send thee to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God [here contracted into that one expression, ‘they were enlightened‘] that they may receive forgiveness of sins [‘the heavenly gift’] and an inheritance among them which are sanctified,” (Acts 26:18) which are made “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” of all the sanctifying influences of the Spirit.

The expression, “They tasted of the heavenly gift,” is taken from the Psalmist, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” (Psalm 34:8) As if he had said, “Be ye as assured of his love, as of anything you see with your eyes. And let the assurance thereof be sweet to your soul, as honey is to your tongue.”

And yet those who had been thus “enlightened,” had “tasted” this “gift,” and been thus “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” so “fell away” that it was “impossible to renew them again to repentance.”

“But the apostle makes only a supposition: “If they should fall away.”

I answer, “The apostle makes no supposition at all.” There is no if in the original. The words are, in plain English, “It is impossible to renew again unto repentance those who were once enlightened and have fallen away.” Therefore, they must perish everlastingly.

“But if so, then farewell all my comfort.” Then your comfort depends on a poor foundation. My comfort stands not on any opinion, either that a believer can or cannot fall away;–not on the remembrance of anything wrought in me yesterday, but on what is to-day–on my present knowledge of God in Christ, reconciling me to himself–on my now beholding the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, walking in the light as he is in the light, and having fellowship with the Father and with the Son. My comfort is, that through grace I now believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that his Spirit doth bear witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. I take comfort in this, and this only, that I see Jesus at the right hand of God–that I personally for myself, and not for another, have a hope full of immortality–that I feel the love of God shed abroad in my heart, being crucified to the world, and the world crucified to me. My rejoicing is this, the testimony of my conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God I have my conversation in the world.

Go and find, if you can, a more solid joy, a more blissful comfort, on this side of Heaven. But this comfort is not shaken, be that opinion true or false, whether the saints in general can or cannot fall.

If you take up with any comfort short of this, you lean on the staff of a broken reed, which not only will not bear your weight, but will enter into your hand and pierce you.

Those who live by faith, may yet fall from God and perish everlastingly. For thus saith the same inspired writer, “The just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Hebrews 10:38) “The just [the justified person] shall live by faith:” even now shall he live the life which is hid with Christ in God; and if he endure unto the end, he shall live forever. “But if any man draw back,” saith the Lord, “my soul shall have no pleasure in him;” that is, I will utterly cast him off; and, accordingly, the drawing back here spoken of is termed, in the verse immediately following, “drawing back to perdition.”

“But the person supposed to draw back is not the same with him that is said to live by faith.”

I answer, “1. Who is it then? Can any man draw back from faith who never came to it?” But,

2. Had the text been fairly translated, there had been no pretense for this objection. For the original runs thus: “If the just man that lives by faith [so the expression necessarily implies, there being no other nominative of the verb] draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.”

“But the apostle adds: ‘We are not of them who draw back unto perdition.'” And what will you infer from thence? This is so far from contradicting what has been observed before, that it manifestly confirms it. It is a farther proof that there are those ‘who draw back unto perdition’ although the apostle was not of that number. Therefore, those who live by faith, may yet fall from God and perish everlastingly.

“But does not God say to every one that lives by faith, ‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee?'”

The whole sentence runs thus: “Let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things as ye have; for He hath said, ‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.'” True, provided “your conversation be without covetousness.” and ye “be content with such things as ye have.” Then you may “boldly say, the Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.”

Do you not see, 1. That this promise, as here recited, relates wholly to temporal things? 2. That, even thus taken, it is not absolute, but conditional? And, 3. That the condition is expressly mentioned in the very same sentence?

Those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. For thus again saith the apostle: “If we sin willfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing!” (Hebrews 10:26-29)

It is undeniably plain, 1. That the person mentioned here, was once sanctified by the blood of the covenant. 2. That he afterward, by known, willful sin, trod under foot the Son of God. And, 3. That he hereby incurred a sorer punishment than death, namely, death everlasting.

Therefore, those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly.

“What! Can the blood of Christ burn in Hell? Or can the purchase of the blood of Christ go thither?”

I answer, “1. The blood of Christ cannot burn in Hell, no more than it can be spilled on the earth. The Heavens must contain both his flesh and blood until the restitution of all things.” But,

2. If the oracles of God are true, one who was purchased by the blood of Christ, may go thither. For he that was sanctified by the blood of Christ, was purchased by the blood of Christ. But one who was sanctified by the blood of Christ, may, nevertheless, go to Hell; may fall under that fiery indignation which shall forever devour the adversaries.

