A response to the gender fluid movement

images

 

Trigger Warning: this post will contain biological facts and scientific truths. This post may also use logic and ethical absolutes. This post will make references to God Almighty and will do so in a non inclusive manner. This post may also disagree with college and university propaganda and present an opposing view… which essentially means we have no coloring books and cookies here. 

Reader discretion advised.

 

You’re about to enter a dimension, one not of sight and sound only but of mind, time and space. A realm between light and dark, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

download (2).jpg

 

Imagine, if you will, a vast and distant future. One of  unbridled freedom and untamed liberation.  A world where biology and hard fact are second to feeling and personality. A world in which light is dark and dark is light, where bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter, where good is called evil and evil is called good.

No, this not some distant universe, but right outside our very door.

Within our schools and colleges, within our homes,and in the media and society 24/7.

A world where gender is not determined through biology and chromosomes, but through personal preference. A world called 2017 America. In which lines and distinctions between gender are nonexistent.

No this is not an episode of the twilight zone. This is the very world we live in, one where I can identify with any gender by simply proclaiming myself to be that gender.

I want to open this post today by going through some basic logic. Let’s do a simple drill to get familiar with the law of logic called the law of identity.

Reach into a pocket and grab a coin. Lets say a penny for now.

Repeat after me:

This is a coin

This is not a dollar bill

This is not a million dollars

This is not a bottle cap

This is not a credit card

 

Good, now look down at your shoes. Repeat after me:

These are shoes

These are not gloves

These are not casts

These are not small beds for insects

These are shoes

Good, now look at your shirt

This is not a tent

This is not a flag

This is not a dishtowel

Great!

Now turn to your friend

REPEAT AFTER ME

This is a human being

This is not a spider

This is not a puppy

This is not a meercat

This is a human being

 

Good, now find the nearest male:

This is a male human

This is not a female human

This is not a little girl

Oh… What? Do the same rules of logic not apply?

 

So I can’t identify a penny as a million dollars, or fly my shirt as a flag, but I can, in spite of having male chromosomes and organs, identify as a female? I can’t identify as someone’s father and tell that person what to do, but I can tell people I might be a girl tomorrow.

If the same rules of logic do not apply here, why should they apply anywhere?

The biological truth is that there is no science or logic behind the gender fluid movement.

We have fixed genders because gender is a result of chromosome patterns, not personal feelings. I may feel like a bird but throwing myself off a cliff is not a good idea.

From a Christian perspective God does not let our gender fall to chance, He specifically knits all our parts together for His divine purposes (Psalm 139:13-16) to mar these parts by removing them for the purpose of claiming they are the “wrong parts” is to insult the perfect God who knows what He’s doing.

And then we have Facebook’s list of 71 gender options… Let’s talk about those…

Why should we stop at gender? Seriously, somebody give me one good reason we shouldn’t do age or species?

Date of birth ___ ___

Age identified with ___

Species:

Human

walrus

zebra

sparrow

No species

Hybrid

That’s a good start.

 

Advertisements

Things I wish Evangelicals would stop saying

14443369

 

Within Evangelicalism there exist a tradition of phrases that are often repeated over and over without actually having any basis in Scripture. Today we’re going to briefly look at a few of these phrases and show how they can even be against Scripture.

I won’t be trying to find the history of these phrases or where they got started, but I do want to take a look at what they are actually teaching and how it affects the church and the world right now.

The phrases and the people saying them are well intentioned, but that still doesn’t make them right. And worse off, some of these phrases are even slipped into the gospel and therefore become very dangerous.

If you have found yourself saying any of these liners (I myself have) please remember this post is simply a gentle correction and a plea for the church to remove these quotes from their vocabulary.

Let’s take a look:

 

1. Invite Jesus into your heart.

 

This is perhaps the most well intentioned phrase, but problems arise when people give this as the gospel.

Firstly, there is a verse in Ephesians (Ephesians 3:17) which does indeed say that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith. However, this is given to believers, people who already were saved and knew the gospel. This is never given as an evangelistic plea to anyone.

The surrounding context of these verses in Ephesians are about being strengthened in the Spirit and knowing the love of Christ, not the plan of salvation.

