Boy oh boy! "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom in this world?" Paul's rhetorical question in I Corinthians has more and more meaning as I see concrete examples of atheology in action (is this an example of the false meaning/application distinction? See Frame's DKG, p. 81-85) The main example in this entry will be from B. Steven Matthies. How'd I run across Mr. Matthies? Well, Dawson Bethrick (the "Randroid") came into the comments section of my post dismembering silly questions from skeptics and told us about him.
To give some background, one of the questions was, "Who was Cain afraid might kill him after he had killed Abel?" The first thing to note is that the questioner said that Cain was "kicked out of the garden." I pointed out that Cain was never in the garden, only his parents were. Surely this is an embarrassing mistake. But atheologians like Bethrick do not really care about truth. If their side makes a mistake we do not see them lambasting their side. When it comes to Christianity we see them claim that they are on the side of reason and truth. They defend "reason." But constantly, we see atheists refusing to lay down their own strict rules on fellow atheists (or, unbelievers). Atheists, like Bethrick, are about the group first, reason next; whenever it suits them. Reason and truth are really not that important to them as they claim.
There are many, many examples of this; I'll cite but a few. The above blunder about Cain and Abel being in the garden was one. Second, in my debate with atheist Derek Sansone many atheists refused to tell him how poor he did. In fact, they told him the opposite. Bethrick did not blog on how poor Derek did. Bethrick blogs on how poor he thinks Bahnsen did (Bahnsen v. Stein), though. Atheists were about saving their fellow unbeliever first (lest he turn to The Faith) than they were about telling him how poor he did. I constantly see this religious attitude in the allegedly non-religious. "Get as many people to deny God first; truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost" seems to be the motto of many of them.
Third, when Dr. Zachary Moore showed his ignorance of logic the atheists cheered him (read the comments section of his post, linked to in my post on Triablogue). After I showed his error they refused to tell him that he was wrong. Some, like Bethrick, implied that he didn't know who was right. This just shows how serious he (and his ilk) should be taken. My point was about as simple as the rule in math that if you add one to any number, you'll go one number higher.
Further examples can be seen in John W. Loftus, of Debunking Christianity. He demands that Christians submit their views to the "test of reason." Notice how Loftus expects Christians to act "reasonable" and "test" their beliefs by "reason." Christians are not allowed to be arbitrary, or believe things arbitrarily. Christians must suspend belief about miracles recorded in the Bible because they cast a critical eye on reports of the miraculous today. So we can see that Loftus expects us to be strictly rational. The demands on the Christian are tough. Loftus will not allow us to get away with believing things willy-nilly.
But when it comes to pressing Loftus's beliefs, the story is different. When pressed to justify his beliefs he tells us things like this:
- "...logic and reason may have no ultimate foundation, much like morals do not have an ultimate foundation."
- "Maybe reason has merely shown itself trustworthy by pragmatic verification based in the anthropic principle evidenced in the universe--it just works."
- "... it may be that reason doesn't work as well as the presuppositionalist proclaims."
- "If this universe took place by chance, then the fact that reason cannot figure it all out is exactly what we would expect. We would not be able to ultimately justify our use of reason..."
- ..."reason is impotent to help decide between ultimacies..."
- "I just prefer to accept as a brute fact the existence of this universe. It came without a cause, and it has no purpose."
Therefore we see two-mindsets at work within the one man, John Loftus. He has no problem being strictly rational when it comes to arguing with the Christian, but he, at the same time, has no problem capitulating to irrationality when his views are pressed. For us, there is to be "no more quoting the Bible to defend how Jesus' death on the cross saves us from sins. The Christian must now try to rationally explain it." But for him, he does not need to rationally explain his views but can just say, "reason and order are here, and that's just the way it is, it's a brute fact, I don't need to ultimately give an account for logic, morality, origins, and reason.... I just believe..." But what happens if the Christian tries to pull this? We are told that we have "blind faith." We are told that we can have our faith, but let's not try to pretend it can be justified, or is rational. We are even told that we need to give up our faith if we cannot pass "the test of reason." Is saying, "That’s just the way it is!" passing "the test of faith? If so, then Christianity is true, and that's just the way it is. If not, then Loftus must give up his worldview. Either way, Christianity: 1, John Loftus: 0.
