Transcription
[Music]
Thank you very much. It's a delight to be with you here this evening.
For the last four years, I have been working on a systematic philosophical theology, which will be a survey of the entire body of Christian doctrine, highlighting the difficult philosophical issues that arise in each theological topic. I'm currently working on the doctrine of salvation.
Now, the doctrine of salvation turns out to be one of the most controversial topics in the body of Christian doctrine. It is here that the rift between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, not to mention Orthodoxy, is to be found, as well as the rift among Protestants between Calvinists and Arminians. So everything that I say tonight will be controversial to someone.
In talking about the doctrine of salvation, it is very useful to distinguish between what theologians call the Historia salutis and the Ordo salutis. The Historia salutis is the history of salvation; that is to say, it is the objective events that make up God's plan of salvation leading up to someone's conversion experience. I find this to be a very useful rubric for discussing the various elements in the history of salvation.
So the history of salvation begins, number one, with the plan of salvation. This is the plan of salvation that is resolved upon by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in eternity. Ephesians 1:10 and 3:9-1 speak of the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord—a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in him.
1 Peter 1:20 says that Christ was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake. So this eternal plan of salvation establishes, in effect, the economic Trinity, specifying the roles that each of the members of the Trinity will play in God's salvific plan.
Knowing that human persons would fall into sin, the members of the Trinity resolved among themselves that the Father, in love, will send the Son for the sake of our salvation and himself assumed the role of supreme judge. The Son voluntarily agrees to take on a human nature and to act as the mediator between God and man, historically sacrificing his life to pay the penalty of sin that man deserves.
The Holy Spirit agrees to carry forward the work of Christ after his exaltation in order to apply the benefits of Christ's atoning death to people and to bring them into conformity to Christ's image. So this is the plan of salvation that has been resolved upon from eternity.
Number two is election. Election refers to God's choice of who shall be the beneficiaries of his plan of salvation. Ephesians 1:4 and 5 state that God the Father chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ to the good pleasure of his will.
You notice the expression "before the foundation of the world," which indicates that God's election is co-eternal with the plan of salvation itself. Now, the phrase "in Christ" is used repeatedly throughout Ephesians to indicate the sphere in which the blessings of salvation are to be found. They are to be found in Christ.
But what does it mean to be chosen in Christ? While Christian believers may now be said to be in Christ in so far as we enjoy a saving relationship with Christ, just how are we chosen in Christ at a time when we did not as yet even exist?
Well, I think that the best answer to this question seems to be that people are potentially in Christ in virtue of his appointment as the substitutionary representative of humanity before God, and that the benefits of that representation are then actualized in time as people come to place their faith in Christ as their proxy.
God decreed that those who would someday place their faith in Christ as their representative would be adopted into his family and enjoy all its benefits. So we are potentially in Christ in so far as he serves as the proxy for humankind before God, and we then actualize that potential as we place our trust in Christ.
Now, this serves to raise one of the most important questions concerning election, namely, is election primarily corporate or individual? That is to say, is the primary object of election a group which individual persons may join, or is it individual persons who taken together constitute a plurality?
Calvinists claim that election is primarily God's choice of specific individual persons to be saved, whereas Arminians take the object of God's choice to be a people for himself, a corporate group.
Now, God's election of a people for himself finds its prototype in God's election of Israel in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 7 and 8, Moses declares, "For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession."
Now, it's evident that Israel's election was the choice of a corporate entity, a people or a nation. Individuals were beneficiaries of God's promises to Israel in so far as they were faithful members of this people. But individual Israelites, such as the 3,000 involved in the worship of the golden calf, for example, could lose their status as members of this covenant people and be judged by God for their failure to keep the terms of the covenant.
So just as under the old covenant, Israel was the primary object of God's election, so under the new covenant, the object of election is plausibly primarily the church and secondarily those who are members of it.