Too many tracts and gospel presentations ask people to “invite Jesus into their hearts.” The problem?

This is way too vague to save anyone.

The statement does not tell anyone about Christ’s death burial and resurrection for our sins according to the Scriptures (the gospel).

The focus of the gospel is Christ’s person and work, not a soteriologically vague statement taken from Ephesians, a non evangelistic letter.

The problem is that unbelievers need to be born again  before Christ can even dwell there. An unbeliving heart is no place for the Lord.

 

2. Surrender/give your life to Christ (for salvation)

This one is perhaps one I find most disdain with. This phrase is so often repeated in churches and gospel presentations.

OK, let me be very clear here, the gospel is about Christ giving HIS LIFE for us:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Titus 2:14  Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Philippians 2:8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The problem with the statement is this:

 

  1. The phrase focuses on our lives (which cannot save us), not Christ’s sacrifice (which does save us).
  2. Unbelievers technically have no life being dead according to Ephesians 2:5
  3. Christ already owns everything, including your life, there is nothing you can truly “give” to someone who already owns everything.
  4. Salvation is not a trade off, but a free gift (Romans 5)

In regards to being a disciple, then yes, giving your life to the service of God and “losing your life” in that sense (surrendering to Christ if we want to call it that) is good and Biblical, but telling unbelievers to do this is not a sound presentation of the gospel. This is for already saved people.

 

3. Make Jesus your Lord

 

This one makes me cringe. Jesus is Lord of all already:

 

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You (a person) cannot “make” Jesus Lord of anything, He already is (He’s God remember?) And if a person makes Jesus Lord over something, they’re lord over something Jesus wasn’t, and are lords over what Jesus is Lord over. Not going to work.

Let’s get rid of this phrase once and for all.

 

4. God doesn’t send people to hell, we send ourselves there

In essence, I can understand the overall message this phrase is trying to convey, believe me I do.

However, the statement simply is not true, God does indeed send people to hell (Matthew 25:41)

 

5. “I’m no saint…”

I actually have caught myself saying this a few times too, but really, if a person is saved, they are a saint, as the word is used in the New Testament to refer to the people of God in general. (1 Corinthians 6:1 Romans 8:27)

Not a special class of elite super believer.

 

6. All sins are equal

 

Nope…

John 19:11  Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

 

7. Can I get an Amen in the house of God

 

Acts 17:24  God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands

God used to dwell inside the Israelite’s temple and tabernacle, but in the NT He dwells in believers instead.

When we refer to a physical building as “God’s house” today, things can start getting unbiblical.

 

8. …Live forever in heaven…

 

Believers will spend eternity in New Jerusalem according to Revelation, which lands out of heaven upon a new earth. I understand some people interpret this metaphorically as the church, but I personally don’t see that. If you’re like me and have a slightly more literal hermeneutic, let’s do away with this phrase.

 

 

Ultimately, I’m sure there are more phrases that could be added, but these seem to be the most popular.

Was the Gospel copied from the Zodiac? Responding to Listverse.

images

 

An author by the name of Marcus Lowth over at the Listverse website has taken it upon himself to regurgitate the zodiac/Jesus connection conspiracy. The unfortunate thing about this is that these types of websites do not employ people with relevant credentials, instead many writers on this website are paranormal enthusiasts, Marcus is no exception.

The problem is is that this article has over 300 comments, as opposed to the usual 50 comments the website seems to average. These types of articles generate huge readers and large numbers of shares.

Now normally a website such as this isn’t taken seriously by anyone with an education in the field of mythology or religion/history, but since the website caters to the regular internet reader, a regular internet reader (myself) should respond.

The article offers “ten reasons” that the story of Jesus is really an allegory for sun worship. New Agers eat this type of stuff up, and in my evangelistic pursuits I have encountered people who buy into this theory whole cloth.

This theory is used to support the idea that Jesus “did not exist” (although the article doens’t necessarily argue for that) and that Christianity was stolen from previous religions, or in this case, was based entirely off the zodiac.

What these theory proponents like to do is use Christian language and equivocation into things that have no relation with each other. Let’s take a look.

