Category Archives: Salvation

Do Christians Work for Their Inheritance? Part 1

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

The New Testament (NT) writers often speak of believers gaining or losing a future inheritance from God. In many cases, the inheritance is gained or lost because of the works of the believer. Since we are clearly taught elsewhere in the NT that gaining entrance into heaven is only by faith, then what are we to make of acquiring or losing an inheritance from God by works of good or evil?

Theologian Joseph Dillow has offered an answer to this question in his masterful volume The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Destiny of Man. Dillow first explains what the Greek word for “inheritance” (kleronomia) means:

Like its Old Testament counterpart a kleronomia is fundamentally a possession. How it is acquired or passed on to one’s descendants is not intrinsic to the word. The word does not always or even fundamentally mean an estate passed on to a son at the death of a parent, as it does in Gal. 4:7. To include those contextually derived notions within the semantic value of the word itself is . . . to commit an illegitimate totality transfer. Arndt and Gingrich define it as an “inheritance, possession, property.” Abbott-Smith concurs that it means “in general, a possession, inheritance.” Rarely, if ever, does it mean “property transmitted by will.” Vine observes that “only in a few cases in the Gospels has it the meaning ordinarily attached to that word in English, i.e., that into possession of which the heir enters only on the death of an ancestor.”

How is the concept of inheritance used in the NT? Dillow catalogs several different usages:

[T]he words for inheritance in the New Testament often involve spiritual obedience (i.e., faith plus works) as a condition of obtaining the inheritance. Becoming an heir (kleronomos) can occur through filial relationship, through faith, or through some kind of works of obedience. The acquisition of the inheritance (kleronomia) is often related to merit.

Dillow points out that when the verb “to inherit” is used in the NT, it is almost always contextually linked to “either the presence or absence of some work or character quality as a condition of obtaining or forfeiting the possession.” (emphasis added) The problem is, then, what the possession is.

Some biblical interpreters (i.e., hyper-Calvinists) have mistakenly argued that the possession that is inherited is entrance into heaven, but this interpretation creates serious problems because entrance into heaven is all about faith, not works. To solve this problem, hyper-Calvinists will argue that true Christians will necessarily persevere to the end and gain their inheritance. If a person thinks they are a Christian, but then fails to inherit entrance into heaven, then they were never a true Christian to begin with.

This interpretation, however, is deeply flawed and unsatisfying. The numerous “inheritance” passages in the NT are invariably written to Christian audiences. The passages which speak of a person gaining or losing an inheritance because of his works are written to believers. We need to take these passages at face value and deal with this fact. In part 2, we’ll continue Dillow’s analysis.

Why Should You Go to Church?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I am speaking to the born-again Christian.  Why should you go to church?  Unfortunately, there are many of you out there who have decided that you no longer need to attend church, for whatever reason.  You worship in your home, you read your Bible, you pray, so why do you need to get out of bed on Sunday mornings and go to church?

There are many good reasons for going to church, but I want to talk about one reason in particular.  Here it is: your salvation may stall out, or, at least, fail to mature as quickly.  Yes, your salvation.  I know some of you are screaming, “Once saved, always saved!  Going to church has nothing to do with my salvation!”

You have forgotten that salvation consists of three parts: justification, sanctification, and glorification.  It is true that your justification is a one-time event, but your sanctification is a process that occurs over the remainder of your life.  The New Testament actually spends far more time talking about your sanctification than your justification!

Sanctification is the process by which you cooperate with the Holy Spirit to become more Christ-like.  To become more Christ-like is to obey God’s will, to strive every day, with the Holy Spirit’s help, to do as the Father commands.  If you are a Christian who does not want to do what the Father commands more and more every day, you have completely missed the plain message of the Bible.

So why might your sanctification stall out when you are not in church?  Because you are not hearing God’s commands preached, in person, at all.  How can you follow God’s commands for your life if you never hear them?

