Infant Baptism

Dr. John MacArthur had an insightful sermon on an important subject.  Most of the words below are his.  Please read:

One of the strange paradoxes in the church is that the world is full of baptized non-Christians, millions of them, all over the planet.  While at the same time, the church is full of non-baptized Christians.  And it raises the issue of baptism, and what it is, and why people are so confused about it.  What does the Bible say?  Its method?  Its meaning?  There are too many people who don’t know that it is important, and who don’t think the methodology is important, or even the time when a person is baptized.  In particular, we will look at the baptism of infants, which is how you get a world full of baptized non-Christians.  Because of the “media-oriented” church of today, many people come to Christ by listening to radio or from TV evangelists. They are not connected to a church when saved, so they don’t think about being baptized.  A lot of church pastors don't emphasize it.  Also, people might hear nothing about baptism.  They might be going from church to church to find more connection, but baptism never becomes an issue for them.  But baptism in Scripture is a command.  The Great Commission is very clear at Matthew 28:19, when Jesus said:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

All nations need to believe the Gospel, and those that believe need to be baptized.  Peter, in the first Gospel sermon, the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.”  On that day there were 3,000 baptized, and thousands more, day after day in the early days of the church.  It is clear in Scripture that baptism is urgency once they’ve been saved, seeing His Words spoken to individuals and to the church.

Still, its confusion is widespread, and we have millions of infant-baptized non-Christians, and millions of un-baptized Christians.  So let’s cover Scripture on this.  Some of you need to face the reality that you should be obedient to this command, and you cannot be indifferent to it.  Perhaps you’re defiant, perhaps you’re not willing at all to confess Christ openly and publicly—which raises the issue of whether you are a Christian at all.

Much confusion over baptism has come from the phenomenon known as pedo-baptism, or baby baptism. Where did this come from?  For those of you who are Roman Catholics, or former Roman Catholics, you were likely baptized as a baby.  For those of you who were raised by Presbyterian parents, or Lutheran parents, or Episcopalian parents, or Anglican parents, or Methodist parents, and we can pretty much go down the line of “mainline” denominations, and see baby baptism—until we get to the Baptists and Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish).   So baby baptism is widespread.  It is woven into Catholic tradition—and the Eastern Catholic church as well. It is part and parcel of Protestant theology, except for Baptists and those who identify with their view of believer-baptism.  From the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm for both Catholics and even the later ”Reformed” theology.  The Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change the view of baby baptism—so it was an “incomplete Reformation.” (I will explain that term later). Tradition ruled the day, and still does.

You say, “Well, is it a really big issue?”  It’s a huge issue, and I’m going to show you why.  I will give you 3 reasons why we must reject infant baptism.

Here’s the first one, and that would be enough:  Infant baptism is not in the Scripture.  Scripture nowhere advocates or records any baptism of an infant.  It is therefore impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible.  There’s not an incident of it, and there’s no mandate for it. A German theologian, from a Lutheran background, affirmed that infant baptism is not Biblical.  Most highly-esteemed theologians of the Church of England not only affirm the absence of baby baptism from the New Testament but the absence of it from apostolic and post-apostolic (AD 100-300) Christian writers.  Keep in mind, the Church of England, the Anglican Church, does infant baptism.  A reputed Presbyterian theologian could not confirm baby baptism in Scripture either.  So how did it come about?

Infant baptism began in the 2^nd and 3^rd century, and was the norm by the 4^th century—when the Catholic Church merged with the Roman government.  This provided a relief from Roman persecution, which was wonderful short-term, but a disaster long-term.  Infant baptism ruled unopposed for 1200 years.  But the Reformation didn’t change it either, so it is still the norm in most Protestant and all Catholic Churches to this day.  But they knew it wasn’t Scriptural, so simple tradition doesn’t answer “why” they took to it.  Looking into details, here are some important facts: during the Middle Ages, severe ecclesiastical laws were created as part of the civil code. (Civil code ruled how you must behave in public.  Punishment was actually meted out for profanity, gossiping, etc.)  In Europe, nations were divided.  There were Catholic nations, and there were Protestant nations. To keep the particular State united, they wanted one religion; you could not be Protestant in a Catholic country, and vice versa. Church and state were merged; civil code was designed to make everyone toe the line and accept the religion of that country.  Thus there was no religious freedom.  You were baptized as an infant as Catholic, let’s say. But if the family refuses, Catholic dogma says that means (1) you would not wash out Original Sin, per church tradition (not in Scripture, by the way).  If the baby died (which sadly happened frequently), (2) the baby could never go to heaven.  Whatever decision the state rulers said, it was backed up by the religious rulers.  (Not by Scripture). The religion and the state, maintained tyranny—but this ensured compliance and unity.

You would think baptism would not divide anybody, since “everybody” did the same baptism of infants.  But there arose “re-baptizers,” or Anabaptists—who read Scripture, realized their baptism as infants only gave you wet babies, and decided to baptize adults who truly believed in the reconciliation of Jesus Christ.  Believer (re)baptism, also operable in the early church, was born again in the 1200s or so—which had been long gone since 300 A.D.

The devil must have really hated this believer-baptism idea, because the persecution of Anabaptists (I have a blog on them, by the way), was beyond unbelievable.  (Ed. Note:  I also have a blog on how believer baptism is part of salvation).   The rulers decided, particularly on the Catholic side, that re-baptizing was a capital offense!  It was an act against the state, against the state church, and you usually would pay with your life.  (Read the book Foxe’s Book of Martyrs for some horrible but true tales of man killing man in the name of religion--and the courage of those who stood against the system).  It was a heresy, so it deserved death.  Hatred of re-baptizers went a long way back--to 391, in fact.  In that year, the Roman emperors had a law that whoever “desecrates the holy baptism through heretical superstition” shall be “excluded from society.”   That means if your belief system was “wrong,” you could not appeal the judicial decision, you could not make a will, or take possession of an inheritance, or be appointed heir by anyone. People would not talk to you. If they did, you would be banished, forced out of your home and the village.  There was no making amends, no repentance, no way to legally come back to society.  You were considered traitors.  You’re Done—if you affirm anything other than infant baptism.  In 413, the persecution escalated—the one baptized and the baptizer would have “death without mercy.”  After that, the humiliation of the family would go further; they would confiscate (because of greed, I suspect) all the possessions of these people. But people were fearful, and few made public note of their different beliefs. As you can see, these persecutions were around for a long time, but there were few violators who went public until the late 1400s.That’s partly because most people were kept illiterate, and there were few Bibles—the Catholic Church kept them locked away.

So if you came along then and said that Scripture teaches us that you should first come to a faith in Christ and then be baptized—which is what the New Testament teaches—you would be violated like the above.  If this seems to be extreme persecution, and you wonder “why,” a writer puts some light on the subject:  The real reason for such harshness was to secure the existence of the state, and individual liberties be damned.  Protesting was a test of "are you willing to die for Christ?"  Believer baptism disrupted the national church, posing a threat to solidarity; the “corruption” by doing it might be copied, and might break the monolithic power of the nation. 

Once the Catholics formed powerful alliances between religion and state and controlled their populations under the tyranny of the Pope, the Protestants felt the only way they could match that power was to have the same “security” excuse.  Luther eventually felt the Protestant state would have to exist and not be overtaken by Catholics, so to preserve it, we must force everyone in Germany into the Protestant mold. But since it was difficult to make  a new Protestant convert comprehend about why they needed to re-baptize, they just dropped that subject, and focused about faith, not tradition.  Even Luther knew that it was not Biblical, but “practicality” reigned.  (Actually, there was no faith in God’s ability to come alongside and defend the truth).