Although Ephesians can be interpreted in terms of individual election, a corporate interpretation has, I think, greater continuity with the election of Israel in the Old Testament and is suggested by the many corporate metaphors and expressions with which the letter to the Ephesians is suffused.
For example, the church, which is his body, the Commonwealth of Israel, the household of God, a holy temple in the Lord, the body of Christ, and so on and so forth.
In Romans 9-1, a classic Pauline text on the doctrine of election, the corporate perspective comes clearly to the fore. Although Calvinists have typically interpreted Romans 9 in terms of individual election, such an interpretation sits very ill with the wider context, especially chapter 10, which features a universal offer of salvation.
Therefore, most contemporary biblical scholars tend to read Romans 9-11 as a treatise on the nature of Israel rather than on individual election. The problem that exercises Paul throughout Romans 9-11 is that Israel, God's elect people, has failed so miserably to obtain salvation by rejecting their promised Messiah, Jesus.
How can this be? Paul begins to tackle this problem by explaining that the true heirs of God's original promise to Abraham are not all his descendants but only one particular line of descent through Isaac and then subsequently through Jacob.
Now, this selectivity on God's part occasions the imagined charge of injustice on God's part, the allegation apparently being that God would be unfair to arbitrarily favor one son and his descendants over the other.
Paul's response to this objection is a ringing affirmation of God's sovereign prerogative to choose as he pleases without regard to human merits. Quoting Exodus 33:19, Paul concludes, "So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Romans 9:18).
The question then becomes, given God's sovereign right to choose to save whom he wishes, whom has he in fact chosen to save? Paul's answer is that God has sovereignly chosen to expand the promise of salvation to include Gentiles, so that those who were once not God's people will now be called his people.
No Jewish person can gainsay God's decision in this matter because God is absolutely sovereign. He has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he has chosen to save Gentiles as well as Jews.
Now, obviously, not all Gentiles will be saved any more than all Jews. So who are the elect? Paul's answer is, thank you, um, that is a little precarious.
Okay, thank you. So who are the elect? Paul's answer is those who have faith in Christ Jesus. God has sovereignly chosen to save all who place their faith in Christ Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. That is his sovereign prerogative.
So in Romans 10, we find a universal appeal for faith in Jesus. Paul says, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved."
Then in chapter 11, Paul illustrates the relationship between corporate and individual election by the illustration of the olive tree. The olive tree symbolizes the true spiritual Israel, the corporate group which is the object of God's election.
The branches are the individual persons who may be either broken off the tree or grafted into it. In Greek, it's interesting that Paul uses first and second person singular pronouns throughout; he's talking about individuals here.
Paul admonishes his Gentile readers to keep in mind that the natural Jewish branches, and I quote, "were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you" (Romans 11:2 and 21).
God's sovereign election of the corporate group is unconditional. His election of the corporate entity is unconditional, but membership in that group, which is destined for salvation, is conditioned on faith in Jesus Christ.
That brings us to the third element in the Historia salutis, which is creation. By creation, I mean here not God's decision or decree to create a world, but his actual creation of the universe.
Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In Hebrew, there is no word for the universe. When the Hebrew person wanted to speak about the totality of physical reality, he would use the expression "the heavens and the earth."
So Genesis 1:1 indicates that in the beginning, God created the universe. John 1:3 similarly says, "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."
The best scientific evidence is that this event took place about 14 billion years ago. Sometime later, we don't know exactly how long, the Bible says God created man in his own image. "In the image of God, he created him; male and female, he created them" (Genesis 1:27).
This then set the stage for human history, including man's fall into sin. Finally, the fourth element in the Historia salutis is the Incarnation. In Philippians 2:6-9, Paul says, "Though Christ was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name."
So by the Incarnation, I mean here not merely Christ coming into the world via the virginal conception, but also Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension. By his substitutionary death on the cross, Christ pays the penalty for sin that we deserved, thereby satisfying divine justice and affording us a divine pardon for our sins.