Some of you are again arguing with me.  “But I read the Bible, I listen to podcast sermons, I watch preachers on TV.  So, I am hearing God’s will for my life.  I am hearing his commands.”  Yes, that is true.  Doing those things are certainly better than doing nothing, and you certainly sanctify your life by doing those things, but not nearly as effectively and as powerfully as hearing the Word of God preached, in person, face to face.

Why do people pay crazy amounts of money to go see rock concerts, to see comedians perform on-stage, to attend NFL games?  After all, you can hear rock music for free, you can hear comedians for free, and you can watch NFL games for free.  Why pay for these things?  Because attending a live event is so much more powerful an experience.

I have attended a couple of NFL playoff games, and you cannot imagine the electricity in the stadium.  The crowd is cheering, the stands are thundering – you can feel the excitement.  It sticks with you and you don’t forget it.  Why?  Because it’s live!

Like it or not, human beings were designed by God to react more strongly, more powerfully, to other people when they are live and in person.  A powerful sermon will absolutely stick with you for a longer period of time if you hear it in person; it will have a greater impact on your life.  God’s commands will resonate more deeply in your soul when you hear it coming from your pastor standing 40 feet from you than when you see a preacher say the exact same thing on TV.

Nothing can replace the experience of hearing the Word of God in person every week.  I listen to hours of Christian messages in the car every week driving back and forth from work, but when I sit in my seat on Sunday morning and my pastor starts preaching the Word of God, it hits me in the chest like a podcast rarely does.  If you’re laying in bed Sunday mornings, you are robbing yourself of sanctification.  How sad.  Don’t you want to grow?  Don’t you want to hear “Well done, good and faithful servant?”

Would God Let Hitler in Heaven?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I find that many non-believers are hopelessly confused about salvation by God’s grace.  This confusion was amply illustrated the other day on an Unbelievable? podcast when the atheist debater challenged the Christian debater with the following: “Isn’t it true that the Christian God would have allowed Hitler into heaven if he had repented and trusted in Christ on his deathbed?”

The  atheist questioner clearly believed that Hitler, based on his numerous evil deeds (I still don’t understand how atheists can say that Hitler did anything objectively evil, but that’s another issue altogether), did not deserve to be accepted by God, and the fact that the Christian God would accept Hitler under any circumstances was simply unacceptable.   He (the atheist) could never believe in a God that would let Hitler into heaven because justice would be denied if this were to occur.

One can sympathize with this point of view if we are dealing with the God of Islam, who weighs everyone’s good deeds and bad deeds on a scale to determine where they will spend the afterlife.  It is hard to imagine that Hitler could ever get into heaven under that system, but that is not how the God of Christianity works.

The Christian debater correctly pointed out that nobody deserves to be accepted by God, but that through Christ’s work on the cross, God will accept those who have placed their trust in what Christ did for them.  God will apply Christ’s atoning sacrifice to every person who desires it by dedicating themselves to their Savior.  Christ paid the penalty for all of mankind’s sins, including Hitler’s.  If Hitler had truly repented and trusted in Christ before he died, like the thief on the cross, he would have been welcomed into paradise by God.  There is no reason to believe that he ever did this, so this is a purely hypothetical exercise meant to illustrate a point.

That is why Christians are always talking about the grace of God.  God offers us eternity with him, but only because of Christ.  God knows that if a scale of justice were applied, every single one of us would be condemned for our thoughts and our deeds.  According to the Bible and to anyone who has really looked within their soul, we are a million miles away from the goodness that God expects of us.  The scale, after all, is calibrated to weigh our deeds against the standard of the righteousness of God.  Does anyone really believe they can stand before God on their own merit?

I thank God that I will never have to, and if you’ve trusted Christ, neither will you.

What Were the Reformers’ Views on Infant Baptism? – #6 Post of 2010

Post Author: Bill Pratt

According to church historian John Hannah, there were four major Protestant streams that developed during the Reformation in the 16th century: Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anabaptism.  Each of these streams placed great stress on the idea of salvation by faith alone, yet they did not all agree on what infant baptism means or whether it should even be done.