If you’re wondering how the Protestant Reformers treated the Anabaptists, even though they were supposedly more accurate than Catholics on “how to be saved and go to heaven,” they hated the Anabaptists too.  They supposedly believed in “sola Scriptura,” yet they didn’t really practice what it clearly said about baptism, because they persecuted the Anabaptists only a little less aggressively than the Catholics. Instead of torture, they simply drowned the re-baptizers. They were called devilish vermin by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) as well.  Thus, freedom of conscience remained unknown in Protestant Europe as well.  You want to be baptized again?  We’ll strap you down in the water and won’t bring you up until you’re dead. 

Through history, there were always believers in the New Testament way, believer baptism, but they were small in number, so not a great threat.  Bohemian and Moravians were easily snuffed out.  But not the Brethren—the Waldensians. They finally had the boldness to take a public stand.  They grew in number from the 1200s and took a public stand in the late 1400s, and endured unbelievable persecution in the 1500s—from Catholics and Reformed Lutherans.   Martin Luther originally defended the freedom of Christian conscience, but under pressure from the ruling nobles, he crumbled. 

The Reformation also began a new era of tribulation, tears, and blood between Catholics vs. Protestants.  God was determined that Satan would never take away the truth, so war was on.  Through it all, a remnant of Anabaptists endured, and morphed into the Amish, and the Brethren. Let’s not forget the Zwinglians (who later became Mennonites) and Baptists—who had an independent history beginning in 1600.  Despite their mostly pacifist ways, they were to be flogged and banished from the cities forever. So, in summary, infant baptism was defended by fire, water, and the sword. Infant baptism was imprinted with divine authority, though it was a ceremony invented by men for the worst of political reasons.

So you may say, “Well, all these denominations now, we need to agree on a lot of things, but baptism is a minor detail.”  It was not a minor detail to them, if they were willing to be drowned for believing it.  The city law for Hanover Germany (and other cities) called for re-baptizers to be beheaded.  This had the specific approval of Martin Luther.  (I have a blog on him).

Let’s talk about the Scriptural arguments presented to "back up" infant baptism.  (1) Matthew 18, where it says, “Except you become a little child, you can’t enter the kingdom of heaven.”  I don’t read anything about baptism there.  It’s saying, childlike faith is necessary to come into the Kingdom.  (2) Matthew 19:14 and others, “Let the little children come to me for such is the kingdom of heaven.”  No baptism.  It says God has a special care for the children—not just baptized children.  Neither Jesus nor anybody else in Scripture baptized any children.  (3) Five times in Acts and I Corinthians it talks about households being baptized.  So they assume that the children are baptized under the protective umbrella of the father; his faith is the surrogate for them.  But the truth is, in those 5 cases, it never mentions children ever.  In Acts, in the case of Cornelius, “all in his house heard the Word” (can a baby "hear the Word?").  The Spirit fell on all, and all were baptized. No mention of a child.  If there were, receiving the Holy Spirit means you heard the Word and believed, something babies can’t do.  Scripture accents that elsewhere.  Same story in the jailer’s house, in Acts 16.  In Acts 18, with Crispus, “all heard, all believed, all were baptized.”  The same wording was in the account of Stephanas, where it also says that all were devoted to the ministry of the saints.  (Now you have to understand “saints” means every believer in Scripture.)  Therefore they weren’t infants.  Another reference in John 4:53 talks of the nobleman’s son who was healed, that his household “believed.” But it says nothing about baptism. Also, all were old enough to believe. Finally, in Acts 16, in the case of Lydia, when her household were baptized, there are no children mentioned—in fact, no husband is mentioned.  Possibly it was her, her mother, or her slaves.  If no husband, it was more likely that there were no children. This next Scriptural example requires some explanation.  In I Corinthians 7:12-14, the believing husband is urged not to divorce his unbelieving wife.  And her for him.  Then comes an interesting verse:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Catholics claim that here is the father acting as surrogate, the umbrella of protection for the family, supposedly justifying infant baptism. It’s true that a believing husband (or wife) can influence the family’s acceptance of Christianity.  But no salvation is through surrogation, no grace is transitioned, simply because the father is baptized (the verse says nothing about baptism anyhow—again). This is the same kind of superstition as praying for the dead, or praying to the angels or saints. Those heretical actions have no impact on anybody.  Finally, their last “proof” is Acts 2:39, where it says,

the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off… .

It’s likely here that “your children” refers to the next generation of Jews, since who are those who are “afar off?” The Gentiles.  This isn’t about baptism, it’s the promise of salvation to future generations of all races.  So these texts don’t prove infant baptism in any way.

So, there’s never mention of a child in any of these 5 texts. None of these “proofs” are compelling enough to take a radical stance away from behaviors and words of the earliest church fathers—and from clear Scriptures elsewhere. The Scriptural model in all 5 verses:  You hear, you believe, you are baptized.  That’s pretty clear proof of believer baptism, instead of baby baptism.  If the martyrs were asked to give proof for their beliefs, they could cite these Scriptures.  (The Foxe book indicates all the courts were kangaroo; cite all you want—you were still a “heretic.”)

For our second reason to reject infant baptism, Infant baptism is not baptism. The Bible is crystal clear on directions for baptism.  Barring unforeseen difficulties (water is unavailable or poisoned, or insufficient, person has a phobia of water, or weighs 400 pounds, etc), baptism is immersion, a total dunk. (In ancient cities, they would grab a baby’s feet and dunk him in water three times!)  The Greek is clear.  Baptism comes from Greek “bapto” and “baptizo,” terms that are always transliterated to our word “baptize.”  It means “dip down.”  “Sprinkling” comes from a completely different Greek word—never used to describe baptism. Even Calvin, who baptized babies, wrote “it is certain that immersion was practiced in the early church.”  (There’s another guy who didn’t practice what he wrote.)  This immersion was inspired by God to convey the symbolism of the ordinance.  The dunk was identifying Christ in His death for us, the time spent underwater is identifying us with His burial, and the raising up identifies us who will someday be resurrected from the dead as He was.  Sprinkling doesn’t convey any of that.  Of course, the baby (and likely his/her parents) don’t make any connection anyhow.  It’s Tradition.  Romans 6, Galatians 2 and 3, and Colossians 2 explain that theology of our union with Christ, our union in Him, if anyone would care to look it up.  Note: The only other ordinance given to us is the Lord’s table—or Eucharist.  We are to do both these things as a public declaration, or proclamation.  Hopefully you can, from Scripture indicated, get a vision of how important believer baptism is--and it offends God for those who deny this sacred symbol, or those who don’t bother to read His Word on such important subjects and practice a deviant or obscured form.  In every real baptism, the believer is saying he receives Christ, renounces former life, embraces Him as Lord and Master of his life, and is eager to publicly confess to those facts.  In every case of baptism in Scripture, personal saving faith is predisposed.

For the third reason to reject infant baptism, infant baptism is not, as its claimants contend, “a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision."  The claim that infant baptism “takes the place of circumcision” is not identified anywhere in Scripture.  A little bit about circumcision would help the understanding.  Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, a proof that they were Jews.  But it was not a sign of salvation.  What did Paul say in Romans 9? “Not all Israel is Israel.”  Meaning not all from Jewish lineage in the nation of Israel are saved.  But saved was the faithful Israel, or Jacob.  His lineage, among Jews and mostly Gentiles who are faithful to Christ, are saved.