 

The first day of the “new” Sun is December 25, which, as we all know, is the day Jesus was born in the stable in Bethlehem.[1] Even terms such as the “Son of God” could have originally, in ancient texts, have simply been “the Sun God.” As we will look at later in this list, the new Sun comes after the winter solstice, which ends the previous cycle of the Sun, before its rebirth—essentially, the circle of life.

 

 

If you’re wondering where that link leads in the citation, it leads to a blogspot website. Yes, that’s the kind of scholarship the zodiac mythers use, they like to quote each other pretty often. Anyway, the sun is not “reborn” on the 25th, it only appears to resume motion after the three day solstice, both dates have no relevance, because the Lord Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25th, that date was adopted centuries later.

Secondly, there is still no connection between the two, Jesus did not experience a “rebirth” when He was born in Bethlehem, that was His first birth, unlike the “new” sun zodiac mythers try to claim is born on the 25th. And lastly how does one get “The Son of God” from “The sun god” in ancient texts that were not written in English where the two words don’t sound similar?

 

Following December 25—when the Sun is reborn—it begins its journey through the houses of the zodiac, just as Jesus begins His life, first as a young child (new Sun) and all the way to summer, when the Sun is at its strongest, or when Jesus was at His most influential and powerful. As a further testament to this, many ancient records depict the Sun as a baby around December and January, a young boy at Easter, a strong and able man during the summer (sometimes with long, yellow hair, indicating bright sunrays), and a tired and frail old man in the months approaching winter.

As I said above, Jesus was not “reborn” or “made new” in Bethlehem, that was His first and only birth, not a yearly cycle, and the sun is not “reborn” either, it’s the same sun as before the equinoxes. Secondly, where in any Christian or New Testament text is Jesus said to have been His most influential in the summertime? Someone please show me, because I cannot think of one. Jesus died and Rose again at around 33. He was never an old man.

 

Of course, as much as we are familiar with Christmas and the story behind it, most of us will also be familiar with the story of the Three Wise Men and their journey to meet the new “King of Kings.” This is actually—if you believe the claims—a reference to the three stars of Orion’s Belt, which just after the winter solstice, align in such a way as to point to Sirius, the brightest star in the sky and the star that the Three Kings (the three stars of Orion’s Belt) follow or are guided by.[2]

The three stars of Orion’s Belt were also once called the “Three Kings of Orion”—another example of where the story of the Three Kings going to meet the new Son (Sun) of God may have come from. Not only is this an intriguing argument, but it is a great example of the intricate knowledge that ancient people must have had of the universe, which, for all intents and purposes, is the heavens.

I thought we are talking about sun worship? The “three kings” point to Sirius, not the sun. So which one is it?

Ultimately, this parallel is moot, because there were NOT “three wisemen” and they were not kings.

Anyone who has read the Biblical texts knows that there were three TYPES of gifts presented by the wisemen, not even three gifts, but three different types of items presented to the toddler (not newborn) Jesus. Wisemen were servants of kings and princes in the ancient world, they were not kings themselves. And the Bible never even hints to there being three of them.

 

At the age of 30 years, Jesus was baptized, at least according to the Bible. It is theorized that this is actually documenting the Sun entering the water sign, the House of Aquarius, 30 days after its birth.[3]

 

Again, that link leads to a blogspot blog. Jesus was not baptized at exactly 30, but the reference in Luke says ABOUT the age of 30. Either way, Jesus was NOT baptized “30 days after His birth” the Jews knew nothing of infant baptism. How entering through a particular constellation is equivalent to the Jewish rite of water purification for priests is not elaborated.

Even Jesus going on to become a shepherd is reasoned to be the Sun again entering a new house of the Zodiac—this time that of Aries—represented by a ram, which of course, would have once been a lamb. Lambs were sacrificed in ancient times, their blood allowed to spill on the land as an offering to the Sun in return for a plentiful harvest. This is just one of the reasons for lamb being typically a food associated with Easter.

 

First of all, Jesus was never a shepherd by profession, as the article seems to indicate. Jesus never tended to physical sheep that we know of, but spoke of Himself as a Shepherd in spiritual terms. I suppose the 23rd Psalm is a part of the conspiracy as well.