To my knowledge, all the reformers rejected baptism as the cause of a believer’s salvation; again, salvation is by faith.  An infant obviously cannot believe on her own, so if baptism is only a sign of the faith a person possesses, then why are infants baptized?

First, let’s look briefly at Calvinism.  According to Hannah, “Calvin defended the baptism of infants, believing that children of the godly are born members of the church by virtue of the hereditary nature of the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision having been replaced in the New Covenant with baptism as a sign.”

For Calvin, since infants were circumcised under the Old Covenant, infants should be baptized under the New Covenant.  Infant baptism does not cause regeneration, but it ensures that the child will be taught what she needs to know about Christ when she gets older, so that she can then exercise her own faith.  If she dies before she can exercise her own faith, Calvin believed that God could still save her, as He is not limited to save only those who exercise faith (although that is the normal way).

The Anglicans closely followed Calvin on the issue of infant baptism.

Luther also held very similar views to Calvin.  He believed that infants, who cannot exercise faith, should be baptized because of the faith of their parents and church family.  The faith of the church family could not directly save the infant, but their faith would later help the child to grow in knowledge and receive her own faith from God.  Again, infant baptism signifies the entrance of the child into the church where she can be instructed.

The last group, the Anabaptists, differ greatly from the other three streams.  The Anabaptists believed that a sign should always follow the thing it signifies, not anticipate it.  Hannah explains further Anabaptist views: “People are born into the world lost and need to be regenerated.  One does not enter the church as a citizen as one enters the state.  In the latter one is naturally born into it; in the former one is spiritually born into it.  The state is not the church; the church is not the state.”

The earliest confession of the Anabaptists states: “Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with him in death. . . . This excludes all infant baptism . . . .”

So what do you think?  Should infants be baptized?  Please vote in the poll below.

What Is the Gospel?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

You would think this question would be pretty easy to answer because the gospel message is something that Christians talk about all the time.  However, it is difficult to find the gospel explained in one place within the Bible.  There is, however, one passage where the gospel is defined, and that is in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, specifically 1 Cor. 15:1-8.  Here it is:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.  After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Theologian Scot McKnight summarizes some key points from this text in the December issue of Christianity Today.  First, “this is the gospel handed on to Paul (v. 3), which suggests it was the gospel the earliest apostles preached.”

“Second, the gospel saves people from their sins (v. 2-3).”

“Third, the essence of the gospel is the story of Jesus (vv. 3-8) as the completion of Israel’s story (v. 3).  Both the word Christ (Messiah) and the phrase ‘according to the Scriptures’ are central to how the apostles understood the word gospel.”

So what is the gospel?  According to McKnight, “Added together, it means this: The gospel is first and foremost about Jesus.  Or, to put it theologically, it’s about Christology. . . . ‘To gospel’ is to tell a story about Jesus as the Messiah, as the Lord, as the Son of God, as the Savior.”

Gary Habermas often summarizes these verses in this way: the gospel is the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

If you’ve overlooked these verses in the past, go back and study them.  After all, we need to constantly remind ourselves of the message we are to give the world.

What about Those Who Never Hear the Gospel?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I have written on this, one of the most popular questions posed to Christians, in a few different posts and in comments.  Having said that, I have never answered the question in a systematic and thorough manner.  Recently I ran across the best, the most thorough answer to this question I’ve ever seen.  The author is Glenn Miller, the creator of a website called A Christian Thinktank.

You may not agree with each and every thing Glenn says, but I found his answer to this question to take into account a wide range of biblical data and treat that data with great care.  In order to whet your appetite for his entire article, here is his conclusion (he backs all of these statements up with Scripture):

Heaven will be heavily populated, with people from all nations, tribes, and languages–with many from outside historical Israel.

God’s judgment is completely fair and His kindness is communicated (and operative) to all. God reveals Himself to humanity through several non-linguistic forms (nature, anthropology, morality, patterns, emotions), and even linguistic data (in the form of tradition) has been preserved for all the descendants of the original pair of humans.

God deals with people according to the information they have–with specific focus on how they welcome or resist that truth. God’s moral judgment is based on actual deeds and actual motives–a very fair standard for everyone.