Let’s not forget: As Jesus points out, the nation Israel became under divine judgment.  As were Gentiles, I would hasten to add.  That’s why we all need salvation, for our sins have offended God.  Which Jesus provided for. The Jews were apostate and, as God repeatedly calls it, adulterous.  They loved other gods—just not the one who had blessed them, and was ready to bless them again if they repented.  Among that entire nation of circumcised people, only a small remnant was saved.  So it is today; few Jews are saved.

So if you make infant baptism a replacement for circumcision, are you infant-backers saying the same thing about those who are baptized as infants?  In other words, do you want to claim that only a small remnant of those baptized as babies are saved, as it is said of Jews who are circumscribed? No, you back away. Are you willing to admit that circumcision was not an evidence of salvation?  Bingo.  It would have been nice if the Jewish people had faith in God, were godly, and wore the badge of circumcision, but they didn’t.  We likewise pray that those who are baptized as infants will wear that badge and have real faith in God and Christ, and live godly.  But again there is no guarantee. Infant baptism does not save.

Some Catholic, and some Christian communities that baptize babies, lately have a newer theology: they maintain that there is some “covenant community” that the baby is in, once baptized.  But for the most part, they’re not saying flat out that these kids were automatically saved. It seems to me, the children would be confused—as I am, reading about this.  What state are they in?  The Episcopalians can’t explain it, the Anglicans can’t either. Are they going to let the public, prone to self-deception, make that judgment? Let’s hope not. I don’t think God would want such fuzziness about such an important idea.

In all this, there is a weak connection between circumcision and infant baptism.  Both are done involuntarily, before the little one knew what was happening. (Though circumcision is only for boys, while infant baptism is for boys and girls).  It’s important to point out that no salvation, or even special grace, will follow automatically for either device, as Scripture indicates.  (In case you’re worried about death of the little child before baptism, we believe little ones who die will go to heaven.)  Scripture says heaven is full of these little ones.  That’s great.  I love every little person. There are at least 60 million from America alone who have been aborted who will be joining the crowd, along with the gigantic number of infanticides when China made a demonic “one-child” argument.  They were determined to have a boy—so there will be more cute little Chinese girls in heaven than boys. (I shouldn't say that--we don't know what age we are upon resurrection).

By the way, it is important to point out that this weak connection about circumcision does not talk about salvation, nor does it reduce the Scripture that clearly points out believer baptism.  Infant baptism is a failed device and should be ended as soon as possible, as the rest of this paper shows.  Let’s end tradition and go for whatever God says in His Word. (Ed. note:  This third explanation for rejecting infant baptism is not John MacArthur’s words, they’re mine).

The fourth reason to reject infant baptism is that it confounds the nature of the church. With infant baptism, you can’t distinguish between the believer and non-believer.  They say “the baptized becomes the church.”  But as we have seen, there are many baptized infants who grow up unsaved.    So is the church supposed to be a mixture of the saved and unsaved?  Then how can you administer church discipline?  Should unsaved people, who happened to be “members” because they were infant-baptized, be allowed to be haters and blasphemous and still unrebuked?  What if they slow down the church’s growth, ultimately preventing people from being saved? So infant baptism destroys the reality of the regenerate church. Ideally, to be in the real church (God’s Kingdom), you must be saved, and that means you must abide in Christ (John 15:1-6).  Admittedly, churches everywhere, though, are some mixture of saved and unsaved.  If churches want to reduce the unsaved membership, all they have to do is heat up the sermons and make life uncomfortable for the unsaved to listen.  And practice church discipline

Speaking of being confounded, I can’t pass up mentioning this.  Scripture says works are not the path to getting saved.  You begin by faith in Jesus Christ and what He did. You then lead a godly life through the Holy Spirit.  Learning and doing His commands enable you to abide in Christ.  But here are the shocking words of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism.  Wikipedia says it “is regarded as one of the most influential of the Reformed catechisms.”  Thus it is accepted by most mainline Protestant churches who were in the Reformation. The "74th question" below was written in 1563 to counteract the Catholics and the Anabaptists (ie, it gave them a reason to call Anabaptists “heretical” and go about killing them without remorse):

74^th question:  Shall one baptize young children also? Yes, Infants as well as adults are included in God's covenant and people, and they, no less than adults, are promised deliverance from sin through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith. Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant, they too, should be incorporated into the Christian church…so it was believed.

Quoting Dr. MacArthur, ‘It says “Baptize the infants, because they’re promised salvation in the Holy Spirit.”’  Surprisingly, Luther calls this baptism a “bath of regeneration.”  Considering how this is the opposite of faith, the opposite of Scripture, and considering how much it introduces confusion; one question needs to be asked:  Was this man the great theologian we have all heard? He who believed in “sola Scriptura?”  How could theologians who claimed to believe in the great doctrines like justification and faith, if they truly believe that Scripturally we are not saved through sacrament, or rites, come to this sorry confusion?  They are worshipping the apostate altar of a sacrament for salvation.

(My comment paragraph) Frankly, I was shocked to read how “off” the Reformed theology was on this important subject, which importance, let me remind you, is not about infant baptism so much as it is about salvation!  I could see why Dr. MacArthur called it an “incomplete Reformation” above.  This document (taught in “Christian” seminaries everywhere) has the audacity to assert that there is salvation in an infant being baptized.  He could then live like hell and still be saved? God forbid.  Nothing in this answer resembles Scripture, about how each individual needs to assert faith in Christ and live a godly life to be saved.

As you can see by the Catechism, infant baptism confuses all that.  People who were baptized as infants are told repeatedly afterwards that they are going to heaven. This feeds their self-deception.  A lot of people assume they will go to heaven, and infant baptism adds to that, but they often live a worldly life, ignoring God except for emergencies, and they will be surprised by Jesus’ words “I never knew you.” Why add to the confusion and self-deception, which is bad enough already? They should cancel the infant baptism and start the Gospel by stressing that only a minority will go to heaven (Matthew 7:13,14). Then maybe people will pay attention to Scriptural requirements, particularly how to live a godly life.

Luther published another statement that seems to say something promising: “The Anabaptists are right, the baptism without faith profits nothing, and that thus in fact children ought not to be baptized, since they have no faith.” Sounds right, right?  But let me finish the quote: “But the assertion of the Anabaptists is false; yes, we know the children cannot believe, but….”  You want to know how did he conclude this? At first, it was the vicarious faith of the parents or the godparents that did the job.  But that wasn’t enough for him (he had a reputation for changing his mind on important things). He thought some more, and concluded…yes, the Holy Spirit helps them to believe.” (Some “theologians” even called the Holy Spirit’s job in infant baptism is to grant “unconscious faith.”)   Well, now Luther is on the verge of declaring that infant baptism makes a child an elect, thus he is guaranteed that God will get him to heaven.  This idea was formalized by Calvin, which eventually became the famous TULIP acronym.  Something derived from this is called  “once saved, always saved.” Proponents of that actually believe God regenerates you before you accepted Him In your life.  Presumably man doesn’t have free will; God has already selected who "makes it."  God picks who will go to heaven—and thus, unfortunately, by omission, who goes to hell.  And such garbage as that.  (I have a 3-part blog to discuss that).

MacArthur’s concluding quote:  Infant baptism has no saving efficacy, delivers no grace, confers no faith, is a symbol of nothing.  It is absolutely and totally pointless.  It leads to ritualism, confusion, and false security.

May God help you to read all this and ponder how Scripture is pointedly clear, as opposed to tradition.  Ignore the theologians.  Just read Scripture—over and over and over.

Acknowledgement:  Sermon by John MacArthur, delivered October 21, 2011.