“Can a child of God, then, go to Hell? Can a man be a child of God to day and a child of the devil tomorrow? If God is our Father once, is he not our Father always?: (“Once Saved, Always Saved”)

I answer, “1. A child of God, that is, a true believer–for he that believeth is born of God–while he continues a true believer, cannot go to Hell. But, 2. If a believer made shipwreck of the faith, he is no longer a child of God; and then he may go to Hell, yea, and certainly will, if he continues in unbelief.” 3. If a believer may make shipwreck of the faith, then a man that believes now, may be an unbeliever sometime hence; yea, very possibly, tomorrow; but, if so, he who is a child of God to-day, may be a child of the devil to-morrow. For, 4. God is the Father of them that believe, so long as they believe. But the devil is the father of them that believe not, whether they did once believe or no.

The sum of all this is: if the Scriptures are true, those who are holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself–those who are endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience–those who are grafted into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church–those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches’–those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world–those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness, and of the fruits of the Spirit–those who live by faith in the Son of God–those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.

Therefore, let him that standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

I have thus at length presented the argument of Mr. Wesley on this point, because of its Scriptural weight and importance. It is sufficient. No candid, unprejudiced reader, it seems to me, can arise from its study without conviction of its truth. But though sufficient, I must ask attention to one or two additional considerations, bearing against the doctrine under examination. Logical consequences are fatal to it; among many instances we select the following:

1. If the doctrine be true, after conversion a man is no longer a free agent. In this, as in all respects with the fate and absurdity of the system, he is brought under a necessity which he has no power to avoid. He cannot fall away from salvation. It will not do for Calvinists to modify the doctrine by saying he will not; its distinct assumption is, he cannot; he has no sufficient power. Let us look closely at this. Either a man, after conversion, can fall into vicious practices and sins, or he cannot. If he cannot, he is not a free agent in a state of trial. If he can, then he may be lost–finally perish; or if he does not finally perish, he must either be saved in his sins, or he must be saved from his sins. The former alternative no one embraces; but if he must be saved from his sins–and this depends upon repentance and faith–the man is not a free agent in these exercises, because he is under an absolute necessity, his salvation being unavoidable; whatever is necessary thereto is, also, unavoidable; and being so, the man is no longer free, unless a man may, at the same time, be free not to do, and yet under an unavoidable necessity to do, a given thing. Thus it appears that the doctrine of fate or absolute necessity legitimately results.

2. I object, it renders the condition of saints in this life more secure than that of the angels in Heaven, and of our first parents in paradise. [Adam and Eve] They, notwithstanding their purity and the favor of an approving Creator, had power to fall and perish. Can it be presumed that frail mortals in this state of trial may not? or, if so, why not? Is the faithfulness and immutability of God plead? In what sense do these secure believers more infallibly than the angels of Heaven–than Adam in a state of innocence.

3. If this doctrine is true, it is no difference what a man does after conversion; he cannot peril his soul–cannot even render his salvation doubtful. Thus it inculcates recklessness and licenses crime. Taken in connection with the doctrine of irresistible regeneration, it must unsettle all ideas of responsibility, and do away with every motive to a holy life. For, first, the man cannot avoid being regenerated; it is operated upon him, or in him, by irresistible power, and then, being regenerated, he may become during life a devil in sin, but he cannot miss of Heaven. Now, what sheer licentiousness is here! what more is requisite to induce unlimited and incurable recklessness? The man is in no danger–it is all one; let him indulge to the utmost excess; he is safe, and cannot be less so. Is this Christianity? Is this iniquitous teaching to be palmed upon the world as God’s truth?