Well, the above was a bit of a digression, but I think it is interesting to note the phenomena. I suggest to my fellow Christians that the more you keep your eye out for this the more you'll see it. So, have some comfort; many atheists are not about truth and reason first, they're about making sure they keep their members.
Now, after I pointed out that Cain and Abel were not ever in the garden, I simply said that Cain was afraid of the other people that lived on the earth. Dawson Bethrick then asked me how many there were and what were their names. The point of his question eludes me. The only way it can be charitably read in a way other than making Dawson look like a stooge is to read it as Bethrick offering a rhetorical question with the implied conclusion: "If you don't know their names and how many there were, how do you know there were any? Since the Bible doesn't say there were others, then there were no others." This is the best way to read Bethrick. We see, though, that the best way to read Bethrick is to read him as committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium!
I had pointed out that the purpose of the Bible was not to give an answer (or a detailed and precise answer) to everything there is. For example, the Bible doesn't tell us how to change a flat tire. Bethrick said, "I agree, the Bible doesn't give us knowledge of anything." His tried to imply that he was agreeing with me but I pointed out that I never said the Bible doesn't give us knowledge of anything, just that it doesn't give us knowledge of everything (in the sense I meant above. In another sense, the Bible does give us some knowledge of everything in the world. For example, everything is created). I pointed out to Bethrick that it gives us knowledge on how to escape the wrath to come.
At this point we're getting to the purpose of this post. Bethrick said that the Bible does not give us knowledge of Salvation. He implied that the Bible is all confused on this issue. He said that in some places the Bible says we're saved by worlks, in others, by believing. He then provided a link to B. Steven Matthies' article on The Secular Web. Apparently Bethrick puts some stock into this guy and his objections. Bethrick writes on salvation:
"Actually, it's [the Bible] quite unclear on this very point. Some passages say that merely confessing with the tongue is sufficient. Others say that belief is required. Still others say that works are required as well. Then others say that repentence [sic] is required, etc. Some passages indicate that the "escape" you mention begins with the one who wants to do the escaping, while others indicate that it is initiated from without the would-be escapee. Quite a tangle here which many theologians have attempted to untangle. Suppose we check in on them and ask, "How's it going?"
For a brief introduction to this source of confusion, check out B. Steven Matthies' Christian Salvation? for starters. If it worries you, perhaps you can devote a blog entry to sorting out the mess."
After perusing Matthies' article I was confronted with the above phenomena I spoke of. Why do atheists think bad reasoning and bad argumentation is good if done by a non-believer? Bethrick claims he was a Christian, but if he agrees with Matthies article then one must wonder if he ever was a believer. Maybe he was in the youth group of some touchy-feely church and now just uses his past childhood (leaving out the details) to give him some credibility when talking about Christianity. One thing is clear, though, as a believer he never studied his faith. We hardly ever find a Christian, who was intellectually satisfied, becoming an atheist. Indeed, in most cases (actually, all) the reason people leave the faith is for moral reasons (i.e., cheating on their wife), not intellectual ones. The intellectual ones always come after, as a way to justify their moral rebellion.
Apparently this Matthies fellow was a newly converted non-believer who found these problems with salvation and chose to write about them as a means to answer well meaning Christians who tried to re-convert him, as well as to soothe his unwarranted fear of, in Eddward Tabsh's words, "the Bar-B-Q pit." Mathies writes,
1) This article was written over a period of months starting in 2001. During that time I was still wrestling with the ramifications of my nonbelief, [sic] thus the tone of this article may reflect some of my personal frustrations. Since writing this article I have become quite comfortable with my atheism. In addition, I would also like to thank the Secular Web for providing me with a virtual resource that helped me to resolve some of these issues.