 

Corrupting God's Image Through DNA, More Proof of an End-Times Sign

 You may recall my blog on DNA (about 5 months ago), which explained how in Genesis 6:1-4, during the time of Noah, I proved, Scripturally, that those verses speak of fallen angels who took on the form of men--and they married women, and had sex with them.  This was a violation of God’s law, since an angel’s seed and DNA was celestial (and immortal), but her ovum and DNA were earthly. So their babies were not truly human; they were not in the image of God—they were a perverted hybrid of angel and human.  Genesis 6:4, using the New International Version, calls their children “Nephilim,” a Hebrew word.  This was translated “giants” in some Bibles, but the word means “fallen.”  Their children were, as Scripture shows, huge men.

Nine hundred years after Noah, after those giants had died in the Flood, it happened again, on a lesser scale. For the best Scriptural proof, there was a member of the tribe of Rephaim (the word means "giants") named Og of Bashan. He was called, in Deuteronomy 3:11, the “last of the giants.” He had a bed that was iron and was 9 cubits deep.  Assuming Moses, the writer of Deuteronomy, used the measure he was familiar with, the Egyptian royal cubit of 20.63 inches, the bed was 15-1/2 feet deep.  So he was likely close to 14 feet tall.  Using a weight-to-height ratio (first created by Galileo) for men, his weight was estimated at 3,125 pounds.  This explains why, 40 years before Og, when the Hebrews were spying in Canaanite lands, they came away frightened, even suggesting not attacking the Anakites (Numbers 13 is the record of this).  We speculate that it wasn't because they were cowards (although they lacked faith in God's power); we feel that they meant what they said when they said “we were like grasshoppers in their sight.”  Several whole tribes were giants.  This means there was another invasion of earth by fallen angels, like in Noah’s day some 900 years before.  Scripture hints at it back in Genesis 6:4 when it says:  "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward..."

Back in Noah’s time, we suspect that the giant Nephilim were generally considered demigods; Scripture called them “mighty men of renown”, and they likely led people into more violence and more sexual immorality.  The violence would come from the nations that had some of these men would try to conquer their shorter neighbors, for booty.  And the immorality?  It would be easy to suspect that the women would be attracted.  The Nephilim had sex with possibly many women--the prospect of sex with a 10- or 15-foot tall man might have been a great curiosity and turn-on for the women (there are plenty of other verses about perverse sexual immorality being the order of the day in Canaan--which you can imagine by their types of gods).  Many scholars believe the children of the fallen angels back in Genesis were demonic (they had disobeyed God and were corrupting the human race, a goal of Satan).  After all, these were children that weren’t really human, but a hybrid of human and a demonic fallen angel.  The earth, over time, likely became filled with “people” who had some fraction of demonic DNA in them.  It's even possible that a complete tainting of humanity was possible, since people consistently lived over 800 years, and the astounding extension of procreation makes the spread of gene corruption skyrocket.  (When AIDS was the “talk of the town” in the 1980s, we read repeatedly how fast sexually transmitted disease travels, even among us limited-age humans).  In Noah's time, God was fed up with this evil, as Genesis 6 records, and His flood killed every single soul on the earth except eight—Noah and his immediate family. Was God capricious for killing millions of people?  Don't forget, the huge number of people indulging in this deviancy had been the result of rejecting God’s image of a human, preferring the demonic image of a hybrid.  It’s possible the majority of people who were not really human were not even redeemable for heaven. For further proof, note that Noah, in building the ark, preached countless times of the great judgment to come for a massive number of curious onlookers (wouldn't everyone nearby want to see a massive boat on land?)—yet he converted not a single soul, or else they would have been on the ark.  Note also the greatest compliment God has for Noah's family—in Genesis 6:9, he was “perfect in his generations.”  The word "perfect" is not a word of morality; it is a word of physical perfection--or DNA perfection. There was no demonic hybrid in him.  That fact was evidently rare.  When man took on demonic DNA—he chose ultra-violent and evil lifestyles, not redeemable, and not human.  This is what God wiped out.

In that blog I also made a connection to the End Times, pointing out that recent science has been able to change and merge DNA again, and how this could be corrupted by men for wrong uses.  I also pointed out what Jesus said in prophecy (Matthew 24:38,39). Paraphrased, it was: “As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be again,”—in the end times.  Well, after reading a fascinating book by Douglas Hamp, “Corrupting the Image,” I have some follow-up that would do you well to stretch your mind and consider.

Hamp anchors his thesis on Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”

The enmity comes from this:  The woman’s Seed (capital "S," in decent Bibles) refers to Christ—and “your” (at this point He was speaking to the serpent’s, or devil’s) seed then refers to the opposite, which has to be the antichrist (in many Scriptures, I John 2:22 for instance).  As Christ is the Son of God, the devil’s DNA is passed to his own “son,” the antichrist.   The antichrist was later called “the Beast” (Revelation 13:3b-6), I suspect, because he wasn’t really human, but even possibly a hybrid of Satan and human. The devil manages to wound Christ, a heel wound (at the crucifixion), but Christ is victorious in resurrection, and will eventually kill the serpent and his seed, once and for all. His final crushing blow to the head comes in the end times. Thus Genesis 3:15, since it comments on the antichrist, is not only a promise of a redeemer, but also an end-times prophecy.

The word “seed” needs a scientific explanation.  When a male and female “know” each other (Biblically), his seed, which in the Greek is “sperma,” combines with her seed, the ovum, the egg—and a baby is miraculously fused.  At this point, it’s called a “zygote.”  But seed is really DNA at its core.  Thus, his 23 unique chromosomes with DNA combine with her 23 unique chromosomes, with DNA, to form 46, in 23 pairs, and a baby is conceived.
At this point Mr. Hamp (whose book I am summarizing) makes some very interesting points. A little background:  Adam and Eve were created perfect (Genesis 1:31)—that means their DNA was “coded” perfectly (since that’s mainly what DNA is).  They were supposed to be pure, and immortal.  But due to Adam’s sin, he was punished with two things:  death, and a tendency to sin. This was called “original sin” by theologians.  Both of these characteristics (death and tendency to sin) were passed on to the entire race of humankind.

Now, to take this a step further:  Based on scientific study (recorded in “Science Spectra #14, 1998”), the Y chromosome, passed from father to son, is an exact copy of the same one from generation to generation.  That means every male today has the same Y chromosome as Adam.   It was also found that the Y contains the record of an “event” in the lifetime of our original father, since some of the DNA coding appears scrambled or lost.  We can surmise that all our DNA through all generations are likewise corrupted. Mr. Hamp muses, what if that “event” was the fall of Adam? What if God’s punishment of the original sin, the death, the tendency to sin--was His corruption of that Y chromosome?  Perhaps that’s the tangible record of original sin, that keeps going on, and on, through all generations.  That explains how the effects of the sin of Adam get passed down through history—and how we have the same curse of death, and the tendency to sin, that he had.
But…what chromosome did Jesus not have?  The corrupted Y chromosome—because His father was not Joseph, a man, but God (Matthew 1:18).  Mary’s egg fused with seed from the Holy Spirit.  So Jesus did not inherit the Y chromosome from a man, so He did not have original sin, like all of us. That’s why He is called the “only begotten” Son of God (John 1:18).  Now if you argue that because of this, Jesus could not sin, you’d be wrong.  He had the physical weaknesses of humankind—like us, He had to respond to threats, to torture, to famine, to scorn.  But like beginning Adam, He had a choice--not a tendency, a free choice--to sin, or not to sin, in each case.  He chose not to sin all the way through His human life.  So His perfection was acceptable to the Father—and He became our Lamb of sacrifice, of substitution, paying for our sin—as a ransom to free us—if we trust Him.