4. I object, further, if the doctrine of final perseverance be true, then sin is not so abhorrent in a Christian as it is in a sinner–is not attended with the same consequences. The sins into which a believer may fall are accounted sufficient to damn a sinner, but are not sufficient to make a whit uncertain the salvation of the believer, if committed by him. What strange theology! Is it not a principle, and a true one, that where much is given much will be required? the greater the obligation, the greater the guilt of delinquency? But in this case the principle is reversed. A man, because he has been made the subject of distinguishing grace, may now sin most aggravatedly, but he will only be loved the more; the greater his crimes, the greater the love manifested in his continual pardon. Is not this teaching that we may sin that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1)

5. The doctrine is not analogous to, or resultant from, or in harmony with, the doctrine of Christianity.[1] This has been shown abundantly in the refutation of related errors. The grounds upon which it is based are false, and the superstructure stands upon emptiness. As conclusions drawn from false premises are worthless and void so this doctrine vanishes with its foundations, which have been demonstrated to be false. The idea of perseverance, is dependent upon the doctrines of election, commercial atonement, sovereign, and irresistible grace. No one can think of it separate and apart from these. These being destroyed, therefore, to dream of this is equivalent with supposing a cause without an effect, or a sequence without a premise.

6. It is contrary to the known conviction and consciousness of, I venture to say, all Christians. There may be a sense of security in the minds of believers, greater in some than in others; but it is believed that honest and careful scrutiny into the subject, will show that believers universally feel, whatever may be their attainments in grace, that there is a possibility of their coming short of salvation–that they yet have the fearful power to keep themselves out of eternal life. Is not this so? I appeal to the consciousness of everyone who may chance to read these pages. Do you feel the certainty of such a power and possibility: Nay, is there not an undefined uneasiness lest you may come short; and if not this, a sense of the necessity of much diligence, that you may at last enter into life? Does not God, in his own Word, appeal to such a possibility, to stimulate his children to constant and needful exertion! Is this consciousness false? Is our heavenly Father trifling with us, in his admonitions, exhortations, and expostulations, addressed to us in view of such imminent liability!

7. I object, that it is contrary to probability, if not certainty, with respect to individuals whose history is given in the Scriptures, who at one time where recognized as children of God, and whose final damnation is unquestionable. It is, also, contrary to probability with respect to many persons known in every age of the Church; some of whom, I doubt not, will be readily called up to the recollection of my readers–persons who, at one time, gave most indubitable evidence of genuine repentance and conversion, and who for many years brought forth all the fruits of a real Christian life, such as it is admitted could not exist without the influence of grace, yet, after all, fell into the most dreadful sins, and died in the very midst of their iniquities, gloating in their shame, and who must have finally perished or entered into life with their sins, or have been made holy after death!

Such are some of the objections we urge against the doctrine under examination. It is without warrant from the Bible. It is contrary to the explicit statements of the Bible. It is opposed to its facts, principles, and implications. It is inharmonious and discordant with its doctrines. Its logical consequences are antagonistic to the reason and nature of man, to the genius of religion, and to the consciousness of our species. It is a dangerous doctrine, productive of recklessness, licentiousness, and crime, as its legitimate offspring. All this is objectionable to it, without a single redeeming or apologetic circumstance. To embrace it, is to act in advance of, if not to abandon, common sense; and to be influenced by it, is to endanger all the interests of sound virtue and true religion, theoretical and practical, so far as these are under the guardianship of Christianity.


[1] Edit–John Boruff: The Westminster Confession (1647) was the true originator of the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” (ch. 17). It became the creed of the Presbyterian Church. It was also the originator of cessationism (ch. 1). Both doctrines have been vehemently rejected by Methodists and Pentecostals as anti-Biblical, wicked, and false. With that being said, I’ll admit that the Confession still has many Gospel truths in it; and I especially like its doctrine of sanctification (ch. 13). Theologians are imperfect human beings. They are teachers, guides, and helpers for Christians on their way to Heaven, for people reading the Scriptures; and trying to make sense of them, so they can know how better they can live for the Lord. But the theological confessions of men and their churches need to always be tested by the Word of God, just as any dream or vision. Consider that at the same time the Westminster Confession was being written in England, way up in the Scottish north, God was doing miracles and giving visions to Presbyterian Covenanters like Alexander Peden. He came from a hundred year line of Presbyterian prophetic ministers (words of knowledge, visions of the future) going back to John Knox and George Wishart. To say that the Westminster Confession represented true, authentic Presbyterianism might even be a bit of a stretch, seeing that as this anti-charismatic creed was being written, there were still charismatic Presbyterians alive, who were linked with the original Presbyterian movement (and they adhered to the Scots Confession of 1560, which had no “once saved, always saved” doctrine). It is the tendency of rich, educated, political, and worldly-minded men to suppress the testimonies of miraculous gifts as superstitious myths; as it is their nature to suppress godliness with false doctrines. The Westminster Confession, then, as a product of such (with the exception of Jeremiah Burroughs, William Gouge, and a few other godly divines), is ultimately a creed of theological confusion, compromise, rationalism, and carnality; because while it teaches holiness in chapter 13, it allows for the worst kind of impenitent unholiness in chapter 17. Paul would say, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