Secondly, the lamb being eaten at Easter has nothing to do with pagan rituals, the lamb was eaten at Easter in reference to the Paschal lamb eaten at Passover.

 

As spring continues to make the push toward summer, ancient civilizations would see their supplies from the previous year’s harvest dwindling.[4] They were essentially now at the mercy of the Sun to assist in providing what was needed for another good harvest so that they might stock up again for the following year. This is claimed to be symbolized in the story of Jesus, as Christ then ventures out to the “salvation of men”—to provide what they were so very desperate for.

Where in any Christian text is Christ said to have “ventured out” for salvation? He died upon a cross for our salvation, not take a journey.

 

The summer solstice is generally on June 21 and is symbolized by Jesus being at His most wise and powerful.[5] Essentially, as He spread goodwill and good deeds, resulting in joy and happiness in His life story, so does the Sun as its rays provide heat and light to the Earth, not only for human beings and all things alive but for crops, ensuring a good harvest and plentiful amounts of food.

 

The sun also provides heat stroke and sunburn, if we are to attribute the deeds of the sun to Jesus, why not these? Where in any New Testament text is Jesus said to have been His most powerful in the spring?

The ancient Phoenician god Bel (sometimes spelled “Bil”) is just one of many ancient deities to be symbolized with a halo. So, too, is Jesus, who is often depicted as having a halo around His head. Conversely, as we will look at in a moment, He would be depicted wearing a crown of thorns at the time of His crucifixion, a reference to the shortening of the days as summer comes to an end—and the rays of the Sun “weaken.”

In terms of the harvest and the zodiac, the crab (Cancer) represents the period where vegetation dries and returns to the Earth (or goes sideways or backward), before a final growth spurt toward harvest.[6] As the Sun enters Leo (late July/early August) it is at its hottest and most powerful (at least in the Northern Hemisphere), just as Jesus was, right before the Roman Empire made the collective decision that He was a little too powerful.

 

Many deities were depticed with a halo, here’s something interesting, Jesus wasn’t depticed AT ALL until a century after He walked the earth. And a crown of thorns is a crown, not a halo.

The last statment makes no sense, the Roman empire didn’t crucify Jesus because they thought He was “too powerful” they crucified Him at the behest of the Sanhedrin who accused Him of blasphemy. These guys seriously need to read a little history.

 

As summer gives way to autumn, the days become shorter—or the Sun becomes “weak” and loses its power. Jesus’s eventual crucifixion reflects this part of the Sun’s cycle. In fact, the cross and its connection is largely down to a zodiac disc used by many ancient civilizations, which was divided into four by a cross being placed or drawn over the top of it (aka the four seasons).[7] In the middle of the cross is the Sun, and the dial tracks its movements through each house of the zodiac.

Expressions such as “crossing over,” represented by the Sun passing over the cross, are believed to have first given life to Jesus or the Sun dying on the cross—it is crucified. Indeed, it is claimed by some that this is really where the origins of the phrase of someone “passing over” really stem from: the Sun crossing (passing) over this cross and dying.

First of all, the sun DOESN’T “die” the sun’s rays only appear to weaken due to the sun’s position from the earth, second of all, Jesus didn’t “cross over” anything, the equivocation is made to the two English words cross (crucifixion) and cross (pass by) which didn’t exist in the ancient world. The sun dial being divided into four sections has nothing to do with the Roman crosses which were often in the shape of a capital T. And were used to kill people, not measure time.

The story of Jesus states that He was crucified between two “common thieves” named Dismas and Gestas.[8] This symbolizes the Sun’s journey into the Houses of Scorpio and Sagittarius

That link leads to a website claiming Jesus is a retelling of Buddah, and no, no story of Jesus claims that. At least not any New Testament document. The theives are never named, and if they were, adding those two zodiac signs to their names is completely a stretch.

 

The winter solstice occurs each year around December 21, as the Sun is at its lowest point. To many back in antiquity, the Sun, at this time, had died.[9] This, as we previously covered, was symbolized by the crucifixion, and now with the Sun remaining at its lowest point (dead) for three days, Jesus’s body was laid to rest in a cave for three days before His “rebirth”—and then it’s back to the first point made in this list.