With those that respond to God’s revelation in nature and extra-biblical tradition, seeking grace and His activity on their behalf, God initiates a relationship with them, that typically eventuates in additional disclosures of God’s special, special love–His Son.

All of God’s overtures to man, and the acceptance of imperfect people into a living relationship with the morally pure God, is based on the penalty-removing sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross–sometimes unbeknownst to the recipients of that grace (e.g. OT saints).

Throughout the stretch of history, God has given additional detail, precision, instruction in the record of His disclosures and actions in history (i.e. the Bible). This in no way compromises or diminishes the ‘power-to-save’ of the ‘least-precise’ statement of God’s gracious nature and God’s saving actions in history.

The elements of original truth are mixed with historical distortions in all world religions, but there are sects within EACH of these major religious traditions that ‘look very much like’ aspects of OT religion, and there are often adherents of those religions that misunderstand their traditions ‘in the correct direction’!

The small, selected slice of history reported in the Bible indicates considerable action on God’s part in ‘getting the message out’ to individuals–often involving providence and ‘odd chanced’ events. A sufficiently competent God (!) could obviously orchestrate events, dreams, visions, rumors, conscience, mis-understood traditions, in such a way as to reach those who seek Him earnestly.

The response to truth in natural/universal revelation always witnesses to Christ–and never against Him. That is, a person who truly rejects the Biblical Christ (not some cardboard cutout or “engineered re-construction” of Him!), does NOT have a relationship with the Eternal God of heaven. (They may LATER come to accept Him, since many of us resisted His kindness for long periods of time before ‘softening before the warmth of His Love’.)

God’s concern for humanity and His interest in our welfare transcends both our petty attempts to criticize His plan, and our well-meaning attempts to ‘justify’ His plan! A love that sent a volunteering Son to earth, to die miserably and scandalously at the hands of “reluctant wrath” and “justly outraged holiness”, is a love that invites all to “come, drink of the Fountain of life”.

His instructions to Judeo-Christians to present/offer this message to the whole world is to be obeyed on His authority only, regardless of outcomes in any given setting. But we delight in the fact that His love drives us on, and that His Word can give life and freedom to those often un-interested or even openly hostile.

God is so perfectly good and so perfectly fair in ALL His dealings with us. His patience in delaying judgment (2 Pet 3) and His provision for forgiveness through the death of His Son (2 Cor 5), although often cast in His teeth in derision, is ample witness of His heart. His dealings with us incorporate ALL of the issues of our hearts, our background, and our basic attitudes toward truth/life.

“Shall not the God of all the earth do right?!” (Gen 18.25)

What Is the Cause of Our Salvation?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

This question first came to a dramatic head in the church in the fifth and sixth centuries.  There were four main protagonists.

Augustine of Hippo argued that salvation is totally and causatively of God’s grace.

A contemporary of Augustine, Pelagius, argued that salvation is totally and causatively of man’s free will.

Following these two was Cassian, who argued that salvation originates in man’s free will, but then proceeds as a cooperation between both man and God.

Finally, we have the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529), a group of bishops who argued that salvation originates in God’s grace, but proceeds as a cooperation between both God and man.

The position of the Council of Orange (commonly called semi-Augustinianism) became the quasi-official position of the church until the Reformation in the 16th century.  The Reformers, especially John Calvin, felt that the church had drifted, since A.D. 529, to the position of Cassian (his position is commonly called semi-Pelagianism), and wanted to bring the church all the way back to the Augustinian position, rejecting the semi-Augustinianism of Orange.

This debate continues today in the Protestant world among Calvinists who are closer to Augustine, and Arminians who are closer to Cassian.  There are also those who reject these two views and land in the middle; these moderate Calvinists would be closer to the position that the Council of Orange took.

What do you think is the cause of our salvation?  Which of these four positions do you think is closest to being correct?

Does God Give Every Person a Chance to Be Saved? – #7 Post of 2009

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I say “yes.”  I believe that God does give every person a chance to be saved.  Why do I believe this?