God’s Justice and the Subject of Apostasy – John Boruff

I had a dream about John Crowder that spawned this video. Subjects include: the love and justice of God, humor, present walk with God vs futurist mentality, easy-believism, eternal security (“once saved, always saved”), antinomianism, and lordship salvation. Strangely, after I made this video, I was curious to check out John Crowder’s latest Jesus Trip video “Creation and Incarnation.” It’s weird how many parallels of thought there are here. I promise you I truly dreamed this without having seen Crowder’s video yet; then I made this video; and then I watched his video, which confirmed my dream. Whoa.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Arminian Response to Phil Myers’ Tract “Once Saved, Always Saved” – John Boruff

A missionary who believes in eternal security asked me if I could give an Arminian response to his tract “Once Saved, Always Saved.” I said sure. I will italicize statements that he makes in his tract and then give my response below.

…the matter of being absolutely sure of salvation without any works. Kay explained what she believed and her new friend corrected her and said the Bible taught that no one could have the assurance of salvation without a life of continual good works.

Martin Luther said the epistle to the Romans “is really the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest Gospel.” It is my view, along with Luther and John Wesley, that Romans 3-8 contains the heart of the Gospel message: justification by faith alone and progressive sanctification by gradual moral improvement, imperfect obedience to the moral law of God, and resisting temptations, empowered by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:4: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” In the tract’s statement above, only the word salvation has been used so far, not the words justification or sanctification; and this is something we should be careful about, since each of these words convey different meanings in Scripture. Wesley contended, as I do, in my book The Gospel of Jesus Christ, that the word “salvation” encompassed both justification and sanctification. And within those experiences, there is also repentance, faith in the atonement of Jesus on the cross, the forgiveness of sins, and regeneration. Let’s unpack those concepts a bit.

1. Repentance – Turning away from sin. This occurs at the same time that justification occurs, but also becomes a continual repentance over the course of the Christian life. As Christians grow in their knowledge of the Bible and try to obey it more and more, the extent of their repentance will grow over time, and so will their faith. 

2. Justification – Being made right with God. The first, initial stage in the salvation process. Going from being a non-Christian to becoming a Christian for the first time. It is accomplished without good works; and comes by faith alone that Jesus died on the cross, to receive the punishment for our sins upon Himself, so that we would not have to be eternally punished in Hell fire. The wrath of God is turned away from us when we put our faith in the cross like this; and we are forgiven for our sins. 

3. Regeneration – New birth in the Holy Spirit or the born again experience. This is the beginning of sanctification; and happens at the same time as initial justification. It is described as a “seed” of the Holy Spirit within the heart and puts a love for God and people in there as well (1 John 3:9; Romans 5:5). It is a small level of the Holy Spirit; and always contains the bare minimum amount to save men, who have evil natures (Romans 7), to give them just enough good will to repent and believe in Christ. The witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts is where our assurance of salvation comes from (Romans 8:16); by that, we know that we are children of God. 

4. Sanctification – Holiness or separation from the world. This involves a number of things: heartfelt obedience to the moral law of God in the New Testament (not Jewish ceremonial laws), holding in balance with the view that loving God and people are the summary of that law (Matt. 22:37-40), and doing good works. Ephesians 2:8-10: “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” This Scripture is often misquoted. Those who adhere to easy-believism, tend to only focus on 2:9 when it says “not of works,” but they overlook 2:10: “unto good works.” What’s going on here? This is speaking of two different stages in the Christian life: “not of works” is about justification, but “unto good works” is about sanctification. No Christian can have the good works of sanctification without first laying the foundation of justification. But what are the good works that sanctify us? Good works are always defined by God’s commandments in Scripture, but Wesley broke these down into the works of piety (public prayer, family prayer, private prayer, the Lord’s Supper, Bible study, fasting) and the works of mercy (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, entertaining strangers, visiting prisoners, visiting the sick, and preaching the Gospel). As “means of grace,” doing these good works can strengthen our faith and invite more of God’s presence into our lives (Romans 8). But with the Church of England, he and I would agree that while good works are the necessary fruits of justifying faith, on their own they can’t put away our sins, nor endure the severity of God’s judgment. 