2) Finally, it should be noted that my reasons for writing this article were as follows:1) A response to well-meaning Christians who try to reconvert me, 2) a way to deal with my own church-indoctrinated fear of hell (and possibly help others deal with their own fear), and 3) to get both Christians and non-Christians to examine Christianity. The article also has the ancillary intent of casting doubt on the truth of Christianity as revealed by the Bible, but this was not my main intent. Nor should this article be seen as a formal proof or technical essay for the nonexistence of God.
Notice how he hedges his bet in the last sentence. His article attempts to show that the Bible contradicts itself on the question of "How can I be saved?" If there is a contradiction in the Bible then the Bible is false! The God of the Bible would not exist. So, is he saying that there is no contradiction, just some conceptual problems? If that is the case then Matthies gives us an example all to common in the reasoning of un-believers - the inability to apply the rules they impose on the Bible to themselves.
Certainly their are conceptual headaches in the areas of the sciences, mathematics, logic, physics, etc. To some, it might be conceptually problematic that we are being hurled through space right now on a gigantic ball which is spinning thousands of miles an hour, and we don’t fall off! All to often I run into unbelievers who say, "I just don't get how such and such could be the case." Then, this ignorance is used to reject the Bible, in tota! But, when we run across things in the sciences (say, the double slit experiment which shows that a particle can have wave like properties, an antinomy to some) do we drop science? No, they use it to attack Christianity. So, if he thought that since his finite mind couldn't understand something that was a reason to reject Christianity then he ought to reject everything! Matthies shows that he thought his mind was the standard and that the Bible needed to bow down before the mind of Matthies. Thus, as a struggling believer, he was already acting like an unbeliever.
As one reads Matthies' reasons for writing this article we see that he undertook this study of Scripture to see what the Bible taught regarding salvation. He did so because, as he says,
"During my discussions with most Christians regarding my lack of belief, sooner or later I am usually presented with the fact that I am not saved and risk an eternity of damnation. Indeed, when I was a Christian, eternal salvation was something I did not take lightly. After all, what sane person would risk an eternity of damnation by turning away from God or questioning His precepts?"
Matthies attempts to show that he is not in danger of hell and that salvation is a confused issue in the Bible. Matthies is told that he needs "to turn to the Bible for my answers, that, somehow, via the rule of faith, God will once again 'inspire' me to find the true meaning in those sacred words" by believers who wish him to return to the faith. Matthies takes them up on their offer and offers a succinct summary of his findings:
"Ever the quick study, I decided to take those Christians up on their advice and once again found myself back in the Bible trying to figure out how one is "saved." Logic would dictate that obtaining this salvation would be fairly straightforward and laid out in one easy-to-understand book--especially if said creator of this book wanted to make sure His followers were indeed "saved." Of course, upon investigation I found that this is not the case. One Christian denomination tells us the "saved" were predestined. One tells us that baptism is required. Another says baptism is a ritual and that salvation comes through belief in Christ's sacrifice. Others say Christ's sacrifice alone is enough. Yet another stresses good works or the grace of God."
The cautious reader will note the elementary blunder that Matthies commits. Matthies tells us above that he is going to see what the Bible teaches regarding salvation. But notice that he writes that "upon investigation" he found that the Bible was not clear on how one is saved. He writes that "it is not the case" that the Bible is clear and straightforward on this matter. Well, how is it not clear? How is the Bible unclear? Matthies tells us that it is not the case that the Bible is clear because Christians have different stories on how one is saved! Notice that Matthies was supposed to be critiquing the Bible but then he turns it around and critiques adherents of the Bible. Thus his critique goes like this: The Bible is unclear on how one is saved because people who read the Bible have different ideas on how one is saved. This is just fallacious! Why would the Secualr Web (and the lesser Bethrick) give the nod to an article which is obviously fallacious? Well, because when they read their own ilk, they take the critical thinking cap off. Protect the group first, reason later.
