Difficult Bible Passages

Can a Person Be Saved After He Dies?

6 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There are two difficult passages in 1 Peter  (3:19 and 4:6) that seem to indicate that this may be possible.  I have read a number of interpretations of these verses, but there seems to be no consensus.  However, almost every commentator I read agrees that these verses are not teaching that salvation after death is possible.  Below are some extended quotations from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s text on Bible difficulties:

With regard to 1 Pet. 3:19,

The Bible is clear that there is no second chance after death (cf. Heb. 9:27). The Book of Revelation records the Great White Throne Judgment in which those who are not found in the book of life are sent to the lake of fire (Rev. 20:11–15). Luke informs us that, once a person dies, he goes either to heaven (Abraham’s bosom) or to hell and that there is a great gulf fixed “so that those who want to pass” from one to the other cannot (Luke 16:26). The whole urgency of responding to God in this life before we die gives further support to the fact that there is no hope beyond the grave (cf. John 3:36; 5:24).

There are other ways to understand this passage, without involving a second-chance at salvation after death. Some claim that it is not clear that the phrase “spirits in prison” even refers to human beings, arguing that nowhere else is such a phrase used of human beings in hell. They claim these spirits are fallen angels, since the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) were “disobedient … in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:20; cf. Gen. 6:1–4). Peter may be referring to this in 2 Peter 2:4, where he mentions the angels sinning immediately before he refers to the Flood (v. 5). In response, it is argued that angels cannot marry (Matt. 22:30), and they certainly could not intermarry with human beings, since angels, being spirits, have no reproductive organs.

Another interpretation is that this refers to Christ’s announcement to departed spirits of the triumph of His resurrection, declaring to them the victory He had achieved by His death and resurrection, as pointed out in the previous verse (see 1 Peter 3:18). Some suggest that Jesus offered no hope of salvation to these “spirits in prison.” They point to the fact that the text does not say Christ evangelized them, but simply that He proclaimed the victory of His resurrection to them. They insist that there is nothing stated in this passage about preaching the Gospel to people in hell. In response to this view, others note that in the very next chapter Peter, apparently extending this subject, does say “the Gospel was preached also to those who are dead” (see comments on 1 Peter 4:6). This view fits the context here, is in accord with the teaching of other verses (cf. Eph. 4:8; Col. 2:15), and avoids the major problems of the other view.

With regard to 1 Pet. 4:6,

It should be noted, first, that there is no hope held out anywhere in Scripture for salvation after death. Death is final, and there are only two destinies—heaven and hell, between which there is a great gulf that no one can pass over (see comments on 1 Peter 3:19). So, whatever preaching to the “dead” may mean, it does not imply that one can be saved after he dies.

Second, this is an unclear passage, subject to many interpretations, and no doctrine should be based on an ambiguous passage like this. The difficult texts should be interpreted in the light of the clear ones and not the reverse.

Third, there are other possible interpretations of this passage that do not conflict with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. (1) For example, it is possible that it refers to those who are now dead who heard the Gospel while they were alive. In favor of this is cited the fact that the Gospel “was preached” (in the past) to those who “are dead” (now, in the present). (2) Or, some believe this might not be a reference to human beings, but to the “spirits in prison” (angels) of 1 Peter 3:19 (cf. 2 Peter 2:4 and Gen. 6:2). (3) Still others claim that, although the dead suffer the destruction of their flesh (1 Peter 4:6), yet they still live with God by virtue of what Christ did through the Gospel (namely, His death and resurrection). This victorious message was announced by Christ Himself to the spirit world after His resurrection (cf. 1 Peter 3:18).

I would echo what Geisler and Howe say.  Difficult texts should be interpreted in light of plain texts.  As modern interpreters, we have lost the precise meaning of these two verses, so they are quite difficult to nail down.  Having said that, it would be a huge mistake to hold out hope for a second chance after death, based on these two verses.

Books of the Bible, Salvation

Does God Really Hate Esau?

97 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Many Christians are shocked when they read Romans 9:13: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'”  Since when does the God of love hate people?  This verse, coupled with the rest of Romans 9, has led many to believe that God does not love all people, at least with regard to their eternal salvation.  He seems to arbitrarily choose some people for salvation and some people for damnation.  But must we interpret this verse in that way?