5. Salvation – The saving of a soul from Hell. The Wesleyan-Arminian view of this word, as I previously mentioned, encompasses both justification and sanctification. Since sanctification is a lifelong process that ends with death and then results in glorification through a heavenly body, Wesleyans contend that there is an “initial salvation” and “final salvation” found in Scripture. The previous one assumes the Christian is still alive on earth and in the state of salvation, but that state is conditional and “probationary,” and depends on continuing in repentance, faith in the cross, and an intention to obey the Word of God. The last one, “final salvation” occurs at death and judgment, when God decides if the state of the Christian at death was one of repentant faith in the cross. If not, then it would be called apostasy; and would mean that person had lost his opportunity of salvation from Hell. He once was saved, but later on became lost again. 2 Peter 2:20: “If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.” Repentance from sin and faith in the cross are always the conditions for salvation; and especially at death. Unlike the Baptistic view of “once saved, always saved,” which often implies that only justification needs to happen, and at that, only once in the person’s life. They usually don’t call it justification though, they call it salvation without works, which confuses the subject, I think. The Arminian view that a continuation in justifying faith, repentance, and sanctifying obedience is needed for salvation from Hell, is usually rejected by that camp. Some will even say that a “once Christian, now atheist” will go to Heaven if he dies an atheist! But that idea is totally wrong: the “unbelieving shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8). Justification is by faith alone. Without faith, there is no justification; and so, there is no salvation for dying unbelievers.

She asked the lady how she had learned to love people the way Jesus said. Her new friend stammered and said she just tried very hard.

The tract continues to point out how hard it is to keep God’s commandments perfectly. In Reformed theology, this is called the first use of the law. Romans 3:20: “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” But this is only one use of God’s law. The second and third uses for it are to show us what is sin and what is Christian duty. Perfectionism is constantly contradicted by everyday human experience. Romans 7 bears this out clearly: that there is a natural sinfulness in the members of our bodies (v. 23). And it is God’s law, for example, Jesus’ teaching to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39), that shows us how incredibly hard and nearly impossible it is to obey God’s commandments. But that’s no excuse for not trying. Romans 8 gives us hope for help through the presence of the Holy Spirit!

Was our guest saved? I think not. Why? Because she was trusting in her good works instead of trusting in Jesus Christ for her salvation. 

I don’t know enough information about this woman to make a judgment call like that, but I with Wesley would be likely to put her in the saved category (conditional, probationary), at least based on what the tract says. It says that she “tried very hard” to love her annoying neighbors. Intention of heart to obey God’s Word, is what we Arminians would consider one of the key elements of sanctification. This is repeatedly taught in John Wesley’s A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. However, the execution of that intention is always an imperfect fight against sin, as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith says on sanctification. That’s where I agree with the Puritans and disagree with Wesley. Sinless perfection is not possible in this life: all good works, all forms of Biblical obedience are imperfect, tempted, tested, and strained at best, because Christians still live encased in sinful human flesh.

If you’re relying on holy living, it’s not about being mostly faithful or trying your best or working harder or getting better–it’s about complete obedience all the time.

This idea assumes that lordship salvationists like myself believe that perfect obedience to God’s law is necessary for salvation, for your whole Christian life, until your dying day. This sort of sets you up for the first use of the law to be used against the second and third uses of it. The tract then has a list of difficult moral laws and shows that you can’t keep them perfectly. It gives off the view that God’s law is really only useful for one thing: to show us that we can’t perfectly obey it. Minus the perfectionist assumption, the anti-obedience theme goes against the logic of the Gospel. The message of forgiveness of sins, followed up by a life of godliness and holiness and personal moral transformation: the substance of Romans 5-8.

God has eyes that can see faith. You and I can only see works. 

I agree. Good works can be outward signs of justification by faith (James 2:17-24), just as speaking in tongues, if you will allow it, can be an outward sign for the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4: 10:46; 19:6). But many people will admit that good works and speaking in tongues can be counterfeited.

Please read Romans 3:20 through chapter 4:16. Ten of these verses (out of 32) clearly say we are saved without works.