As we have already showed, the sun doesn’t “die” to use this word is to dishonestly equivocate two things (light being weakened with a man being killed) which have no relation.

Secondly, Jesus was not “rebirthed” three days later and He was not laid in a cave, He was Resurrected. Again, using loaded language and equivocation.

 

Of course, there are 12 disciples, which in reality—according to these types of theories—were actually a nod of the hat to the 12 signs of the zodiac.[10] This is not just in the story of Jesus, either. Twelve is a recurring number in many other ancient legends—12 and one, with the one being the Sun.

No, Jesus chose 12 disciples to judge to the 12 tribes of Israel, which came to be from Jacob’s 12 sons. (Matthew 19:28)

And yes the number 12 is used in many mythologies, but even we use it today to buy eggs and donuts. I guess the french cruller I had this morning was really a symbol for sun worship.

Ultimately, these types of theories use what we have seen, very bad scholarship and loaded language.

 

 

Can you lose your salvation? Part 1

images (1)

I write this post today as something of a reminder to myself, than a persuasion to others. This topic I will be looking at is an extremely heated debate, perhaps the most divisive issue in all of Protestantism.

There are misunderstandings on both sides and a lot of accusations on both sides.

The question is one that every believer has struggled with, will struggle with, and does struggle with. Myself is no exception, and in fact if I didn’t change camps, I might not be writing this today.

Can you lose your salvation?

I can hear the debating begin already.

Please note I will not be looking at the larger issue of Calvinism and Arminianism, although the study of those systems is pertinent to the debate.

 

This question is important for so many reasons, one, it will give peace, or in my case, sanity, to the believer, two, this question is an issue of what the future holds for every believer, and of utmost importance, and this is why I take such a strong stance on this issue, the question deals with what exactly did Christ do on the cross.

Once saved, will a believer remain saved? Or can salvation be lost?

I will readily admit I used to be a staunch “arminian” on this debate. While I do not identify as a Calvinist by any means, I no longer identify as an Arminian either. I find truth and errors in both systems.

I used to be of the belief that salvation could be lost. I no longer am. What changed me? I will look at this in the article.

This issue is especially important for apologists because I have encountered many atheists who claim to be former Christians. What about them? We’ll take a look at that as well.

Please note as well, that I will not tolerate or give credence to the idea that this teaching “gives a license to sin”. No mature and serious believer would ever use this as a reason to sin, and if they did that person will have to answer for that.

I read an article by a Pentecostal publication not too long ago, that argued salvation could be lost, and the analogy that they gave to this was as follows:

Salvation is like a plane ride. We are all headed to the same destination, however, some passengers can choose to “jump away” and never reach their destination (heaven).

I find this analogy to be seriously flawed in light of what salvation actually is according to Scripture. And that’s what we will look at to start with. Before we can ask the question of whether or not salvation can be lost, we need to look at what salvation is.

If we see what salvation truly is, we will begin to see clearer and clearer it’s not something that can be “lost” no more than your identity as a human being can be “lost”.

To view salvation as a plane ride is to seriously understate what happens at salvation. Let’s take a look at several things that happen when one is saved.

 

ONE: A NEW PERSON IS CREATED

Ephesians 4:22-24

That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

 

There are two parts to a believer. One that the person had through birth, and one the believer has through the new birth. Both are present at the same time and we can choose to follow either one.

 

A believer is not just a regular person who happens to believe Christianity. A believer is an entirely new creation of God.

 

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

If a person gets saved that person now has an entirely new nature which is a direct creation of God, which is what John speaks about in John 1:12, becoming the sons of God.

Salvation is not a guessing game of how I feel today, and what I will do or not do tomorrow,. Salvation causes a new righteous creature of God to be born. If one were to lost their salvation, the question remains.

What happens to the new creature? Losing salvation would posit that the new creature would die. But 1st Peter says the new birth is of something that is incorruptible, how can something incorruptible like to the word of God give birth to something that can die or become corruptible? Which leads us to the next point:

 

TWO: THE BELIEVER IS A PART OF CHRIST, AND CHRIST CAN NEVER DIE AGAIN.