I think the answer is “no.”  A more careful reading of this passage indicates that the subject is not individual salvation, but Israel’s national role in redemptive history.

Paul is actually quoting from Mal. 1:2-3, and a reading of those verses in the context of Malachi’s book clearly indicates that Malachi is using the word “Jacob” to refer to the nation of Israel and the word “Esau” to refer to the nation of Edom.

This makes perfect sense because Romans 9, 10, and 11 are all about national Israel and her role in redemptive history.  Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past, Romans 10 refers to her present, and Romans 11 refers to her future.

It is a serious exegetical mistake to interpret Romans 9 to be referring to individuals’ salvation.  According to Norman Geisler, “the election of the nation was temporal, not eternal; that is, Israel was chosen as a national channel through which the eternal blessing of salvation through Christ would come to all people (cf. Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 9:4–5). Not every individual in Israel was elected to be saved (9:6).”

God works through nations to accomplish his will, just as he works through individuals.  Just because Israel was the chosen nation to bring forth the Messiah did not mean that every Israelite would be individually saved.  Individual salvation has never been and will never be based on a person’s nationality.  Paul is talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9, not individual salvation.

Finally, it is also important to explain that the word used for “hate” in Malachi 1 is a Hebrew idiom which actually means to “love less.”  Norman Geisler explains: “This is evident from Genesis 29:30: The phrase ‘loved Rachel more than Leah’ is used as the equivalent of ‘Leah was hated’ (cf. also Matt. 10:37).”

God does not hate anyone, but he does bless some nations more than others.

Morality

Christians and Obama

27 Comments

Many of my evangelical friends have fretted over how Obama received support from Christians in the recent election.  One of our blog readers, Kay, has mentioned her dismay about this many times and asked how we, as Christians, should respond.

Before I say just a few words about our response, I wanted to give you the facts about how religious groups voted in the previous election.  This chart comes from an article in  a March 2009 First Things magazine, written by John C. Green.

Election Chart

After a quick perusal of the chart, you can see which groups shifted support to the Democrat, Obama.  Evangelicals, as a whole did not support Obama, and there was no significant move from the 2004 election.  The two groups that registered significant changes from the 2004 election were conservative Catholics, who swung 17 points from 2004, and ethnic Protestants (primarily Hispanics) who swung 27 points from 2004.

Read the First Things article for some insight into these shifts, but conservative Catholics and Hispanic Protestants were the two major changes from the 2004 election.  They helped Obama win the election.

Now, how should we respond?  I believe we are to respect the office of the President and we are to love and pray for the President.  God has placed him in authority over our nation, and as Christians, we are to respect the authority of those placed over us.

However, where he promotes ideas that are clearly unbiblical, we are to oppose him.  The ultimate authority to whom we answer is God, and where Obama disagrees with God’s word in the Bible, we are to align with God, not Obama.  I fear that the many Christians who voted for the pro-abortion Obama will have some serious explaining to do when they face God.

Our disagreements with Obama must be carried out within the current legal system.  The only time Christians should actually break laws in civil disobedience is when the following four criteria are met:

  1. When the laws are clearly counter to God’s word
  2. When the laws command us to do evil
  3. When the laws negate freedom
  4. When the laws are religiously oppressive

When we engage in civil disobedience, we must refuse to obey the law in a nonviolent way and we must accept the consequences of our disobedience.

Now, not all Christians agree with this viewpoint on civil disobedience, but I think that the Bible supports this position.  If you have a differing viewpoint, let us know, and we can discuss.

Morality, Philosophy

Where Is European Morality Headed?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

We have discussed, on this blog, the idea that a person’s religious beliefs and worldview have a direct effect on their moral behavior.  Worldviews not only affect people, but entire nations.  In the March 2009 publication of First Things, Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote a brilliant article which examines the decline of European morality.  Here is a powerful excerpt:

Over time human rights, now almost universally accepted among Europeans, will themselves come to be seen as so many arbitrary constructions that may, on utilitarian grounds, be revoked—because there is nothing intrinsic about human beings such that they are not to be ill-treated or violated or even killed. Even now, many do not want to be bothered with the infirm elderly or damaged infants, so we devise so-called humane ways to kill them and pretend that somehow they chose (or would have chosen) to die. Elderly patients are being killed in the Netherlands without their consent. A new protocol for euthanizing newborns with disabilities is institutionalized in the Netherlands, and the doctor who authored the protocols, Eduard Verhagen, tells us how “beautiful” it is when the newborns are killed, for, at last, they are at peace.

The Australian utilitarian Peter Singer predicts confidently that the superstition that human life is sacred will be definitively put to rest by 2040. It doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that by that moment “life unworthy of life” will routinely be destroyed—in the name of liberal humanitarianism and compassion, and even cost-effectiveness, rather than the triumph of a master race. It is a softer nihilism than the past’s, but it is nihilism all the same.

In an interview for a British magazine during the summer of 2005, Singer said that if he faced the quandary of saving from a raging fire either a mentally disabled child, an orphan child nobody wanted, or normal animals, he would save the animals. If the child had a mother who would be devastated by the child’s death, he would save the child, but unwanted orphans have no such value.

This is the entirely consistent result of the view that human life no longer possesses an innate dignity, that we are only meat walking around, and we can be turned easily into means to the ends of others, just as we may turn others into means to our ends. It is the old master-slave scenario come to life, even as we congratulate ourselves on our enlightenment.

Ideas matter, and Europe is headed down a depressing path.

Jesus Christ, Mormonism

Do Mormons Worship The Same Jesus As Christians?

47 Comments

I recently entered into a conversation on Jessica’s blog regarding whether Mormons worship the same Jesus as Christians.   I was surprised to discover a few Evangelicals who expressed the belief they do.  Being a former Mormon I must say I wholeheartedly disagree.  To those Christians who hold this position, I would like to give you something to consider…  The First Vision.  Let me explain.

Joseph Smith claimed Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father appeared to him in 1820 and ushered in the restoration of the true church of Jesus Christ – now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  When considering this First Vision claim there are only two positions one can take.

  1. It happened
  2. It did not happen

If one believes the First Vision did in fact happen (Number 1)  there are only two possibilities to consider.

A.  One of the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith was in fact Jesus Christ

B.  Neither of the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith were Jesus Christ

Think about the implications of these two positions for a second.  If “A” is true and Jesus Christ did appear to Joseph then The Mormon Church is what it claims to be… the true Church of Jesus Christ.  For it was started by Jesus Christ Himself calling Joseph Smith as His prophet during the First Vision encounter.  To those of you who believe Mormons worship the same Jesus as us – are you prepared to accept this and join the Mormon Church?  However, if “B” is true, then who was the being who appeared to Joseph Smith if it was not Jesus Christ?  Think about this for a second… this is the being who started The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  This is the being who appeared to Joseph Smith and called him as his prophet.  This is the being Mormons worship.  If it was not Jesus Christ, who was it?  One thing we can say for sure… if it was not Jesus Christ then we can rest assured Mormons do not worship the same Jesus Christ we worship.

To those who hold the belief the First Vision did not happen (number 2 above) there are still problems to consider when holding the belief Mormons worship the same Jesus as Christians.  For then you have to believe the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, perpetuated a lie of an indescribable magnitude and in the process used this lie to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.  In other words, Joseph Smith knowingly made up all of the visions and used these false visions to preach and lead others to the REAL Jesus Christ.  In addition, you must believe that he knowingly deceived others into believing THEY EXPERIENCED VISIONS.  For some of his visions were experienced in the presence of and by others.  All of this deceit while still preaching the REAL Jesus Christ.  While one can hold this position, to me it strains credulity.

Personally, I believe the evidence points to the fact Joseph Smith did have a first vision (number 1 above) but the being in this vision was not Jesus Christ (B above).  I believe Joseph’s well documented involvement in the occult opened some undesirable doors and the being who appeared to him was an evil spirit sent to lead the hearts of men astray (1 John 4:1).  IMO, the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus Christ of The Bible.  My prayer is for all Mormons to let go of the legalistic bonds of false religion and turn to the True Jesus Christ of The Bible.  In Him there is safety, in Him there is peace!

God Bless!

Darrell

Mormonism

Fullness Of The Gospel?

18 Comments

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to be the only church on earth to contain the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Other churches are said to have a portion of truth but to be lacking in it’s fullness.  In an Ensign article Boyd K. Packer explained the Church’s position on this issue by comparing the gospel preached by non-Mormons to using a single key on a piano while the LDS Church is said to have the ability to play a symphony. 

“The gospel might be likened to the keyboard of a piano—a full keyboard with a selection of keys on which one who is trained can play a variety without limits; a ballad to express love, a march to rally, a melody to soothe, and a hymn to inspire; an endless variety to suit every mood and satisfy every need.  How shortsighted it is, then, to choose a single key and endlessly tap out the monotony of a single note, or even two or three notes, when the full keyboard of limitless harmony can be played.  How disappointing when the fullness of the gospel, the whole keyboard, is here upon the earth, that many churches tap on a single key. The note they stress may be essential to a complete harmony of religious experience, but it is, nonetheless, not all there is. It isn’t the fullness.”  Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40

There are many doctrines unique to the LDS Faith – modern temple worship, sealings, eternal families and potential for godhood to name just a few.  Being the only church to hold these beliefs and believing they are central to God’s plan for mankind, it is easy to see why Mormons lay claim to the gospel’s fullness.  For example, Christians believe marriage is for this life only and does not exist in heaven.  A believing Mormon may look at this as an incomplete belief as they believe one can be married “for time and all eternity” in the Temple.  Thus making the marriage covenant carry on into Heaven.

While I understand the Mormon position, I find there are many problems with their claim.  For starters it is contradicted by their own scriptures.  The introduction to The Book of Mormon says it “contains, as does The Bible, the fullness of the everlasting Gospel.”  By their own admission The Bible contains the fullness of the gospel yet neither it nor The Book of Mormon contain any of the unique doctrines of the Mormon Church.  Virtually every single unique Mormon doctrine was introduced by Joseph Smith years after he published The Book of Mormon.  This provokes some puzzling questions and problems for the LDS Church.  If The Bible and The Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel why are none of the unique Mormon doctrines contained in them?  Are these doctrines not part of the gospel’s fullness?  If so why do we need them and what is it that all other churches are missing which leave them lacking in fullness? Lastly, if I can lay hold to the gospel’s fullness from The Bible alone why do I even need the Mormon Church and why do they preach one must accept their gospel either in this life or vicariously in the spirit world to enter the Celestial Kingdom/Heaven?

While I disagree with many LDS doctrines, we do agree upon one thing… The Bible contains the fullness of the good news (Gospel) of Jesus Christ.  The Bible tells us.. 

Jesus Christ is the one and only True God, our Savior.  He died for our sins, was resurrected on the third day and has ascended to His throne in Heaven.  He alone has provided reconciliation with God.  Once we accept Him as our Savior and enter into a relationship with Him we can approach the throne of grace with confidence realizing our salvation is assured.

We don’t need a man-made church to get to Heaven.  We have our way… Jesus Christ alone.  All praise be to Him.

Darrell

Pantheism, Theology

Is the Natural World Part of God?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Sometimes Christians say things like, “When I see a beautiful flower, I see God.”  It is a common experience, when witnessing a thing of great beauty, to comment that it reminds one of God.  In fact, this sense of God’s presence is part of the blessing of being a Christian.

However, Christians need to be careful about what we mean when we wax eloquently about God and nature.  The Bible teaches that God created the world and is distinct from the world.  God is not identified with the world.

Pantheists (e.g., Hindus and New Age believers) believe that God and the world are actually one and the same.  God is the world.  The world is God.  The whole world is composed of God, so God is not distinct from the world.

Christians reject this idea of God being identified with the world, because we believe he transcends the world.  He is above, beyond, other than, and more than the world.  If God is identical to the world, then he cannot be infinite in being because he would be limited by space, time, and matter – the things that constitute the world.

Although we believe that God is intimately related to the world and present to all parts of the world equally, we reject the idea that God is the world.  This idea is completely foreign to Scripture.

Atheism, Religion

Does Religion Kill?

22 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There is no doubt that religious people throughout history have killed people, at least partly because of their religious beliefs.  Even Christians have been guilty.

