Dear Friends,

I’ve been trying since September 2017 to biblically refute the popular notion that people become eternally saved from the lake of fire by choosing to believe a preacher / Bible verse, or by praying a certain prayer, or any other act of the human will.

It’s been an interesting journey. There have been several unsubscribes, but I’ve also had numerous people spur me on with words of encouragement and guidance. I’ve been accused of preaching a false gospel, and I’ve responded with page after page of cross-examination in the comments section.

But I do think the time is near to tell you what I think John 3:16 actually means.

So, I think today will be my last challenge post. I will recap section 2d (“John 3:16 cannot mean that God has 4 ways of saving people”), plus give you tons of bonus content at the end. I hope and pray that the bonus content helps convince you that the popular interpretation of John 3:16 leads to endless,  unbiblical contradictions.

The theme today is the same as it has been for the past year: John 3:16 cannot mean what you’ve been told.

Open series outline

.

.

Section 2d in a nutshell

In my experience, all Christians who believe in some version of the sinner’s prayer for salvation also admit there are exceptions. In section 2d, I have tried to argue that the need for exceptions to the rule is actually evidence of a problem with the rule itself. If you have the proper understanding of God’s baseline plan of salvation, you actually don’t need to carve out any exceptions! Here’s a recap, with inline links in case you want to read the individual posts.

Part 2d1a: goo-goo ga-ga

The point of this post was just to rehearse the Bible’s unmistakable testimony that infant salvation is a thing. You can’t just brush it off or call it some vague hermeneutical question. A systematic understanding of salvation will explain how infant salvation fits into the plan.

Just one example that I used:

coupled with:

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

Part 2d1a: goo-goo ga-ga

Part 2d1b: Everything is going according to plan (phase 1)

The basic plan for infant salvation should not be a mystery: God handles it, and here is how:

GOD choosing his people (infant (and big people) salvation, phase 1):

GOD regenerating his people (infant (and big people) salvation, phase 2):

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

Part 2d1b: Everything is going according to plan (phase 1)

Part 2d1c: There can only be one

I reject any plan of salvation that has different ways for people to be born again. Check out this verse:

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

P.S.: This post turned into a 20-comment back and forth between me and a Christian friend of mine, so you can go pretty deep into the back and forth arguments if you are interested. I posted another question to him a few weeks ago and I’m hoping to hear back.

Part 2d1c: There can only be one

Part 2d2: The inconvenient ones

In this post, I argued that the proposed exception for babies does not fit the case of some mentally handicapped individuals. Namely, what if some mentally handicapped individuals are capable enough to sin, per God’s eternal standard of holiness, but not capable enough to understand and believe the Christian gospel?

Again, the problem is with the baseline method of salvation, not with the inconvenient cases! The reality is that God speaks directly to his children, wherever they are, no matter how old they are, and no matter what their mental abilities are:

And I can’t help repeating this Helen Keller poem which makes the same point from an autobiographical perspective and give me chills every time I read it:

They took away what should have been my eyes
(But I remembered Milton’s Paradise)
They took away what should have been my ears
(Beethoven came and wiped away my tears)
They took away what should have been my tongue
(But I had talked with God when I was young).
He would not let them take away my soul:
Possessing that, I still possess the whole.

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

Part 2d2: The inconvenient ones

Part 2d3a: Another exception?

Here, I presented my perspective on the final separation of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31ff. I discussed this passage because of another exception I had heard that was related to this passage.

Anyway, my take on it was pretty simple. The sheep did good things because they were already children of God. Numerous passages make the same point in different ways:

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

Part 2d3a: Another exception?

Part 2d3b: No

Here, I confronted a teaching from a certain Christian ministry that claimed that the sheep were not Christians, and not born again, but they escaped the fires of hell by doing good things for persecuted Christians. I agreed that the sheep in question might not be Christians; I agreed that they did not go to hell. But the idea they were not born again, and that they worked their way out of hell, and that they might end up in hell at some later point, and that they were not part of God’s family, became firmly lodged in my craw. For example, one of my arguments went as follows:

“I disagree that any of these sheep are not born again. I say they are born again because of these passages:

The sheep did righteousness, and they showed love. So how could they not be born again, in light of the two verses above?”

Again, my larger point was that the real problem is with our baseline system of salvation. That‘s the part that really needs to be revisited. Is the baseline method (“Jesus, I am a sinner and I accept your sacrifice for my sins and I ask you into my heart as my Lord and Savior”) really the right way to rightly divide ALL of the Bible’s teaching on salvation?

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

Part 2d3b: No

Part 2d4a: The unevangelized

This is another group that Christians often ponder. Christians will usually tell you that the Bible is not clear on this issue, or that the Bible is clear and those unevangelized people are damned.

But for me, this question is cause to rejoice! That’s because I see that the Bible, when approached systematically, has a wonderful, God-honoring answer to this question:

Did you catch it? Jesus did all the work to save his people by himself! He doesn’t need our cooperation! So, salvation of the unevangelized is no more complex or difficult than the salvation of Billy Graham.

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

(True, many people will interpret other passages to mean that we are required to do something, or consciously place our trust in the work of Jesus, etc. Which brings us to 2d4b…)

Part 2d4a: The unevangelized

Part 2d4b: Is it a God thing or not?

In this post, I directly confronted the teaching of Bible teacher, author and pastor John MacArthur regarding the salvation of the unevangelized. Relying heavily on his own direct quotes, I showed contradiction after contradiction in his teaching on this subject. I didn’t challenge him from the Bible….I challenged him with his own inconsistent teaching.

And my point is this: if you are not careful with the passages that sound like you might have to do something to get saved from hell, you are headed for a world of contradictions. The doctrine that I teach on this blog is the only soteriology (system of salvation) I have heard that does not cause contradiction after contradiction in our understanding of the Bible.

And please note, I did not come up with the doctrines taught on this blog. They are merely the doctrines I was taught growing up. But I spent several years in other churches that believe differently, and I have had many detailed dialogues with people of other persuasions. And I simply have not heard harmony in the thinking of other believers on this all-important subject….and that is a big reason I returned to the Primitive Baptist fellowship.

This is the God that Bible preaching should proclaim, not disturbingly and confusingly, but joyfully and consistently:

God does not have 4 ways of saving people.

(don’t get me wrong, it’s good to preach the fear of God, but that should be in a fatherly context, not a lake of fire context!)

Part 2d4b: Is it a God thing or not?

Conclusion: John 3:16 cannot mean that God’s forever family is limited to professing Christians

I’m ending this on a high note. The idea that ONLY Christians go to heaven flies in the face of this beautiful, powerful, hopeful and encouraging verse that I think many Christians, deep down, understand in the same way I do:

Now, THAT is good news. God’s family is much larger than what is commonly taught! I will hang my hat on that, rather than all the self-contradictory and terrifying preaching that is out there.

John 3:16 cannot mean what you’ve been told….but I’m done discussing what you’ve been told 🙂

In the next post, I want to talk about what John 3:16 actually means. And I am mondo excited!!!!

God bless you…

Bonus content: “Half the battle” is not enough

You can read more about John MacArthur’s position in Part 2d4b, but he basically argues (in some places, if not others) that the Maltese natives showed kindness to Paul because of God’s moral law written on their hearts, even though they were not born again. I would like to know how he reconciles this idea with:

Sounds to me like people who are not born again know God’s laws but, instead of following them, they flout them!

Bonus content: Misquoting Scripture

There is no mention in Romans 1 of God writing his laws in people’s hearts, despite MacArthur’s claim to the contrary:

Number one, revelation. Men have been given the truth. Verse 18 says, “We suppress the truth.” Verse 19 then describes the source of that,“That which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them through reason and the moral law written in the heart,…  (2)

This differs from the KJV (the version I use), and, after some digging, I found that the quote above doesn’t match Romans 1:19 in the Bible linked by MacArthur either! Becoming suspicious, I googled the version of verse 19 quoted above, and got one single hit: the exact same MacArthur sermon page where I first started.