So we figure that fallen angels, or demons, were trying to destroy God’s image in Noah’s time.  But despite their demonic giant children being wiped out in the Flood, giants reappear nine hundred years later in the Anakim and the Rephaim tribes in the Old Testament (Deut. 2:11, 3:11 AMP), as we saw in my discussion above. That demonic corruption led people into the worst of idolatry, with sacrifices of children to their gods the worst example.  So as long as we still have the Rephaim, and Og, and other tribes of Nephilim all throughout Canaan, God again had to resort to a brutal answer; He told Joshua to kill every member, men, women, and children, of their seven nations in Canaan, who evidently all had fast-spreading demonic DNA (Deut.20:16-18).  But Joshua did not complete the job.  There were still a few giants again, who reproduced, such as Goliath, who appears another 400 years later, and was estimated to be over 10 feet tall.
So, looking at Genesis 6:4 again:

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, if we keep in mind that this indicates that the “sons of God” (the immortal angels who rebelled and became immortal demonic angels) would be operating “afterward” as well to try to corrupt God’s image, these later appearances mean they were still invading our civilization several times over.  My point is, What’s to keep them from not trying similar tricks again today?  Here’s where the theories get wild, so hang on to your seats.  Mr. Hamp has a new interpretation of a verse.  He believes that Daniel 2:43 (when Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the image of four kingdoms) contains a telltale phrase for the fourth beast, the one during the Last Days.  Here is the verse, with my underlines:

As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay

He says this future will be dominated by a person who is so sold out to the devil that he will genetically be the son of Satan. (Thus Satan will counterfeit Jesus the Son of God).  Satan’s genetic son then becomes the antichrist.  With Satan’s intellectual genius and huge abilities to plan and deceive in the antichrist’s DNA, the antichrist will defeat earthly kingdoms, military or politically, and earn the worship of an admiring public as he rises to the top of the world’s military dictators. 

So Mr. Hamp believes that the words “mix,” or “mingle with the seed of men,” refers to another future invasion of demons  into our population, again producing demonic/human hybrid children, again fouling our DNA, again making people not human, not carrying God’s image—and leading them into gross violence, idolatry, and evil--like it was in Noah's time, it will happen again (as Jesus said, Matthew 24:37).

Here's where Mr. Hamp's theories get "out there." He believes the antichrist will make his greatest deception ever, in an area you wouldn't believe. We’ve all heard of UFOs.  An intelligent person would not think seriously about them, right?  Wrong.  Consider the fact that eleven scientists with knowledge of UFOs died recently (April 2026). Also we have testimonials:  Captain Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut, said “We all know that UFOs are real.  All we need to ask is where do they come from?” Ronald Reagan said in a 1987 speech to the U.N, no less, that an alien force (he didn't mean migrants) was among us.  In 1966 Gerald Ford recommended an official investigation of UFOs.  Jimmy Carter said he had seen one in 1976.  General Douglas MacArthur admitted in 1955 that the next war will be an interplanetary war.  And the list goes on.  (See pp. 189-194 of Hamp’s book).  Well, Mr. Hamp would like to suggest an answer to Capt. Mitchell’s “where from” question:  UFOs are demons camouflaged to be "aliens." Keep in mind, they are able to move through dimensions—from spiritual to our four dimensions.  Mr. Hamp is convinced that this whole planned UFO arrival is designed so the antichrist will announce to humanity that we were "seeded" by advanced life on other planets.  Perhaps they will say they abandoned us, because we have this strange religion, "Christianity," and those Christians do not believe in the evolution of man. Those Christians are not optimists about man’s nature or future.  The antichrist will introduce some aliens (really demons) for worldwide TV viewing.  They will be light-emitting geniuses with special powers—powers that he will show off (II Thess. 2:9).  If you want these fabulous powers, if you want to evolve into transhumanism, just come in for an injection of his recombinant DNA, take the mark as proof, and you will have the power to evolve into something beyond your earth's limited pleasures. He will even declare eventually that he is God, and we can become gods too (II Thess. 2:3-4). (Later, when some people are leery of doing it, he will suggest that Christians so limit man's horizons that we'll punish them: you won’t be able to buy anything unless you take the DNA and mark.)  But the truth is, if you do it, you will have taken on demon DNA.  You are no longer human.  You have rejected God’s image.  So you will be destined for hell, the same harsh treatment that earlier rebellious Nephilim generations got.  God says so in Revelation 13:17, 14:9-12:

…no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast…Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, ¹⁰ he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ¹¹ And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” ¹² Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

Well, I am not sure what to think about his UFO theory, but it is possible to weave such a story with UFOs, even to tempt saints if they have to go through the tribulation of the last days before rapture as I believe.  Families could be pulled apart, with some members yielding to the temptation of evolution into special powers, into acceptance—while other members reject it as against Scriptural commands—and having their life persecuted.  Despite this paper's wildness, we never know the future's details.  Far-out other theories have been soberly put forth--witness the fear of AI (artificial intelligence) by some of the world’s most brilliant minds, such as Elon Musk and Bill Gates (at the Vanity Fair summit, also studied on Glenn Beck). Musk actually says about the headlong AI research, “we are summoning the demon.”

But why area we headlong into AI? Because man feels he can control it. But there are some signs that we can’t. What happens if we approach singularity—where the artificial intelligence is finally smarter than us?

It is certainly true, above all else, that we must avoid the mark of the antichrist. When the “Beast” shuts off buying unless you take his mark, it will be a huge temptation for those who simply want to feed themselves or their family.  It will take patience and faith in Jesus, who can perform miracles for us.  Just keep looking at the big picture:  Christ is the winning side in this global battle (Rev. 19:19-21). We cannot give our body to the devil’s keeping, no matter how glorious that makes us, if we would at the same time be giving our soul to hell—for eternity.  If you’re a rational person, just answer this:  Which is more important?  A short-term pain of you possibly sacrificing your body at the end, or an eternal pain of fire and brimstone in hell?  Choose carefully.

Acknowledgement:  Corrupting the Image, book by Douglas Hamp, 2011

 

Are U.S. Churches a Generation Away from being Ghost Towns?

You may recall my blog two weeks ago; Ken Ham, whom many of you know is the president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum and the Noah Encounter, wrote another blockbuster book, along with polling- and statistics-minded Britt Beemer, called Already Gone. I’m a little late on this scene as well, since the book and the poll were written 10 years ago—but it’s even more relevant now, since church attendance is going down at every age level.  This survey in particular focuses on the youth scene. Let’s discuss the controversial results and conclusions he arrived at on some troubling aspects of teens and those who teach them.

He first points to a Barna 2006 survey (another great pollster) of 22,000 young adults who were involved in a church during their teen years—but they are now spiritually disengaged. They are no longer actively participating in the Christian faith in their 20s. Specifically, he found that 61% of them no longer go to church, don’t study their Bibles, give very little financially, do not volunteer, and do not order Christian media.  Only 20% of those who were spiritually active in high school are maintaining their commitment at the same level.  Further, Barna found that only 6% of those in 20s and 30s can be called “evangelical.” A pitifully how number.

Confirming this serious drop-off, the Baptist Convention discovered that more than 2/3 of young Protestant high-schoolers active in church later stopped attending at all for at least a year between the ages of 18-22.