Those are the objective events that lead up to and form the background of a person's coming to be personally saved. Personal salvation involves the subjective appropriation of Christ's atoning work, and this is called the Ordo salutis, the order of salvation.
The first element in the order of salvation is calling. Calling refers primarily to the preaching and hearing of the Gospel. In Romans 9:24, Paul speaks of believers as "those whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."
In Romans 10:14 and 15, Paul asks, "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!'"
Now, whether or not this gospel call to repentance and faith is effective depends on how we respond to it, and that leads immediately to the second element in the Ordo salutis: prevenient grace.
Prevenient grace is the work of the Holy Spirit convicting and drawing sinners to himself. Hardened by sin, no one would ever come to faith in Christ without this prior work of the Holy Spirit.
So, for example, in Romans 3, Paul says, "All men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin. As it is written, 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.'"
So apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the unregenerate man does not even seek for God, and therefore it requires the prevenient work of the Holy Spirit convicting him and drawing him if anyone is to come to faith in Christ.
In John 16, Jesus says of the Holy Spirit, "If I do not go away, the counselor will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment—concerning sin because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment because the ruler of this world is judged."
Notice that here Jesus speaks of the ministry of the Holy Spirit not to believers but to the world, to those who do not believe in him, convicting them of sin and righteousness and judgment.
Prevenient grace brings the unbeliever to a position where he can either continue to resist the Holy Spirit and refuse to come to faith or can cease his resistance and allow the Holy Spirit to produce saving faith in him.
That leads to element three in the Ordo salutis, which is faith. Faith is then trust in Christ for salvation. Saving faith involves three elements: what the reformers called notitia, which is a Latin word meaning the understanding of the Gospel message; sensus, which is the Latin word for assent; it involves assent to the truths of the Gospel, belief in the truths of the Gospel; this is propositional belief.
Finally, fiducia, which is personal trust in Christ. So saving faith is both propositional faith in certain facts, the truths of the Gospel, and personal trust or faith in Christ.
So, for example, John 1:11-12 says, "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to become children of God." Notice here that receiving Christ involves believing in his name.
This is personal trust in Christ. In John 20:30-31, John says, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book, but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."
Notice this speaks of propositional faith; you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So faith in Christ involves both propositional belief as well as personal trust.
Now, faith in Christ has two results. This is the juncture at which Protestants and Catholics diverge. Protestants differentiate justification from sanctification, as I have on my chart. Catholics conflate justification with sanctification so that they become the same thing.
According to the Protestant reformers, justification is a legal declaration on God's part. It is very much like a legal pardon of a criminal issued by the president or the governor of a state.
Supreme Court Justice John Marshall describes a pardon with these words: "A pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed."
Now, analogously, God is the power who executes his divine law, and his pardon is an act of grace by which he exempts certain sinners who have violated his law from the punishment that they deserve.
A legal pardon expunges the criminal's guilt and puts him in good standing with the law. But notice that a legal pardon does not make a pardoned criminal suddenly into a virtuous good person. He achieves a new legal status, but it remains an open question whether he will improve morally.
Similarly, in justifying us, God declares that we are in right standing with him, for Christ has borne the punishment for sin that we deserved, thereby affording a divine pardon for all who will place their faith in him.
Justification involves the remission of our sins; that is, a divine pardon expunging our guilt and our liability to punishment. It involves a change in our legal status before God, but it does not make us virtuous good people. For that, we need regeneration by the Holy Spirit and his sanctifying work.
In contrast to this perspective, Catholics think of justification in the way that Protestants think of sanctification—not as a legal declaration or a change of legal status, but rather as the infusion of grace into our lives that actually makes us morally virtuous people.
It is therefore highly significant that contemporary New Testament scholars have come to understand the biblical doctrine of justification to be a legal declaration, just as the Protestant reformers maintained.
Paul's language of justification in the Book of Romans is the language of the Hebrew law court. God is the judge who "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:4); that is, who declares him to be in the right.