Assuming that you are using a King James Bible, I see no use of the words saved or salvation in this portion of Scripture. Instead, we have expressions like justified (3:20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5), righteousness of God (3:21, 22), His righteousness (3:25, 26), the remission of sins (3:25), the law of faith (3:27), counted for righteousness (4:3, 5, 9), God imputed righteousness without works (4:6, 8, 11), they whose iniquities are forgiven (4:7), the righteousness of faith (4:13), and it is of faith, that it might be by grace (4:16). This is because Romans 3 and 4 are only the first half of the Gospel. The message of justification by faith alone. Romans 5-8 deal with the rest of the Gospel: the message of sanctification. I think the NIV Study Bible rightly divides these sections in its outline. Wesley, along with Luther, considered the entire book of Romans to be Paul’s Gospel presentation. Not just Romans 3-4. In short, all by itself the doctrine of justification by faith alone is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ! It’s only half the story of salvation. But when you combine justification by faith alone with progressive sanctification, you get salvation from eternal punishment in Hell; you have the full Gospel message.

If you have ever felt you could lose your salvation, you’re probably relying on all those good works. Be assured that only trusting completely in Jesus can give assurance of eternal life.

Of course, He wants us to be good! But He doesn’t want us to trust in our works. He wants us to depend that God Himself died to pay the entire punishment for all our sin. 

Stop relying on how good you have been, and just enjoy being good because He loves you! And let Him smile on your life.

…and, yes, my wife still does believe “Once Saved, Always Saved.”

Now we’re taking quite a leap from where we were before. Before we were referring to what the Bible teaches as justification by faith alone (Romans 3-4). But now we’ve changed gears and we’re talking about the possibility of losing salvation, also called apostasy. Now, if someone is relying on good works to save them from Hell, without faith in Jesus, it is not going to work. There is no such thing as justification by works alone or salvation by works alone in the New Testament. The closest thing to that would be the Sadducees, who were like liberal Christians who rejected the supernatural, but humanistically tried to do good works for God and possibly gain favor with Him that way. Catholicism has been a lot like that too, especially in Luther’s day: the idea of earning God’s salvation by doing good works. But Romans has no earning concepts in it; and neither should we. Sure, Christians will be rewarded for doing good works. 2 Corinthians 5:10: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” But anyone who truly trusts in the atonement completely will be motivated by the Holy Spirit to do good works, or try to obey the commands of the New Testament. The tract says, “Of course, He wants us to be good! But He doesn’t want us to trust in our works. He wants us to depend that God Himself died to pay the entire punishment for all our sin.” I agree! Totally agree, provided that future sins are not thought to be automatically forgiven. Baptists often like to say that their past, present, and even future sins have already been forgiven. Automatic forgiveness! But Romans 3:23 says, “For the remission of sins that are past,” implying that the atoning blood of Jesus has to be continually reached out for, and reapplied, again and again by repentance and faith. The entire book of Romans–all of it taken together–does not teach an easy-believism requiring no ongoing effort in the areas of repentance, faith, and obedience. Also, there are no Biblical grounds to think that faith can’t be lost! So many times the New Testament warns Christians against losing their faith, and by extension, losing their salvation! Wesley was apt to cite Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 as proof for this; but there is much more Scripture about this (1 Timothy 1:18-19; Romans 11:16-22; John 15:6; 2 Peter 2:20). A look at the Wikipedia article on the “conditional preservation of the saints” will give you a full list.

Here are 4 clear verses which explain why we know salvation doesn’t require any good works, but certainly a believer should do lots of good works.

The tract goes to quote from Titus 3:5, Romans 4:5, 1 John 5:13, and Ephesians 2:8-9. Again, these verses are referring to justification by faith alone, not to the full salvation package. Perhaps the apostle Paul is partly to blame for his lack of clarity, but we can know that he tried his best. If he was more clear, then maybe Christianity wouldn’t have so many divisions; and there would be no debates between Calvinists and Arminians. But it is clear to me that Jesus and the apostles were Arminian and expected holiness out of everybody (Hebrews 12:14). God wants to have real relationships with all of us. Giving everyone a free ticket to Heaven (imputed righteousness) without any ongoing spirituality (the Christian life of sanctification) would be a pretty fake relationship. Those who wish to bank on justification alone, and purposely excuse themselves from Bible study and holiness, will one day be surprised to hear Jesus tell them, “Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:23).

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Laurie Ditto: Visions of Heaven and Hell – It’s Supernatural

She found herself and other Christians in Hell for harboring unforgiveness and hate against people for petty issues; and others who believed in “once saved, always saved,” and refused to walk in obedience to the Bible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment