Quotes to Note 11: Once Saved, Always Saved?

~ Bob Hayton

I am working on my review of Larry Helyer’s excellent book, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology. I came across a quote that is really good, but doesn’t quite fit into my review.

I’ve explained my take on the well-known phrase “Once Saved, Always Saved”, in one of my most popular posts of all time. Here I’ll quote Larry Helyer’s (Professor of Biblical Studies at Taylor University) thoughts on this issue (he largely agrees with me).

A popular slogan says, “Once saved, always saved.” There is, of course, an element of truth in this: the number of God’s elect is fixed and certain because they are foreknown and predestined from eternity to obtain final salvation (i.e., glorification [see Rom 8:28-30; Eph 1:3-14]). On the other hand, exact knowledge of who the elect are belongs to God alone (cf. Deut 29:29). The individual believer is warned against making premature judgments in this regard (1 Cor. 4:5), simply to make his or her election sure by persistence in faith (Col 1:22-23; cf. 2 Pet 1:10). One need not live in constant anxiety about this, however, since the Spirit witnesses with our spirit, giving assurance that we are the children of God, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:14-17). Where the slogan can be misleading is in the tendency to think that some outward show of commitment, such as raising one’s hand, going forward in an evangelistic service, signing a decision card and the like, forever seals one’s eternal destiny, there being nothing capable of altering the unalterable. Such an view ignores the necessity of continuing in faith (Col. 1:23). Paul insists that “the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Gal 5:6 [my italics]). Decisions not matched by discipleship are deceitful. They presume that one may secure salvation on one’s own terms, and such presumption is precarious.

From The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John by Larry Helyer (IVP Academic)  © 2008, 261-262.

Bob’s Blogging Tips: Instapaper’s Read It Later Bookmarklet

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Over the years, I’ve covered quite a few blogging tips. I’ve been meaning to blog about this one for quite a while.

As you find time throughout your day to surf the web, I’m sure you make the rounds to a few of your favorite blogs (like mine!), or check out your Google Reader. If you are being swept away by Twitter, like I am, you probably find quite a few interesting articles or links shared by your Twitter contacts. Invariably there isn’t time to finish reading everything that seems worth reading. What are you to do?

I’ve found a tool which helps me keep track of what I’m interested in reading. Instapaper has a “read later” bookmarklet. Once you sign up for a free account, you can drag a button to your favorites toolbar. Then when your browser is open to a page you want to read later, you just click the “read later” button and it is saved to your Instapaper account.

When you login to your account, you see a list of all your unread links. You can read them, save them, organize or delete them. I’ve found this quite helpful when I want to blog on something but don’t have time right then and there.

There may be other tools similar to this, but I find this one extremely easy to use. Let me know if anyone else uses this or has some other option which might be as good or better.

“Jesus 365, A Devotional” compiled by Ed Stewart

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

In the second century after Christ, the Diatessaron was a popular Christian book which took the four Gospels and combined them into one single story of Christ. This year, I’ve been reading a fascinating devotional book based on the same principle, Jesus 365, A Devotional: Experiencing the Four Gospels as One Single Story compiled by Ed Stewart (Harvest House). If you’ve been a Christian long enough, you’ve probably seen a Harmony of the Gospels. This book, takes that idea of a harmony to another level. The four Gospel accounts are carefully blended into one continuous narrative.

The book is a daily devotional, with 365 separate readings, each with a memorable or devotional quote at the bottom of the page. Each day’s reading also includes the Biblical references which are used for that selection. Sprinkled throughout the book are occasional explanations of the editorial decisions made regarding the chronology of this harmony as well as brief descriptions of Jewish feasts, tax collectors and other details about the life and times of Jesus.

The book advocates a unique position on the length of Christ’s ministry, opting for a four year ministry rather than the traditional three year view. A detailed defense of a four year ministry is included in the book.

Each day’s reading is given a number rather than a date. This makes it easy to just read through as a story rather than only one page a day, like a typical devotional. When reading more than a page at the time, I find myself skipping the devotional thoughts to pay attention more to the Biblical accounts of Christ.

This book certainly shouldn’t replace a careful reading of each of the four Gospels. God gave us four accounts of Christ, not one. However, there is still much devotional benefit in reading the full story together in one book. The early Christians prized their Diatessaron, and you will prize this book too. It may open your eyes to a clearer view of Jesus’ glory.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is still available for purchase at Amazon.com.