In defense of Matthies I assume his reasoning can be stated stronger than above. He might try to get out of the fallacy by claiming that the Bible is supposed to be clear on how one is saved, especially if God desires people to know how one can be saved. Since there are so many disagreements, the Bible must not be clear therefore, for if it were clear, there would not be any (or, as many) disagreements. This still does not avoid the fallacy, though it at least has the facade of appearing reasonable. It will never avoid the fallacy because it always confuses the book with people's understanding of the book. This can be illustrated perhaps by an example that is not overtly religious. Say that I teach math to 8 year olds. Now, say that I had a set of clear questions on the test, e.g., 5x5, 6x6, 8x8, 20 + 20 + 20, 75/100, etc. Now, let's say that a student told me that my test was not clear. When I ask the student why, they respond, "Look how many different answers there were to the questions on the test!" Would this prove that the test was unclear? No.
Now, if you established that the Bible was unclear then you could use this fact to account for the differences between various denominations. You could not reason the other way, though. There could be a lot of variables which accounted for a certain group's misunderstanding of something clear. Indeed, why does Matthies not even grant this possibility? The Bible claims that it is clear on this issue. The denominations claim that the Bible is clear. So, maybe the fault is with the people and not the text?
Furthermore, Matthies leaves out relevant information. Matthies assumes that it must be the Bible's distorted picture of salvation that confuses people. But according to the biblical worldview, people are fallen and therefore their understanding of things is not always clear. I happen to think that the Bible is clear on this issue though. Before I defend the issue and critique Matthies' argument for the Bible‘s opacity, some more introductory leg work is necessary. Matthies has many paradigms and ideas he imposes on this argument which must be dismantled before we can move on.
I have already noted Matthies' number one error. His article assumes it throughout. He assumes that un-clarity in people's understanding of the Bible is evidence that the Bible itself is unclear. He must first show that the Bible is indeed unclear, though. He ever so briefly attempts to do this and so we will need to address his attempt. But before we do we must untangle another one of his mistakes. You see, Matthies gives some verses which he thinks show that the Bible is unclear on the issue of salvation and heaven and hell. I think that they are taken out of context and his atrocious understanding of the text serves to (1) throw doubt upon his claims to being a Christian (at best he was a "Christian" who never studied his Bible and then, wonder of wonders, found "errors" in it when he decided to "study it" as an unbeliever), (2) shame the Secular Web (and the lesser Bethrick) for posting such incompetent attempts at debunking Christianity.
But before any Christian responds that he has indeed taken these texts out of context, or has misunderstood them, Matthies lays down some rules that we must obey before we can critique his understanding of the texts. Here is his defense mechanism:
"Now I'm sure some critics will say I'm taking those verses "out of context." Well, to those critics I ask that a "context" be clearly defined and followed among Christians before you criticize my observations. If these rules were clearly defined among Christians, one would not see various Christian denominations debating..."
Here we have more ridiculous statements. Here we have more reason to question whether the Secular Web (and the lesser Bethrick) keep their thinking caps on at all times, or just when it suits them to critique Christians. Is good reasoning really what motivates them? Or is just getting people not to believe what motivates them. Do they think that bad arguments, dressed up to sound reasonable, should be used as long as it meets the ends of deconversion? Do ends justify the means, then?
Let's look at some concrete examples of how the above is simply ridiculous. Take the idea that if rules of context "were clearly defined among Christians, one would not see various Christian denominations debating" doctrinal issues. Now, do scholars of Plato debate what he said and what he meant? Of course they do. Does Matthies mean to propose that if Platonic scholars would simply define and follow rules of context, then there would be no more debate amongst them! What about all the fields in which there is disagreement (e.g., logicians, mathematicians, epistemologists, et. al.)? Does Matthies mean to tell Kant scholars that if they would just define rules of context then there would be no more disagreement about what Kant meant by, say, transcendental arguments.
Next, note that Matthies tells us that not only must context be "clearly defined" by Christians but he also demands that Christians follow the rules of context before they can tell Matthies that he has taken something out of context! Leaving aside the request for a "clearly defined" statement of "context" for the moment, why must Christians also "follow" these rules before we can tell Matthies that he has taken something out of context? This is an odd request. Imagine, if you will, that someone "clearly defined" what stealing was, and the rules to follow in order to not steal. Now, let's say the definition was, "Taking something that does not belong to you." Let's further say that the rules for not stealing were X, Y, and Z. Now, does Matthies mean to imply that if I did not follow X, y, and Z that I could not accuse him of taking something that does not belong to him?!
Indeed, it gets worse. I assume Matthies thinks that "good reason" should be followed in debates such as this one? Now, let's say that Matthies can "clearly define" what "good reason" is. Let's assume, further, that he can lay down the rules to follow in order to be said that you are reasoning well. Does Matthies always follow these rules? Does he ever make a mistake in reasoning? I doubt the man never ceases to follow the rules of "good reason." Does this mean that I can reason fallaciously and then say to Matthies, "Not only must you clearly define what 'good reason' means, but you must also follow its rules before you can tell me that I have reasoned poorly?" Thus Matthies has lost all ability to critique fallacious reasoning, including the ability to critique the Bible for making an error in reasoning (i.e., contradictions)! Therefore it is not at all clear that Christians must "follow" the rules of taking things in context in order to critique Matthies for taking something out of context. All Matthies is doing is stacking the deck in his favor. He's asking Christians to do things that he would refuse to do, and that no other fields of inquiry (and the denominations therein) are required to do. Obviously this man has an axe to grind with his Maker. What other reason is there for this kind of unfair hostility towards Christianity? Why does Christianity have to play by rules that no one else has to follow! Indeed, since no one else follows this rule I guess Matthies won't care that I critique his understanding of the texts since he can't critique me for not following the rules when he nor anyone else does!
Moreover, the word 'reason' is host to all sorts of differing definitions. Does Matthies have a "clearly defined" definition of 'reason?' Many definitions of 'reason' have and could be given. Some have identified it with the senses, some with logic, and some with the ability to know the forms. What follows from this line of argumentation? Well, if Matthies cannot "clearly define" good reason, as well as follow its rules, then he cannot accuse me of reasoning poorly in this response. In fact, I'll refute him thusly: If ice cream cones don't have bones, then Matthies has taken his passages out of context, Matthies likes Armani cologne, therefore he has taken these passages out of context.
Lastly, before we look at some more errors, we should address Matthies' request that "context and the rules of following it" be "clearly defined" before we critique his understanding of the texts? First off, why should we have to "clearly define" context? Why can not a rough working understanding of context be enough to tell when someone has not interpreted the verse within its context? I have a rough (or, perhaps, a bit better than rough) understanding of how to play Chess. I don't know all the ins and outs. I don't have a "clearly defined" understanding of every iota of the game. I have a good working understanding. Is this enough for me to know that someone cannot castle through check? Is this enough for me to tell someone that fienchettoing the Bishop is not a good defense sometimes. Can I not object when someone does an improper en passant?
Second, does Matthies have a "clearly defined" understanding of "context?" If not, then how can he say that Christians have taken things out of context and not followed the rules? Does he follow his rules? I'd assume that Matthies, and all of us, can understand, at least roughly, what it means to "take something out of context." According to the dictionary, context is defined as: "The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning." Using this definition I could know when something has been taken out of context. It is not "clearly defined." For example, what is "the part" that "surrounds" the text? Is it five sentences up and five down? Is it one chapter forward and two chapters back?
We also read that the surrounding passages give the word or phrase its meaning. Is this "clearly defined?" Can I use this idea to understand when something has been taken out of context? Sure I can. If someone is talking about money, and paying people back, and then he writes this phrase: "That man owed me a lot of dough," would Matthies assume that the person is talking about cookie dough? Would anyone? Well, maybe some atheists would wanted to "catch" the Bible making an error because it was "imprecise." But most of us understand that how an author is using a phrase or term determines its meaning. I think we can all agree on this concept and, even if we don't have a "clearly defined" definition of context, if I can show that he is using a term differently than the authorized it then I can rightly say that he has taken the verse out of context.
There are many levels of "context." A simple level is to read, say, John 3:16 along with John 3:1-15 and 17-21. But we can also relate John 3:16 to the larger context of the entire book in which it is found. Another level is to place the context in the entire corpus of the author's writing. Another level is to place the verse in relationship to the entire New Testament. The New Testament might be related to the Old Testament. Still we can place verses in the context of the readers and the lives of those who it was written to. We can place it into the context of various doctrines, etc. This is the same with all works When a newscaster say that sunset will be at 5:25 p.m. I do not think she means that the sun literally sets. But, if someone in the 1200's said the same thing I would probably read it as literal. If an author today wrote about the farthest edges of the earth, I would not think that they meant the earth was flat, but I might with someone in the 1400s. So, many things create the context. The type of writing adds to context. For example, if a poet said that God is like a dove I would not think that he really meant a physical bird. So, context is determined by many different levels and I highly doubt that Matthies can live up to the demands he places on the Christian (note: the above discussion of many-leveled context is indebted to John Frame's "The Doctrine of The Knowledge of God," P&R, 1987, pp 169-70).
Therefore I dismiss Matthies' claim that I need to "clearly define" context in order to point out that he has taken something out of context. The main refutation of his command is by reductio ad absurdum. Having dispelled this portion we can move on in our analysis of Matthies' article.
Matthies graciously leaves us alone on the problem of context by,
"Putting those critics aside for the moment, this leads us to the present day state of affairs among the various denominations of Christianity. Granted, I'm no theologian, but one would think a perfect God who knows "everything" would have foreseen what these contradictions would do to his followers' faith. One would think that a perfect God would have directed His followers to write one sacred book. One would think that this one book would detail just exactly how one is to be "saved" and that this plan would be uniformly followed--at least among Christians. More importantly, one would think that Christianity would agree on just exactly how one is "saved." Of course, once again confusion reigns!
So, Matthies tells us that he is not theologian but then proceeds to talk about God. He makes theological claims. Everyone makes theological claims and is in some sense, a theologian. So, everyone is a theologian, the problem is not everyone does the job well, as we can see with Matthies.
We must point out again that Matthies assumes that people disagreeing mean that the text itself is not clear. But this doesn't follow. Matthies also does not tell us why he "thinks" these things about God. Maybe God did know that problems would arise, but He had a good plan for doing things the way He chose to do them?
Matthies also claims that there are contradictions in the Bible on the doctrine of salvation. The problem is that Matthies never once, in his entire article, interacts with the texts that he assumes prove contradictions. He just throws them out there, and assumes that they are brute facts that bear meaning all by themselves without taking the context into account. He never supplies any exegesis for his understanding of the texts. This is certainly poor scholarship. Indeed, the actual Scriptures represent the smallest portion of his article. The vast majority of his article argues that since people disagree on the text, then the text qua text is unclear. He actually never shows that the text contradicts itself but naively assumes it. He assumes that a mere surface reading of the texts are enough to prove his point. One could do that same, though, with "modern science" when a scientist says that some people who live at the outer edges of the earth have certain resistance to some bacteria. I could stick my fingers in my ears, ignore the milieu of the times, and just quote the phrase: "The outer edges of the earth" and then use it for evidence that science qua science is contradictory by placing it next to another scientist who says that the earth is a sphere. This is all Matthies has done, upon analysis. Why would people laugh at me if I were to do the above but they do not laugh at Matthies when he reasons thus? Is it because of the hypocrisy of unbelief? Why the double standard?
Let us now turn to the alleged contradictions in Scripture. Matthies "proves" the Bible contradicts itself, as I said above, just by listing some verses, without doing the homework and properly analysis to show that they are indeed contradictory. Here is his entire "argument" from Scripture:
(1) By Hearing the Gospel & Belief in God: John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."
(2) By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"
(3) By Grace & Faith, not Works: Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."
(4) By Faith & Works: James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
(5) By Keeping the Law: Matthew 19:17: "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."
(6) By Belief in Christ: John 3:16: "... whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(7) By Belief and Baptism: Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(8) By Words: Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
(9) By Calling on the Lord: Acts 2:21: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
(10) Not Works but by Grace & Baptism: Titus 3:5: "Not by works ... but according to his mercy ... by the washing of regeneration." (Note: some denominations will say the washing refers to Christ's blood and sacrifice.)
(11) According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgment & damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect; or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14.
(12) Salvation Available to the Chosen Few: Matthew 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,15:16,19, Romans 8:29, 9:11-23, Ephesians 1:4.
(13) Salvation Available to Those Who Desire it: Matthew 7:7-8, 11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Revelations 3:20.
There are so many errors one hardly knows where to begin or how to untangle this mess. This man pretends he used to be a Christian but then shows almost no knowledge of how many of these texts are understood and interpreted. The proper thing to do here would be to engage and exegete the texts. But, as I've shown above, Matthies really does not care about what the Bible says, he only cares about how people understand the Bible, and then he underhandedly shifts that observation back on to the Bible. Not only that, but many of these verses are not clear and their understanding is disputed. For Matthies to just throw them out without offering his interpretation is a "scholarship" not worthy of the name.
Matthies commits many blunders, I'll cite two. In (11) one notes that Matthies says that Jesus died for a small number of the elect. First, the Bible nowhere says that Jesus died for a small number of the elect, as if some elect were not died for! Furthermore, there is not one denomination that says Jesus died for a small number of the elect. There are denominations (such as mine) who say that Jesus died for the elect, all of them.
In (10) we see Matthies imports his understanding into the text. It is at precisely this point that Matthies should show how he derives his understanding. If someone says that a text says one thing, and that thing is not in the text at all, then it is incumbent upon that person to show why we should accept his understanding. So, in (10) we read of "the washing of regeneration." Matthies confuses the sign and the thing signified. It does not mean that baptism qua baptism saves but, as Calvin says, "'God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son.'" So, even if this passage referrs to water baptism, rather than regeneration, Matthies shows that he has no clue as to what baptism signifies in the Bible.
Matthies fails to provide evidence for his thesis in citing many of these passages. Remember that he is trying to show that the Bible contradicts itself. But reading the above one gets the idea that Matthies has no clue what a contradiction even is! For example, (9) and, say, (1) are not contradictions. It may be that people can go to heaven by hearing and obeying as well as calling on the same of the Lord. A contradiction would be something like if two verses said: (14) All those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved, and (15) Some of those who do not call on the name of the Lord will be saved. So, almost all of his verses do not constitute contradictions for it may be that there are many different ways to obtain salvation. This is not to say that there are, but simply to rebut the idea that Matthies is showing contradictions in all his cited passages.
Matthies uses verses that do not mean what he implies. For example, in (2) Matthies tells us that the Bible teaches that salvation is "by baptism." But John 3:5 does not mention the word "baptism." So, Matthies tells us that there is a contradiction because in John 3:5 the Bible teaches salvation by baptism. Now, let's say that John 3:5 does mean that water baptism saves. Since this isn't explicitly stated in the text Matthies should do the responsible thing and show how he draws his intended meaning out of the text. As it stands, all Matthies has done is to assert that John 3:5 teaches salvation by baptism. If this were all it took to show that a view was wrong, then I assert that when Matthies says certain things he shows how stupid atheists can be. Matthies writes,
Moreover, every denomination I researched has millions of followers, so no matter how you cut it, many people who think they are Christians are going to a yet-undefined hell.
See, Matthies thinks that "ways of looking at things" can be cut with his steak knife! If I really did mean what I just wrote, then the burden would be on me to show that Matthies thought such a thing. Indeed, our situation is even worse because Matthies did use the word "cut" but the Bible does not use the word "baptize" in John 3:5.