Even top Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer have come to recognize this fact. Most scholars today agree with James Dunn when he says, "To justify means to declare innocent or guiltless, to absolve or acquit, to acknowledge to be right."
The reformers were right to emphasize the forensic context that the term evokes and that provides its basic meaning. Justification, as such, is primarily about a change of status rather than a change of state or person.
Now, this is important because just as a pardoned criminal does not instantly become a virtuous person, so a justified Christian does not instantly become a virtuous saint. That will require the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit gradually transforming us into the image of Christ.
Now, that doesn't mean that justification is without consequences. Obviously, we are free of our liability to punishment and in good standing with God. Moreover, we are adopted into God's family as his sons and daughters.
So John 1:12 says, "But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God." Now, notice that adoption is also a change of legal status. One doesn't become biologically the offspring of different parents, but legally one becomes their children and even their heirs.
So too, we are heirs of God. Now, on the right side of the diagram, the other result of faith is regeneration. By placing our faith in Christ, we are spiritually born again. We are not simply declared legally righteous, but we are spiritually born again.
So again, John 1:12-13 says, "To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to become children of God, who were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God."
Then in John 3, Jesus describes to Nicodemus the new birth, which is wrought by the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born anew.'"
The Holy Spirit restores our relationship with God and comes to indwell us. This is a real transformative change in us. Whereas previously we were spiritually dead toward God, now we are alive.
Regeneration is just the first step in the moral transformation of our lives by the Holy Spirit. That is called sanctification, as we are gradually conformed to the image of Christ.
As we daily walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, allowing him to control and direct our lives, he produces in us the fruit of the Spirit and transforms our character to be like the character of Christ.
So in 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul says, "We all, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit."
The ultimate outcome of the process of sanctification is glorification when we die and go to be forever with Christ, free from every stain of sin.
So Paul writes, "So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. Lo, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
What a wonderful prospect awaits us!
Thank you. Let me just say, Dr. Craig, you've been a huge influence on me. Thank you so much on my thinking and my faith.
Here's my question: Does corporate election gain us anything? Because does God not determine who will become members of the group?
Okay, great question. Of course, corporate election gains us something if we're members of the corporate group. Right? If you're a member of a club that has all sorts of great benefits, you are secondarily the beneficiary of all those wonderful things.
So certainly being part of the corporate group is beneficial to you individually. The question I think you're asking is who determines membership in the group. What Paul says in Romans 9 is it's through faith. Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
Therefore, salvation is open to everybody. Anyone can be a part of the group. Now, having said that, I also do think it's true that God, in his omniscience, knows who would freely respond to his prevenient grace and who would reject it.
In virtue of his decision to create one particular world out of all these other worlds that were feasible for him to create, there are certain individuals whom God knows would respond to his prevenient grace and therefore be saved.
In that sense, they are foreordained or predestined because that's the world that God has chosen to create. But that sort of foreordination is entirely compatible with libertarian free will because it's they who determine how they respond to God's prevenient grace.
I love the way one French theologian put it: "It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves."
Okay, think about that one.
Thank you. Is this on?
Okay, so as a follow-up to your conversation right there, Dr. Craig, I'm a non-believer. But if what you just said is true about how it's up to us, isn't it still...
Okay, I'm going to need some help understanding.
Go ahead, I'll repeat the question.
Okay, am I still born into a script even though it's up to me? It's still understood my entire life before I was born. So am I not born into a script and I'm just following the script? Can you help me with that?
Yes, so he wants to know, he's an unbeliever, he wants to know if everything is preordained. If he is born into a script, that he's just following everything is preordained.
Yes, in virtue of God's foreknowledge and foreordination. But you're not just following a script; rather, you're writing the script, you see. And God just foreknows what you're going to write.
But that's why it's fully compatible with human freedom. I rather like that analogy, actually, that you offered. You are not following a script; you're writing the script.
Thank you. [Applause]
Good evening, Dr. Craig. It's a great pleasure that I finally hear you talk face to face. I came all the way from Australia for this event.
Yeah, goodness! All right, thank you.
So my question is around prevenient grace. Does it make sense if there is such a thing as prevenient grace? The so-called, you know, the reform so-called evanescent grace. Is it also possible that that prevenient grace is evanescent as well?
Like, the reason I'm asking that is take the case of King Saul. He's got a very good start, you know, but in the end, you know, so is that grace given to King Saul a sort of evanescent grace as well?
So the question was, given prevenient grace, could it also be evanescent grace? And the example that he gives is King Saul, who he says started out well and then faded.
Well, I mean, there isn't a category of grace called evanescent grace. The question you're raising is the question of perseverance. Is it once a person has appropriated saving grace, can he walk away from Jesus Christ and apostatize and lose his salvation?
That's not a change in the grace that God offers him; that's a change in that person. Although many Christians believe that once a person comes to know God and is born again and receives the saving grace, he cannot apostatize, it seems to me that the book of Hebrews, as well as many other passages in the New Testament, suggests that apostasy is a very real possibility and danger.
The recipients of the book of Hebrews were apparently Jewish Christians who, under severe persecution, were tempted to go back to Judaism and kick Jesus Christ out of their lives and revert to their former Jewish beliefs.
The author warns them in no uncertain terms: if you do this, you trample the Son of God underfoot and you outrage the Spirit of grace and you forfeit salvation.
So I take these passages at face value. I think as Christians we need to be aware that there is a real danger that one might apostatize. Therefore, as Paul says, "I strive with all the energy lest I have, lest after preaching to others, I myself should be disqualified."
So I do think that it is possible for a person to reject God's saving grace after having experienced it. As I say, this is one of the most controversial of theological topics.
Hey, good evening, Dr. Craig. I was wondering, when you look at a topic like salvation, as you're going through your studies, where do you even begin? What do you start looking at? What commentaries do you go to? And then once you find those, how do you determine which commentaries are reliable?
Are you talking specifically about the doctrine of salvation or just in general?
Both, if you have time.
Well, in general, the first thing I try to do is to compile a bibliography of the most important sources. The reason this is important is because the information out there is so unlimited that unless you're very selective, you're going to waste enormous amounts of time reading things that are not profitable.
So what you need to do right from the beginning is to get some standard encyclopedias and theological or philosophical dictionaries and read the relevant article in them to get an idea of who are the big players in this discussion, what are the most important works that I need to do, and then begin to assemble your bibliography.
So, for example, if you're doing work in philosophy, you need to know the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is the go-to philosophical encyclopedia, and its articles are authoritative.
That will help to guide you then to the bibliography, and then you begin to read these various works that you have come across. What you will discover as you read them is that they will reference other works that you can then note that you think, "I should also read that."
You will begin to get a picture of what are the most important issues and who are the most important authors and works to deal with these things.
Then I break my studies down into categories. For example, right now I'm working on the doctrine of election, but then later I'll be working on the doctrine of justification, and that will be a different body of literature.
That would be the way in which I would pursue it. After a while, what you begin to discover is that the same people get quoted over and over again, the same issues are raised, and it's at that point you think, "Yes, you're really getting a good handle on this subject because it's becoming repetitive."
So that's basically the way I would proceed.
Okay, thank you.
Hi! I'm trying to understand the counterfactual world and how I'm still me but making different decisions in a different world. If I'm a decision-making being and I'm influenced by my genetics and my environment, if someone else was me with the same genetics and environment, are they able to make a different decision?
I don't get how if I was in another world, I would make a different decision, and that different decision isn't because I have some different genetics or different environment. How that's not like a me thing versus someone else's soul was in that same genetics environment, they would choose a different decision.
Does that make sense?
I'm not trying to give an argument for freedom of the will against determinism. On the contrary, I'm just trying to unfold what does the Bible teach about these subjects.
The apologetic cash value of this is that many people object to Christianity because they think it has an incoherent worldview, an incoherent body of doctrine. So it's important that we lay out coherently exactly what we believe.
Then if some determinist comes along and says, "Well, I think everything is genetically determined," and so forth, well then he's welcome to present his objection, and we can respond to it.
But you don't have to prove freedom of the will to him; you have to simply defeat his objections to the biblical worldview that you've enunciated. The Hebrew view of man is that although God is sovereign, human beings are free creatures made in his image and therefore not determined in the choices that they make.
Okay.
Hey, Dr. Craig, thank you so much for your talk. That was very insightful.
So I had a question regarding the differences between Catholic justification versus Protestant justification. Like you said in your talk, you talked about how justification in the Protestant sense is forensic, right? We're pronounced justified, and then there is a regeneration that follows.
At some point, I was just curious—I don't know if it's something that I forgot or I was just wondering—the connection between, you know, when we are justified, right, and then when we are regenerated.
Do you understand what I'm asking?
Because what I'm trying to think of here is we're pronounced justified, right, but we're not necessarily regenerated in the moment we're pronounced justified.
Do you know what I'm asking?
I didn't get the very tail end of that.
Got most of it, but yeah.
So what I think he's trying to ask is what is the sequence and when does it happen between justification and regeneration?
As you saw on the diagram, I think they're simultaneous.
Okay, so that's the way I would understand it. First, there's calling, then there's prevenient grace, then there's the response of faith. The response of faith has two simultaneous effects: one is justification, the other is regeneration.
Then they each have consequences. Whereas on the Catholic view, it doesn't have that. What follows faith is justification, which is sanctification. It is the infusion of grace into you that makes you righteous, and then this is augmented by going to Mass and taking communion and things of that sort.
So there is a conflation of justification and sanctification in Catholic doctrine. As I say, it's very gratifying that contemporary New Testament scholars, including Catholic scholars, have come to recognize that in fact the Protestant reformers were right in their exegesis of Paul that there is a distinction between justification and sanctification.
These are both important; they are simultaneous, but they're very different.
Gotcha. Thank you so much, Dr. Craig.
Okay, we're going to go there next, but before I do, we have an online question that I just wanted to present to you.
So Bob Thompson asks, "Can someone be justified without being sanctified? We have many who are seemingly justified, and then it is revealed that they lived a life of sin."
Well, take the thief on the cross. Wouldn't you say he was justified? Jesus said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise," but he wasn't sanctified.
Yeah, he didn't have any time to do that. So yes, I think that it's possible.
Now, I suspect what the questioner is thinking of is somebody who went forward in a meeting and gave his life to Christ, and then he lives like the devil the rest of his life.
In a case like that, I don't think a person can have any assurance of salvation because he is not exemplifying the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, which accompanies justification, even if it is distinct from it.
So there should be, over time, manifestations of the grace of God in a person's life who is genuinely born again.
Okay, go ahead.
Thank you, Dr. Craig.
So I had a question about the controversial topic of "once saved, always saved," and just kind of how that connects with luck, I guess.
It seems like in some cases, if people are genuinely saved but have the ability to turn away from salvation, I'm wondering if the time that they die is kind of an unfortunate, you know, if they were to die at a time when they genuinely were saved, they go to heaven.
But let's say, you know, they live longer, they turn away from salvation, and now it's not really because of their choice, just because of the circumstances of their life that they end up, you know, going to hell.
Or vice versa, someone who, if they had lived 10 more years, however many more years, maybe they would have genuinely been saved, but unfortunately, they didn't.
So, you know, it kind of affects their...
Is the question that what would happen if someone dies without being saved, but if only he had lived a few years longer, he would have given his life to Christ and been saved?
In that case, his loss forever seems to be the result of this accident of history.
I'm persuaded that God, who wants all persons to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, knows whether or not prolonging a person's life any further would do any good.
It may well be the case that by the time people die, God knows that if they had lived any longer, it wouldn't have done any good; they wouldn't have changed their mind.
Therefore, they would still be lost, and therefore determining their life when he does is no injustice to them.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, Dr. Craig, I appreciate what you are doing here. This is about regeneration or being born again, as you referred to in John chapter 3 and 6 and 7, wherein the Lord was saying, "Whatever is born of flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit."
So what I am saying is that whatever is born of flesh is flesh—that is, you know, that is where we are born of our parents. That is a fleshly birth the Lord was referring to.
So in that case, we are also inherited a spirit from our parents' predecessors. You know, that spirit must be removed from our physical body, and instead, only the Holy Spirit can be replaced back into a physical body so that, you know, the bond of the Spirit is possible.
So that's why subsequently the Lord was saying in John 3:8, "The wind blows where it wishes; you hear the noise of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going."
So this coming speaks of the Holy Spirit into the body, and the going speaks of the spirit that we inherit from our parents.
And that's what passing over from death to eternal life is all about.
In that case, if anybody is born again, then was it possible for them to die again?
So, real quick, could you just repeat the question?
I didn't understand any of that.
How is it possible for a born-again person to die again?
Okay, how is it possible for a born-again person to die again?
To die again by rejecting Jesus Christ out of your life and saying, "I no longer own him as my Savior and Lord." I refuse him, and you kick the Holy Spirit out of your life.
In fact, I mean, this sin of apostasy may well be a species of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which, you know, Jesus said is the one unforgivable sin.
The author of Hebrews says that the person who does this, the apostate, has outraged the Spirit of grace by which he was sanctified and trampled underfoot the blood of the Son of God.
So I take it that that's how a person would die again spiritually: by renouncing Jesus Christ and evicting the Holy Spirit from his residence in him.
Is it possible to deny Christ? You know, if anybody is so born again, is it possible for anyone to deny Christ if they have been born again?
Well, that's what I've been saying, yes.
Is it possible?
Sure.
Sorry, we want to give everybody a turn, so that's what the author of Hebrews says clearly. The book of Hebrews is written to believing Christians.
Read chapter 6, chapter 10, and see if you don't think that the author thinks this is a very real danger. Moreover, we have examples of people like this in the New Testament, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander in the pastoral epistles and others who have walked away from the faith.
So we actually have instances in Scripture of people like this.
I am Peter all the way.
I think one person shouldn't dominate the conversation. You've had your turn. We're going to go to the next question.
I do want to say, though, that this brother here traveled from India to be here.
Wow! I applaud you for that. Pretty amazing.
Yeah, Sarah.
Just really quickly, can you discuss the verse that talks about the one believing member of the household saving or covering the rest of the household and where that falls?
Need some help?
Sorry, one more time. The verse that talks about the leader of the household covering the household and how that might work with salvation?
Yeah, that sounds again like some sort of corporate notion, doesn't it? That household salvation.
But it seems to me that ultimately the individual has to have saving faith. He can't just rely on the faith of his parents to save him. Ultimately, he has to repent and be saved on his own, right? He can't just depend on his family.
Quick follow-up: What do you think that verse is referring to, then?
What do you think that verse is referring to?
That person, that verse?
Oh, I don't know the verse. I'm just reacting to what you said. It sounds to me like household salvation, where typically the patriarch, the male head of the family, his faith will stand for those of his household.
I believe they were saying it's Acts 16:31.
Oh, 16:31.
And what does that say?
All right, I'm wondering too if in Proverbs we read, "If you raise your children up in the way of the Lord, when they are older, they will not depart."
Obviously, that's a truism; that's not necessarily true.
Yeah, the Proverbs is wisdom literature. So, as James D.G. Dunn has pointed out, that is not a promise; that is a pattern that one observes.
If you train your children in the way they should go, then when they're older, they won't depart from it. That's a pattern that one observes, but it's not a sort of unconditional promise. That's to misunderstand the nature of Proverbs.
Okay, and it looks here like they have the reference 1 Corinthians 7:14 for anybody that wants to look into that further.