Mr. Ham wanted to study only kids brought up in conservative and evangelical churches for this poll.  His co-author Beemer, with help, made 20,000 phone calls.  The final study was balanced according to population and gender, and included kids from public schools, Christian schools, and home-schooled.  He found that kids were abandoning the church proportionately, no matter the kind of schooling. Teens that went to Christian schools abandoned the church at the same high levels.

Here are some of the blockbuster results he found:

Kids don’t wait till college to “escape” the church: One survey took all those “dropouts” who are now in their 20s, who have been evangelicals, who attended church regularly but no longer do so.  So these dropout rates will add up to 100%.  Please do not misconstrue what I am saying here; we are not pointing out that all kids drop out.  We are simply trying to assess when all the drop-offs actually drop off.  Here are the pollster data: 5% of the dropouts do so before they finish elementary, 40% drop out in middle school and 44% of them drop out in high school.  Despite what you might think about corrupt college destroying their minds, you’re wrong:  89% of all evangelicals are already gone before college.  So there isn’t much belief for college to destroy; only 11% disappear during college.  The problem is only minimally helped by upholding young adults’ Christian views in college.  The main problem is earlier.

So, from the Baptists and the Barna studies, we lose 61-67% of our kids, who are detailed above. And they leave as soon as they are “bright” enough to figure what is going on.  So this is a serious, serious problem.  We need to pray about what’s really behind this horrible decline.  Looking at these young people as our church’s future, we have to conclude that our evangelical churches are only a generation removed from being “ghost towns.”  The erosion of the young continues into middle age and beyond later. (Looking at population of liberal church declines, they are getting there faster.)

Many parents who spend big bucks to send their child to a Christian college to avoid corruption are simply too late on the scene.  They should have done something radically different for their children in the 4^th or 5^th grade.

A precipitating cause of this sudden apathy among children might be a finding from the Beemer poll: He asked questions to determine those who “no longer believe that all of the stories in the Bible are true.”  He found that 40% first had doubts in middle school, 44% first had doubts in high school, and 11% first had doubts during college.  You can see that these are the exact same percentages as those who left church at each age group.  That tells us they tell their parents to just leave them alone on Sunday morning—and parents just agree. So it seems that we should be focusing on “what makes them turned off to the Bible,” not just asking a vaguer question “why they leave.” For sure, they are not bound by tradition, and parents don’t push them to do so..

• Beemer decided to explore Sunday School (which institution is in a huge decline as well), and found an even more shocking—even mind-blowing—result. He asked the 20-somethings if they often attended Sunday School when younger.  61% said “yes,” and 39% said “no.”  Comparing how the two groups felt about critical issues, he found the following shocking facts:
1. The 61% students who attended Sunday School were more likely NOT to believe in the truth of Bible stories;
2. The SS attenders were more likely to “doubt the Bible because it was written by men.” (It doesn’t help that few heroes are taught, and anti-masculinity is being subtly taught in schools).
3. The SS attenders were more likely to doubt the Bible because it was “not translated correctly.” (The many publishers producing different versions doesn’t help).
4. The SS attenders were more likely to defend that abortion should continue to be legal (!)—perhaps we can blame the fact that we haven’t achieved, in over 50 years, the necessary outrage that people—including potential mothers-- are murdering a tiny innocent person. We need to froth at the mouth to our teens that God has a millstone for such people (Matthew 18:6),  
5. SS attenders believed more than the non-SSrs in many of the evolution ideas; the earth is old, dinosaurs were before men, animals changed from one kind to another.
6. The SS attenders were more likely to defend premarital sex (48% vs 41% of non-SSers).
7. The SS attenders were more likely to view the church as hypocritical.
8. 25% of those who attended Sunday School believed that “God used evolution to create human beings;” but only 19% of that false belief is shared by non-SSers.
9. For the question “Do you feel the Church is relevant to your needs today?” 46% of SS attenders said “no,” but only 40% of non-SSers felt the same rejection.

What is happening here?  Is the corrupting of the minds that I alluded to earlier caused by Sunday School teachers?  Upon further study, the answer is most likely No.  Remember, these are kids in conservative churches.  Other data Beemer shared do NOT show their teachers or pastors teaching corrupt Gospel. So this alarming data still cries for an answer.  The clear fact here is that Sunday School really had no impact, apparently, on what children believed in critical moral areas.  It didn’t help them develop a Christian worldview.  Somehow it had a detrimental impact.

Was the problem HOW they were taught? Such as, did the teachers unintentionally teach Bible stories as fables? Or did the other kids in Sunday School, or their parents’ hypocrisy or pressure trigger the kids’ rebellion, so they were worse off than if they had never heard the Bible, and had to think it out on their own?

The problem could have been simply the overwhelming secular system, with its 30-hours of teaching a week (vs. 30 minutes of teaching the Bible in Sunday School). But if that were the cause, both Sunday School and non-Sunday School would have, at worst, similar results.  The problem is that SS attenders were worse. Perhaps the SS teens resented the time spent, if the arents showed no proof of Christianity.

Mr. Ham and Mr. Beemer considered what to do about this grave problem.

He asks: Should we eradicate Sunday School?  He does say that Deuteronomy 6:6-9 insist that fathers and mothers teach their children the Gospel:

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. ⁷ You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. ⁸ You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they
shall be as frontlets between your eyes. ⁹ You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.  

 Likewise Ephesians 6:4:

And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

 It helps if both parents live a different lifestyle than their secular friends.

He also acknowledges that Sunday School is not a long tradition in the church; it only dates from the 1700s.  Finally, he feels that Sunday School allows parents to shrug off their responsibilities as the primary teachers of the children.

Nevertheless, he can’t bring himself to the radical step to eradicate Sunday School.  He proposes a second idea:

Shall we renovate Sunday School? He says Yes, by, among other things, teaching more apologetics.  Apologetics is defending every teaching of the Bible as the Word of God.  Now here’s my thought:  Aren’t we supposed to be teaching the Bible to these elementary, or middle schoolers, before they are overwhelmed by their secular schools’ doctrines?  But you may ask, how can we teach apologetics, a conceptual and difficult process, to those so young?  And, keep in mind, few in the adult teachers have this capability.  Also, renovation has already been tried a thousand other ways, but we still get the distressing results above.  I personally don’t see this idea turning things radically around like we need.

Then he writes about how some of those who left church might return if they have children of their own.  Here is his quote about those who might return when they have children.  But what I see in this statement is that he might have stumbled upon possibly the root problem for these “turned off” kids instead.

“What they object to, however, is hypocrisy, legalism, and self-righteousness.  The Bible is relevant to them, but the church is not.  This group needs to be convinced that Christians in the church are living by God’s truth, and are living in a way that is relevant to their lives.”

 So let’s run with using this quote as maybe why kids are turned off.  Let’s consider each charge individually.  Hypocrisy is defined as living in a different way than your doctrine. Elementary kids pay attention to what their parents say; so when their parents run down the pastor’s salary, or the Sunday School teacher’s lazy lifestyle, they pick that information up.  Then when that teacher or that pastor preaches about how they should live a holier life, when the child sees how they live (per their parents), the child becomes familiar with hypocrisy.  The kids then are not interested in “holier” as is represented here.

Legalism is defined as judging people based on surface criteria.  Let’s say mom is fundamental enough to send her kids to Sunday School.  Mom also happens to mention about how some teenage girl dresses like a slut in church.  Her daughter knows that girl, and knows how the girl took time to help her at her homework once, or how she has a perpetually friendly personality (and how she wishes she had one too).  The daughter becomes familiar with legalism from her mother.