All men are given the chance to accept or reject God because God loves all men and desires all men to come to him.  According to 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”  According to 1 Tim. 2:3-4, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” And of course, John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

God will freely offer the gift of salvation to everyone, but each person must decide to accept or reject this free gift.

There are many ways that a person can receive the gospel message.  Through a sermon, through a book, through the Bible, through a missionary, through a dream, or through a vision.  God is not limited in how he can offer salvation to men.  We are all held responsible for what we know of God, so there will be no excuses once we stand in front of him.

Do Catholics Affirm Justification by Faith Alone?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most remarkable lectures I ever heard at an apologetics conference was a Friday morning session with Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College.  Kreeft is a highly respected Catholic scholar who has taught at BC for many years and written more than 60 books.

Kreeft’s lecture focused on his desire to see Roman Catholics and Evangelicals move toward unity, certainly a worthy goal as long as we’re not compromising any essential doctrines.  But what I wasn’t expecting to hear was his statement that Catholics now agree that justification is by faith alone.  Yes, you read that right.

Kreeft explained that in 1999 the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation jointly issued a declaration on the doctrine of justification, the central issue of the Reformation.  In 2006, the World Methodist Council also voted to affirm this declaration.

In this declaration, the Catholic Church agreed that justification is by faith alone and it withdrew the condemnations of the Council of Trent toward those Protestants that affirmed justification by faith alone.  Kreeft explained that the Council of Trent was condemning the idea that works are not part of the totality of salvation, which is composed of justification, sanctification, and glorification.  Luther, on the other hand, was specifically speaking of justification, not sanctification and glorification, when he said works were not involved in salvation.  So the Council of Trent misunderstood Luther, according to Kreeft.  It took 400 years to figure this out, but better late than never.

During Q&A, Kreeft was quick to add that there are many other areas of disagreement that need to be discussed among Catholics and Protestants, but he believed that if Catholics and Protestants can come to agreement on the doctrine of justification, which was the defining controversy of the Reformation, then there is hope to come to agreement on other issues as well.

I have read the declaration and I believe Kreeft’s interpretation of it is indeed correct.  I invite all who are interested in this issue to read the declaration.  It is not that long and can be read by someone who is moderately familiar with theological terminology.  Also, to preempt fruitless discussion, I would ask that folks not comment or jump to any conclusions about this issue until you have read the declaration yourself.  I am very curious to hear reactions from both Catholics and Protestants alike.

What Are Romans 9,10, and 11 About?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I’ve touched on this topic before, but it continues to interest me, so I thought I would cover some new ground on this important section of the New Testament.

Context, when reading any passage of the Bible, is crucial to understanding it.  When we look at the context of Romans 9-11, we immediately discover that the Apostle Paul is speaking of the national condition of Israel.  If you take nothing else from this post, please take that!  Every verse in Romans 9-11 is advancing Paul’s treatment of national Israel.

Dr. Barry Leventhal, of Southern Evangelical Seminary, explains that Romans 9-11 can be outlined as Paul asking and answering a series of four questions:

  1. Haven’t God’s promises to Israel utterly failed? (Rom. 9:1-29)
  2. Why then did Israel fail to attain the righteousness of God? (Rom. 9:30-10:21)
  3. So then God has finally rejected Israel, hasn’t he? (Rom. 11:1-10)
  4. If Israel’s failure is neither total nor final, then what possible purposes could her failure serve in the overall plan of God? (Rom. 11:11-36)

Rather then answering these questions in this blog post, I invite the reader to read these three chapters and attempt to answer these questions herself.

A final point.  Some Christians attempt to draw from these chapters doctrines about individual believers’ justification before God.  But Paul has already dealt with individual justification in the first four chapters of Romans.  Certainly Paul could review what he taught in chapters 1-4, but the context of chapters 9-11 seems to deal with a completely different topic.  So be very careful when making claims about justification from chapters 9-11; you may be placing the words of Paul in a subservient position to your particular theological views.