But many prominent atheists accuse religion, and especially Christianity, of mass killings and argue that if the world could rid itself of religious belief and turn to atheism, we would create a true utopia.  If only we could escape the fairy tales of religion, society would vastly improve and the killing might stop, or at least greatly decrease.

But wait a second.  There have been atheist governments who believed in science and reason, and looked with scorn upon organized religion.  What was their track record?  Instead of guessing what the results might be, let’s look at history.  Following is a book excerpt from The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson, that I found at Truthbomb Apologetics:

Religion the greatest danger to world peace? Think again

Contrary to what anti-religious zealots such as [Sam] Harris assert, throughout history far more lives have been snuffed out by faith-hating fanatics than by religious believers.

Historical demographers estimate that, in the 350 years between 1478 and 1834, the Spanish Inquisition was responsible for the execution of between 2,000 (Encyclopedia Britannica) and 32,000 people (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, 1987.)

That works out to about ninety-seven people a year- a ghastly number, to be sure, but a far cry from the “millions” routinely cited by secular fundamentalists.

As for the “witch hunts,” another example Harris and others give as irrational religious fanaticism, the British historian Norman Davies estimates 50,000 people, primarily women, were executed as witches over a four-hundred year period-an average of about 125 a year.

Yet as horrible as these examples of religious intolerance may be, they pale in comparison with the single-minded, bloodthirsty, satanic fury unleashed upon the innocent by secular fundamentalists-those militantly atheistic regimes that sought to expunge religious belief and “bourgeois” morality represented intolerable obstacles to social progress.

According to research conducted by the political scientist Rudolph Rummel at the University of Hawaii, the officially atheist states of the Communist bloc committed more acts of genocide than any societies in governments in the twentieth century-communist, socialist, fascist-equals about 170 million.

  • USSR: 61 million people murdered 1917-1987
  • Communist China: 35,2 million people murdered 1949-present
  • Mao’s army: 3.4 million people murdered 1923-1949
  • Nazi Germany: 20 million people murdered 1932-1945
  • Communist Poland: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1948
  • Communist Cambodia: 2 million people murdered 1975-1979
  • Communist Vietnam: 1.6 million people murdered 1945-1975
  • Communist Yugoslavia: 1 million people murdered 1944-1987
  • Anti-Christian Mexican Revolution: 1.4 million people murdered 1900-1920
  • Turkey:1.8 million people murdered 1900-1918
  • Pakistan: 1.5 million people murdered 1958-1987
  • Japan: 5.9 million people murdered 1936-1945

…Rummel’s conclusion is as shocking as it is inescapable: War wasn’t the most deadly evil to afflict humanity in the twentieth century. Government was! And not just any government, but atheist government.

As a result, ordinary people-whether religious or not-might be forgiven their general skepticism when today’s secular fundamentalists talk about the “intolerance” and “violence” of biblical religion or the people who believe in it.

In terms of raw numbers-which is the only kind of evidence that rationalists such as Harris claim to accept-the evidence is incontrovertible: Freed of any moral restraint, believing that the ends justify the means, scoffing at the notion that they will ever answer to a power higher than themselves, the murderous dictators of atheistic regimes feel little hesitation in committing mass murder if they believe it will advance their more “rational,” more “scientific” social aims.

Now, I don’t believe that an atheistic government is always going to cause this kind of bloodshed, but I think it is time to drop the argument that Christians, in the name of religion, commit mass murder, when the evidence squarely rests on the other side.

Theology

Why Should We Trust God?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

There are many passages in the Bible that speak to this issue, but I want to explain it in simple theological terms.

First, God is omnibenevolent (all-good).  That means that he desires our highest welfare.

Second, he is omniscient (all-knowing).  That means he knows everything that is possible to know.  He has all the information he needs about us – our past, present, and future.

Third, he is omnisapient (all-wise).  Wisdom refers to God’s unerring ability to choose the best means to accomplish the best ends in our lives.  He makes no mistakes.

Fourth, he is omnipotent (all-powerful).  He has the power to accomplish the best ends for your life by the best means for your life.

With these four attributes, you, as a believer, can completely trust in God.  He desires your best, he knows what you need, he knows the best way to accomplish it, and he has the power to make sure it happens!

Rest assured in God, because there is nobody else like him.

A Christian Apologetics Blog