Self-righteousness shows in too many families.  A lot of kids get the general feeling that since their parents have more money, the parents feel that God must love them and is rewarding them with wealth for being good parents, having sent them to Sunday School and all.  But the kids know how their parents ignore them when they have real needs, and don’t have time for them—work gets in the way. Getting more money, to them, means work and cash are placed higher than the kids.  Both parents work, to achieve an acceptable lifestyle. The parents’ view of God is wrong, they conclude, so Christianity must have deeper flaws when it makes their parents like that.

Brothers and sisters, what do we learn from this?  For one thing, speak carefully about other people when your kids are around.  Avoid picking on a child or adult that you know little about.  Avoid speaking critically about other people, knowing that we each have sins of our own to wrestle with.  Never sacrifice your kids, putting work or money on a higher plane.  And certainly avoid thinking that God’s love for you can be measured by how much money you have. Explain to kids that money is simply a gift from God, and we seek His approval other ways instead. Sadly, as Jesus pointed out, many rich people are living the best life that will be available to them—they will go to hell when they die.  Many poor people will have an eternity in heaven. So riches are not a measure of God’s approval.

Maybe this idea of renovating the parents is not the solution that will work. We’re asking parents to sacrifice and change habits and somehow focus on what their child really needs—is that asking too much? Jesus taught sacrifice.

I wish the Sunday School problem could be solved by making an astounding curriculum.  But the truth is, Satan is temporarily the god of the earth, and targets the young children to win them over to the world and never live for God.  Parents should make it the FIRST desire of their heart to prepare their kids to face up to all of Satan’s tricks, by reading and learning His Word.  Don’t forget, when Jesus was tempted, He answered Satan with Scripture.

The book covers a lot of other topics, but this one is the one that touches my heart.  This is not meant to be a summary of the book, but just about certain eye-popping data and thoughts around it.

Acknowledgement:  Already Gone, by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer.

 

Initial Salvation Easy, but Final Salvation Not So Easy

 Scripture contains seemingly contradictory claims about receiving eternal life. Some of its verses-- those we’re usually more familiar with--say eternal life is possessed right now to those born again. Such as John 5:24: 

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

I John 5:13 agrees:

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

As these Scriptures suggest, all you need is simple belief in Jesus as God, and believe what He said, and you have eternal life immediately. We will call this "easier" definition of gaining eternal life Initial Salvation.  A theology called Calvinism teaches that that's all there is, on your efforts, to obtain salvation.  God does the rest through you and for you.

But there are other less-well-known Scriptures that say that actual receipt of eternal life is not a "have now," but delayed until our life’s end—and what we have now is just the hope, or expectation of eternal life. Such as Titus 3:6-7 (New King James):

…whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Or Jude 21:

Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life

Note what “the hope of” and “bring you to” will change things The probable solution to this apparent contradiction is that salvation has two parts, the initial salvation, and the final salvation.  The former we discussed previously.  Believe. The latter, I'm convinced, is when we show the world, by abiding in Christ to become more godly, in His likeness, that we stay saved. But it's possible to reject Jesus' directions.  So the hope of eternal life can be interrupted, or even snuffed out, by continuing in worldly or ungodly behavior.

Calvin did not believe that.  He said that the "elect" could not lose their salvation.  But that begs the question, "how do we know if we are one of the elect?"

Initial salvation is what's most often evangelized; but anything on the way to final salvation is the one we don’t hear about too much. The Scripture points out, as you will see below, that entering heaven is only for those who die in a righteous state.  This state is not automatic.  This means we must intentionally abide in Christ, and are reliably obedient to His commands since initial salvation. If we don't do that, it is possible to lose initial salvation--but it is also possible to regain it by sincere repentance and renewing a desire to stay close to God in obedient thought and action.

It helps to know, what really is "belief?"

Just below is John 3:16, in the Pure Word translation, which attempts to give an exact definition of every word--even though it paralyzes the flow of Scripture. Note what it says about belief:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...in order that whoever is continuously by his choice Committing for the Result and Purpose of Him, should not perish, but definitely should, by his choice, be Continuously having eternal life.  Note: Committing for the Result and Purpose of Him suggests our intention in life is to obey the purposes of Christ.

Thus, belief, as properly defined, means submission to His commands over our own plans, and a continuing loving relationship with Our Lord.  You might think that submitting to anybody is not a plan for a happier life, but Jesus is not just anybody. He is to be trusted, or we have not belief. The Holy Spirit, and the results, will teach you otherwise. Doing that means there will be fruits in our lives, which also happens to be a requirement if we want to avoid hell.  John 15:5-6 confirms that, when we define "abide" as having an intentional relationship to stick with Him. Obeying Him keeps guilt or sin from keeping us separated:

 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. ⁶ If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Abiding is not passive. This is the aspect of salvation that’s hard for many people to swallow, because it suggests that to be truly saved from hell, it's not so easy as an immediate go-to-heaven card; we have to go from merely belief as a mental assent—onward to radical changes in behavior and thought being necessary. This much-ignored life-journey to final salvation is called “conditional security.” Final salvation is conditioned on our behavior, on works, after we're initially saved.

Since you’ll have a harder time accepting the idea of required works of righteousness, or the conditional security of Final Salvation, I have lots more verses as proof for you to ponder, both here and later.

• Romans 2:5b-7 ...the righteous judgment of God, ⁶ who will give to each person according to what he has done. 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

• Galatians 6:8b-9 the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

• I Timothy 6:19: storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life

"Laying hold" suggests striving, or works—as do the others. This is more evident in Timothy's verse below, where we find the phrase "fight the good fight," which suggests the striving.

 (I am not denying the grace of God in salvation, nor the work of the Holy Spirit to help us defeat our worldly impulses.)

• I Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 

• Romans 13:11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. This is spoken to believers in Rome.

• Mark 10:30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life

Note that several of these verses say gaining eternal life is future, not now.

But since life is a mixture of sin and good works, we feel uncertain about whether our sin will keep us out of heaven.

And don’t we hate uncertainty.

We'd rather have an easy formula, a one-off kind of deal, like just believing in the initial salvation, and then we're done.  So obviously Calvinism, which guarantees that initial salvation=final salvation, is popular.

But is God a God of uncertainty?  Many people decide that's not possibly a part of His character.  But who are we to make up God?  We must seek Scripture, always, for revelation of His character traits.

With this “new” (actually, old) idea of true salvation being conditioned on our behaviors after our expression of faith, we have a different answer to the question: is it possible for anyone who has accepted Christ (has “initial salvation”) to LOSE IT between initial and final salvation? Calvin, whom people follow (whether they know his background or not) believe the answer is NO, based partly on the 5th point of Calvin's famous TULIP, the letter "P": Perseverance of the Saints. As the Westminster Confession (now remember, this is not the Bible) declares (Chapter 17, para.1): “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved…can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” They further insist that such does not depend upon our own free will but “upon the immutability of the decree of election.”

Thus, once we accept Christ, they believe, we must have been one of the elect, and we're "locked in" to eternal life.  We have Unconditional security. God will not let us fall away from salvation, they say. This belief system has been popularly called, “once saved, always saved” (OSAS). You don't need to worry about works.  Thinking about works shows your uncertainty of faith. You must do something about THAT.  Etc, etc, all of this disproven by lots of Scripture like we just touched on above.

Most popular evangelists adhere to this Calvinistic belief system.  When I search Google, it vastly outnumbers any other argument.  But it is unscriptural.