Dear pastor MacArthur, it seems you are misquoting Scripture. In fact, the only references I see in this chapter to hearts are both negative:

There is a difference between having a head knowledge of God’s laws (see Romans 1:32, quoted higher up) and having his laws written in your heart! Not the same thing, my friends!!!

Bonus content: Naughty by nature

In Romans 2, it does discuss laws written in the Gentiles’ hearts, and MacArthur claims that chapter explains the kindness of the Maltese, while still denying that the Maltese were born again. This is the passage:

My question: if these people are really not born again, how do we reconcile Romans 2 with this passage which clearly describes people who are not born again:

See the problem? The Romans 2 passage says that some people are doing good things (like taking care of the shipwrecked missionary Paul) by nature. The Ephesians 2 passage says some people are doing evil things by nature. Sounds to me like the latter group would need a significant overhaul in order to fit the description of the former….like being born again! If you are not convinced….if you think the two passages could be talking about the same people, and they just have two natures, even though they are not born again….then consider this additional passage about people who are not born again, and ask yourself if it really makes sense to fit them into the Romans 2 / hospitable Maltese description:

I don’t see it, my friends. I claim instead that the noble Maltese were in fact born again by the Holy Ghost before Paul got there!

Bonus content: No sir, it has EVERYTHING to do with God

In a different sermon, MacArthur provides a different explanation for the Maltese:

Even the natives on the island of Malta in Acts 28 showed exceeding kindness to Paul. There is a kind of pagan kindness and pagan goodness, and we would never deny that, but it has no relationship to God. It counts for absolutely nothing.

I am just going to paste one verse in here, and ask you to dig in yourself and decide if MacArthur’s 2nd attempt at explaining the Maltese is biblical:

Bonus content: If this isn’t works salvation, I don’t know what is

Again, I am trying to sound a doctrinal alarm here (but also spread a message of joy!).

Peter said:

Taking Peter’s words under advisement, we need to realize that the first interpretation that pops into our heads is not always the right one. Here is an example (again from MacArthur) of where you can end up if you start down the wrong path with some of the verses that have the words “saved” or “salvation” or “justified”:

“It really is a gift…by grace you are saved through faith, that not of yourselves, it’s a gift of God. The faith that Abraham had in God was empowered in him by God but not apart from his own WILLINGNESS and his own OBEDIENCE.” (1)

Do you really want to end up in that doctrinal space? I cannot imagine how to reconcile his claims with:

OR

OR

So, I reject MacArthur’s explanation of Abraham’s salvation from the lake of fire.

God did it COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY from Abraham’s willingness and obedience!!!

Bonus content: Too much, too soon

Many Christians teach that Abraham received salvation from the lake of fire in Genesis 15:6. The verse reads:

This passage is always (understandably) accompanied by this passage:

Here is the common teaching on the subject:

To demonstrate his point that salvation comes through faith instead of works, Paul referred to Abraham, the forefather of the Jewish people. He cited Genesis 15:6, which reveals that Abram (Abraham) “believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” (3)

And this link also quotes Romans 4:3, as I alluded to earlier.

Now, here is a big problem with this popular teaching:

Abraham was walking by faith a long time before Genesis 15:6! So how could Genesis 15:6 be his moment of salvation from hell? How could it be the moment when Abraham’s account gets legally settled with God?

Is the faith in Hebrews 11 some kind of inferior faith? But then why is it mentioned in the chapter about model faith? The very hall of faith!?

My friends, Abraham demonstrated too much faith, much too soon to be called an unsaved man before Genesis 15:6.

My takeaway? Justification by faith is NOT a singular event that allows us to escape from hell! It’s something completely different, something experiential, that I don’t have time to get into right now. But I will say how I think Abraham was born again….you guessed it….

OK, you made it to the end. I commend you for your persistence.

And now I beg you, I implore you, I earnestly entreat you to hang on until the next post 🙂

Links: 

(1) MacArthur on Abraham

(2) When God abandons a nation

(3) How did Abraham get saved?