All right, go ahead, brother, over here.
Okay, the question has to do with the issue of salvation and not losing your salvation. I just wonder, you mentioned John chapter 6, and in John 6:27, talking about believers, "My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me."
So we're good with that. "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish." Never, in the Greek, means it's not going to happen; they're not going to perish, be separated from God for all eternity.
And then that's argument number one. Number two is, "And no one will snatch them out of my hand." That's Jesus talking. "And my Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all," which means he's greater than any human who wants to turn his back.
He says, "And no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
So you've got two strong arguments that you cannot walk away once you are saved. Never perish and snatch them out of Jesus's hand and the Father's hand.
Yeah, I would never suggest that there aren't passages that you could quote in support of the perseverance of the saints, and John 6 would be one of the best ones for that side of the argument.
But then you've got these equally clear passages in the book of Hebrews and in Paul and elsewhere that say the opposite. So you've got to try to figure out some way to put them together.
Now, it could be that while it's true that none of Christ's sheep will perish, someone can cease to be a member of the flock by apostasy and therefore no longer be one of his sheep.
Someone like Judas, for example, who was one of the twelve and apostatized. No one can snatch them out of his hand, but they could leap out of his hand themselves through their rebellious will.
So while those are good verses for that other side, I don't think they're incontrovertible, and I think the passages on the other side are even clearer and more powerful that this is a real danger.
Now, let me say this: that wasn't the subject of the talk tonight. I didn't say anything about perseverance in my talk; that's missing from the talk.
So this is a side issue that I know folks are interested in, but it's not the subject this evening.
And you've written other articles and extensive resources on this, so if you want more on that, you can check them out at reasonablefaith.org.
Yes, actually, I've written an interesting article called "Lest Anyone Should Fall: A Middle-Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings," where I attempt to show how God could give these warnings in the book of Hebrews because he knew that if he gave these warnings, people would heed them and therefore not fall away.
So that even though it's possible for them to fall away, by giving them the warnings, he ensures that they won't fall away.
That middle-knowledge perspective, again, turns out to be rather illuminating.
Okay, and unfortunately, we only have time for one more question.
Aaron?
Oh, okay, he's giving up his spot. He's self-sacrificial.
Okay, and this gentleman was up next, so you've got the last question.
Okay, thank you, Dr. Craig. My question had to do with sanctification, and I want to know, in your view, what would be the difference between God sanctifying us at the moment of death and God creating us perfect from the get-go?
Okay, so what would be the difference between God sanctifying us at death and creating us perfect from the beginning?
Basically, creating us in a glorified state from the beginning.
So the question is, why doesn't he do that? What would be the difference?
Since there is a difference between sanctifying us at death...
I mean, I'm not sure I understand the question. Justification is complete, full righteousness. It is a full divine pardon. We are pronounced righteous in Christ.
This is what people mean when they say that all my sins are forgiven, that I am perfectly righteous in Christ. That is legal justification.
But as Luther so famously said, we are simul justus et peccator—simultaneously righteous and sinners—because in sanctification, we're not instantly glorified.
Sanctification takes a long time of the transforming work of the Holy Spirit to conform us to Christ's image, and that's probably not completed in anybody's lifetime.
Everyone will die, as Luther said, simul justus et peccator—simultaneously just and sinful.
So does that answer the question?
That glorification just doesn't take place in an instant?
Yeah, and I think a big difference there would be that if you are created in a glorified state, you haven't gone through any sin.
Right? Someone who is sanctified or glorified at death has gone through that process; they've experienced sin, they've experienced redemption and justification.
So you don't have that experience.
I suppose instant glorification would be, again, something like the thief on the cross, you know, who dies immediately after placing his faith in Christ and so is instantly glorified.
That would be the best analogy or example of something like that, but that would be very abnormal.
You know, it would be a deathbed sort of conversion, perhaps, and that's highly unusual, I think.
Well, thank you very much for your attention this evening.
[Music]