We believe Scripture (like those cited above) confirms, in part, an opposite belief system, called Arminianism, involving uncertainty. Some of their important beliefs vs Calvinism are:

• Christ's atonement (paying the price for our sins at crucifixion) was made on behalf of All people--vs Calvin, who insisted that Christ's atonement was Limited (the letter "L" in TULIP). Christ died only for those God had arbitrarily picked as the ones who would be saved.  Note my word "arbitrarily:" If our works have anything to do with God's choice as to who is in "the elect," it would Violate Calvinism, which clings to the idea that our works of righteousness count Nothing. Calvinism also stresses the Total Depravity of Man (the letter “T” in TULIP), so no one ever seeks God--Man is unable to, they say.  Since Man never reaches to God, God chooses certain people He would regenerate, and enlighten them to the real Gospel.  

But to those God did not pick as "elect": God is effectively saying, You're on the way to hell.  Could God pick your eternal spot as hell before you were born?  Calvin says so.  But, I say No way.  I believe Calvin's theory of limited atonement is blasphemy.  When it comes to an important subject as salvation, I don't think the word "arbitrary" fits.  Arminius wins on this point, since there are many Scriptures that say Christ died for all men.

Another point of Arminianism:

• God allows his grace to be resisted (i.e., we have free will) by those who freely reject Christ--vs. Calvin, who insists on the letter "I"--Irresistible grace.  Which says, for those whom God has picked, the Holy Spirit, they say, will draw us irrevocably to Christ.

And now, to the most important point of Jacob Arminius:

• Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace (becoming Apostate, losing salvation) through persistent, unrepented sin.

It is the last bulleted point that’s the biggest bone of contention to Calvinists. Arminianism believes it’s possible to lose eternal life between initial salvation and final salvation. Calvinists, you remember, believe that when you're initially saved, you're locked in.  So which theology is correct—Calvinism or Arminianism?  As Scriptural verses above show, the answer is Arminianism--we need to lean on Him to help us fight sin and worldliness and obey His commands and show fruit to be assured of heaven.  We must intentionally abide with Him; i.e., have a relationship with Him.  Final salvation takes a striving, a laying ahold, of submitting to God's will.  That's what those verses clearly say.  Don't rely on commentators, who are expert at twisting the Word into a pretzel to confirm their chosen theology.

IF God wants you to believe eternal life is sure and certain for believers, if Initial Salvation is all there is, and heaven is guaranteed (such as believed by Calvinists)--then Scripture would be 100% full of secure statements for the believer and have no listing of conditional behavior. But that means we have to wave away and ignore all the Scriptures above (and more below) about dire results for evil behavior. Are we to believe that all of Scriptural conditional statements are lies? We would also have to accept glaring contradictions in Scripture that we began this discussion with, right? No way. The simple solution is, salvation has two aspects: Initial and Final. And you could lose it in between. Or then maybe regain it. The "irresistible" and the "perseverance" take away your free will.  The Holy Spirit will not strong-arm you into heaven.  True, there are all kinds of things which cannot take us out of God's hand--but we can jump out of His hand if we want.  Arminianism requires real effort to attain a  holy life to achieve heaven. This is totally backed up by Scripture, as we saw many times above. As Hebrews 12:14 says:

Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord

Here are more verses that are seemingly "in contrast" to one another.  They also have one explanation: that salvation Must be in two parts, to avoid claiming that God's Word contains contradictions.

Luke 7:50:

Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

Versus Matthew 10:22, spoken to already-saved disciples:

And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved

The only way to reconcile the above two Scripture is if the first verse supports Initial salvation, and the second verse supports Final salvation.

I John 4:4 sounds like we’re already overcomers, so there is no stopping us, it’s all done by Jesus:

You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 

But then there’s Rev. 2:10b-11, which seems to show that WE have to strive at overcoming the world to get there in the future:

Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”’

Why does God do this, saying, "you're saved," then saying, "you have to overcome to be saved?" Perhaps, as Romans 6:11 seems to interpret, there is value in psychologically "reckoning" ourselves as overcomers--this helps us become overcomers.

Same contrast in verses about sonship: Here’s a verse that says we are sons now: Galatians 3:26

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus

But here’s some verses that say “wait, there’s some conditions here, some things you do before you can finally be a son:” Rev. 21:7,8

He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death

The "overcomers" are those who have not committed the terrible sins listed in verse 8; or if they did so, they sincerely repented. 

And here’s just a few more verses which also condition eternal life: Hebrews 3:14

For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end

Hebrews 5:9

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him

The word “obey” is in what Greek grammar calls “continuous sense.”  You’ve got to keep on obeying.

This is all New King James translation. I don’t follow other translations that would weaken the important nuances of these verses.

These next verses have hyperbole to make a point that we should be willing to sacrifice anything to avoid sin and to obtain Christ.  Mark 9:43-44, 47:

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 ‘where Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out….

Luke 13:23-24 says something that most people just glide over:

Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

How can we feel eternally secure, when Scripture says we could:

Wander off, I Timothy 6:10

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows…

Turn back: John 6:66

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

Fall away Luke 8:13

But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away

And how could a God who doesn’t want anyone to perish, as II Peter 3:9 shows....

The Lord is not slack… not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

And how could God, whose will is perfect in its attainment, how could He allow people’s faith to be shipwrecked? I Tim 1:19

having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck

The answer is, only by placing conditions on our security.

Now you can’t be shipwrecked unless you were first on the ship! (The ship is an allegory for salvation). He simply gave us the free will to turn aside from the faith--and thus lose the salvation we obtained.

Consider how some Christians are likened to a salt that has lost its saltiness, Matthew 5:13

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out, 

Some Christians are compared to virgins (in Matthew 25:1-13) whose lamps run out of oil (note: they possessed the Holy Spirit--the oil in the lamp, but ran out of it)—so they are unprepared, not looking forward for His return--their lives are focused on the world. And what do they hear Jesus say? As verse 12 sadly points out, “I do not know you.”  This does not mean, "I never knew you."  The groom would have known the bridesmaids.  He's saying, "I knew you, but your love has changed so much, it's like I don't know you now."

Calvinist teachers want us to be relaxed, less anxiety-prone. They tell us, “you’re assured, just love God; good works will flow out of thankfulness.” If good works are so automatic, why are so many verses comparing the Christian life to being:

• A soldier in a battle (II Timothy 2:3,4): You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier 

• A wrestler, Ephesians 6:12a For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age

• Willing to shed blood, as it were, to defeat sin: Hebrews 12:4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin

• Willing to even leave our families (see my blog on "Defeating the Taliban"), Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. 

• A slave to God: Romans 6:22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life

When the rich young ruler popped the big question about obtaining eternal life to Jesus (Luke 18), what did He do? Did Jesus want to make it easy to understand, to win him? Did He tell him it’s just faith in Him, nothing else? NO! As Luke 18:18-23 records, He gave him a rough time defining the word “good,” then He gave him a rough time on how he should be saved, testing him by running through some of the 10 commandments first, then gives him an almost impossible restriction to cease his secret focus on materialism.

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich. 

Does Jesus, at the point of seeing his sorrow and wrong decision, beg him to reconsider, urge him, tell him how much he could lose? Does He water down his tough final restriction? NO! He is done speaking to him. His words in vv. 24,25:

And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

These ideas might shock you about God (Jesus is God). But don’t, whatever you do, reject them outright, dismissing them that “I’m taking verses out of context,” etc etc. Considering the volume of verses above, that cannot be the case.  There are things about God here that we should explore, take a fresh unbiased look at ALL of His Word. Attaining and keeping eternal life might not be as we were taught!

Acknowledgement to Brother Dan Corner, preacher, writer, and watchman on the wall, for his book,

The Believer's Conditional Security