This is one of the strongest points that prove eternal security, and this definitely shaped my view today.

The problem with the airplane theory is that the saved person is not on the airplane, they are the airplane.

1 Corinthians 6:16-17

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

 

Losing salvation would mean eventual spiritual “death” of a believer. That’s not going to work here. A person joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Paul here uses the analogy of becoming one flesh with a person, and says here and in the following verse we have had a similar event with the Lord, where we are no longer two but now one.

 

Ephesians 5:30-32

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 

A saved person is NOT autonomous. That saved person is one with the Lord. Of His body, so much so that Paul says we are of His flesh and bones, and that we’re one spirit. We are the body of Christ, and members in specific.

To have people losing their salvation means Christ’s body is not only constantly being ripped apart, but that His body parts are dying.

That’s a major no no:

Romans 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

Christ defeated death at the Resurrection. That means Christ literally can never die again. He literally physically/spiritually cannot die, He simply cannot.

Having a believer (a part of Christ) die means that death still has some dominion according to that view. Which is not possible. Which makes losing salvation a dangerous doctrine.

But what about physical death? Believers can still physically die can they? No, they only sleep in Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13) We will be raised again physically like Christ was, which leads us to our next point.

THREE: AN ENTIRE DEATH BURIAL AND RESURRECTION WOULD HAVE TO BE REVERSED

If one could lose their salvation, that person’s death burial and resurrection would have to be reversed. This type of stuff isn’t considered by those in the lose salvation tribe. The understanding they have of salvation is not strong enough.

 

Romans 6:4-6

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

 

If a person is a believer, that person has been crucified WITH Christ (Galatians 2:21) What’s next? Christ was buried, so we are buried with Him, what’s next? Christ was raised, so we will be raised with Him.

Losing salvation would mean that believer has to become “uncrucified” and un-buried with Christ, and then not be raised. It’s not as simple as jumping away from a plane.

 

 

FOUR: WE ARE ALREADY SAVED IN THE FUTURE

The major problem the losing salvation theology is that salvation is so much of a done deal, from God’s perspective we are already with Him.

Ephesians 2:5-6

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

We are quickened (made alive) with Christ, and guess what else? We’re sitting in heavenly places in our Saviour.

Losing salvation means we would have to be cast down from these heavenly places. If we’re in heavenly places already I’m pretty sure salvation was a done deal.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Glorified is past tense here. It’s a done deal. From God’s timeless view we’re already glorified.

 

FIVE: CHRIST’S SACRIFICE WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO KEEP US SAVED

This is the part I feel strongest about. In the Old Testament people had to repeatedly offer sacrifices over and over and over. Why? Because those sacrifices could never save.

Christ’s was obviously of infinite more importance.

Hebrews is a Book many will go to to claim salvation can be lost. However, Hebrews presents such a strong view of Christ’s atonement, one cannot think salvation can be lost.

Hebrews 9:12-14

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

What type of redemption did Christ purchase us? ETERNAL redemption. That means we are redeemed not until we lose our salvation, not after 12 years of believing, or 3 years, or two days, but forever. There is no time limit. We are redeemed with an eternal redemption.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Christ’s death on the cross was so strong, it saved us not for a certain number of years, not until we lose it, but forever.

This disproves the teaching that we can “hand salvation back to God”. It’s not something we have temporal control over. It’s an eternal act procured by Christ.

 

The teaching that we can lose our salvation says Christ purchased not eternal redemption but temporary probation. Not perfection forever but a temporal fixing that we must maintain.

That’s not the case.

There are many more verses that could be dealt with. Ultimately, I believe the best verse on us not losing our salvation is John 6:39

John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Christ ALWAYS does the will of the Father (John 8:29) And He’s not going to lose us. Christ will lose nothing, and those believers which the Father gave to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ will present them to the Father, and He’ll have them all in His hand, safe and sound when He does.

I will do another part to this in the future, there are some more verses and concepts to deal with, but I truly believe if it were up to us to maintain salvation we would lose it.