Aliens & Atheist Absurdity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

My wife and I rented Knowing, a newly released (on DVD) movie with Nicolas Cage in it. I have to admit I love end-of-the-world, science fiction movies. Some of my favorites are Deep Impact, Independence Day and Core.

There is a scene in Knowing, where the professor character that Cage plays, explains two competing views of the universe: determinism and randomness. Determinism says everything happens for a reason, and is bolstered by the understanding of how small the probabilities are that life on Earth could just accidentally happen. The opposite view claims that in fact everything is an accident, a freak of randomness and chance. Life has no meaning.

By the end of the movie, we are left to side with determinism, but in a very meaningless way. <spoiler alert> The world will end and we glimpse the awe-inspiring (at least for the main character in the movie) truth about our existence — aliens protected us, and evidently seeded our planet. </spoiler alert>

What amazes me is how rational and realistic all of this seems from a secular, scientific viewpoint. Real scientists propose mainstream, class-room theories about all of life possibly having evolved on a different planet. Aliens brought the beginnings of life to our planet. In the movie Expelled, with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins posits that in the face of evidence for intelligent design, a plausible theory is just this: life came here from another world.

Anyone intrigued by UFOs have seen how Biblical accounts such as Ezekiel’s vision of the presence of God among the wheels, are turned into ancient evidence for the existence of UFOs. While to a certain extent, science laughs off UFO claims; nevertheless, the search for extraterrestrial life continues in the most respected institutions.

All of this seems absurd. Aliens who bring life to earth in a spaceship; UFOs behind Biblical visions and indeed all the religions on earth (think Stargate); even the Big Bang itself — all of this is flat out crazy. If you take a step back, these theories are preposterous and absurd — beyond belief. But major motion pictures and scientific documentaries are endlessly preaching this dogma.

Now we come to my ironic point. In a world where science lets us dream of intelligent life all throughout the universe, why is the scholarly consensus so dead set against any notion of the Christian faith? Why is it that Christians are laughed to scorn for believing in a God who created life, and will one day bring all people to a moral accounting? Why is that unbelievable and absurd, whereas aliens, UFOs, paranormal experiences and the like aren’t?

Could it be that we deify man and his pursuits in understanding the universe (science)? At the end of the day, atheists refuse to believe Christianity’s worldview, because they cannot tolerate it. They don’t want to believe.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity across Eschatological Positions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

We’ve been discussing whether eschatological positions should hinder our unity in a local church, or beyond. Mark Dever recently challenged pastors to not let this hinder unity, even calling doctrinal statements that detail a specific millennial position, sinful.

In light of all this, I was struck when I read the following words from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a book I finished this weekend. Speaking on the phrase “let all things be done with charity” (1 Cor. 16:14), he addresses the question at hand directly.

In standing fast in the faith, if we are not animated by the spirit of love, we may not always differentiate as we should between faith in its essence and certain peculiar interpretations and expositions of our own. Here is a theme which might very easily occupy our minds on many occasions. There is nothing so tragic, I sometimes think, in certain circles as the way in which men fail to differentiate between that which is of the essence of the faith and certain other matters about which there can be no certainty. You cannot, I am told, be a member of the World Fundamentalist Association unless you believe in the “pre-millennial” return of our Lord and if you happen to be a “post-millenarian” you cannot be a Christian! If you are an “a-millenarian” you are just unspeakable. There you have an illustration of the importance of differentiating between the essence of the faith and the interpretation of a particular matter about which there has always been a difference of opinion. There is the same difference of opinion as to when the rapture of the saints is to take place. Men separate from each other about matters of that nature, where there is no certainty, and where there can be no certainty, though the return of the Lord is certain. Who can decide who is right, whether those who hold the pre-millennial, or those who hold the post-millennial view? I could mention great names on both sides, equally expert theologians. Surely these are matters where there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Let us bear in mind the adage: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” “Stand fast in the faith.” Yes, but in a spirit of love.

[from The Christian in an Age of Terror: Selected Sermons of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1941-1950 (previously unpublished sermons, edited by Michael Eaton) — Kregel, pg. 264 ]

I think we see Lloyd-Jones agreeing with Dever here. As for me, I think we should leave the question open for membership, but we can define what our church will teach. But as we teach we should be careful with how we deal with opposing views.

I think this does shape how we approach Scripture (or how we approach Scripture shapes this issue). So it is emphatically important. But we should be careful to elevate our preferences and doctrinal conclusions on a matter that is not crystal clear, over and above the points of doctrine which are universally held and powerfully clear. When you elevate every position to the place of major doctrine, you minimize what Scripture presents as truly central.