Moreover, the Bible never uses the phrase "born of water" to refer to Christian baptism! Remember, Matthies is trying to show that the Bible teaches in John 3:5 that salvation is by baptism. If Matthies thinks that the Bible teaches this because some people interpret the Bible this way then, as I've already established, he's arguing fallaciously. So, why would Matthies think that the Bible teaches water baptism in John:3:5? We've already noted that John 3:5 does not mention the word "baptism." So, what could it be that forces Matthies to read the Bible this way? Well, the only thing I can think of is that since Jesus says the word "water" He therefore must mean "water baptism" since both make use of the word water. But this is absurd as this illustration will show: Bridal shower means a bunch of brides getting wet since taking a "shower" means one will get wet.
Therefore it is demanded that Matthies show why he takes the Bible to be teaching water baptism here. He can't just make passages say what he wants them to in order to obtain a contradiction or else we have the nasty conclusion that Matthies thinks "ways of looking at things" can be "cut" with steak knives. But Matthies does not do so. In fact, he never does this with any of the verses he proposes are problems for the Bible. This kind of analysis would be scoffed at if it came from a Christian, yet Matthies and the Secular Web are allowed a free pass when it comes to offering cogent argumentation. Remember, it is only Christians who are held to the strict standards of arguing rationally. Since that is the nature of the debate, I shall oblige.
What interpretation is more likely here? How about one that argues that since the Greek has one article governing the two words (water/spirit) they are one item and not two that are being thought about? How about we add to that that the Bible does use the water/spirit illustration unlike the "born of water/baptism" illustration? How about we mention Ezekiel 36:25-27 where God uses water and spirit to indicate spiritual regeneration? How about we mention the fact that the Bible does refer to regeneration as new birth? How about we mention that regeneration is part of salvation (cf. the "ordo salutis") and therefore no one saved is un-regenerate. Since only saved people will see heaven then it is true that only regenerate people will see heaven. And since regeneration is a new birth, wrought by the spirit, signified as "washing with water" and the "pouring out of the Spirit," then Jesus is correct that no one will see heaven unless that person is regenerate (born again, from above, by spirit/water). Thus we see that the double-standard demands of secularism always back-fire on them. They come off looking like hacks and we come off looking like those who actually put in the effort to give cogent reasons why we believe what we believe.
I will address two more examples. I really do not need to address any of his passages since he no where takes the time to explain why they constitute problems with the Bible, but I hope the above will suffice to show that Matthies has a long way to go if he's to make anything resembling a case. I've shown that Matthies uses his own words to imply that a passage he cites teaches what he claims, but he never shows how it does. Matthies is banking on the fact that fellow non-believers will be just as uncritical as he is, and therefore will accept his mere assertions. Likewise, I am banking on there being people who want to think critically and therefore can see that Matthies has not made a case from the Bible.
I will address (12) and (13). Actually, all of these points, like, say, (3) and (4) have been addressed before. Matthies shows no interest in dealing with the resolutions. Again, this is because of his basic fallacy I've pointed out: People disagree on the text, therefore the text itself is in disagreement.
(12) says that salvation is for a "few" yet (13) says that salvation is for those who desire it. Matthies acts as if "salvation" is like a hot night club with thousands of people clamoring to get in. That is, he thinks there is a problem because he thinks that since the Bible teaches that only God's elect will be saved then those who want to be saved, but are not elect, cannot be saved, yet the Bible tells us that anyone who desires to be saved can be saved. But what if only the elect desired to be saved? That is, it is true that Jesus would never turn away anyone who comes to Him for salvation. And, it is also true that anyone who truly desires to be saved will be saved. And, it is also true that only the elect will desire to be saved. There is only a problem if there are some people who desire to be saved by Christ, and Christ turns them away. It is true that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved, i.e., Christ will not turn them away. So, the Bible makes a true claim that anyone who believes will be saved. It is true that if someone believes on the name of Christ, that someone will be saved.
The problem is that no one will come to Christ unless God has chosen that person to come to Christ (cf. John:644). So, Matthies is bringing up the old problem of "the free offer of the gospel." That is, he thinks that since the gospel is offered to all, this contradicts the teaching that only a chosen people will be saved. How could God sincerely offer the gospel to all, yet predestine to save a some of the all? But this is not so odd. A general may make a free offer of pardon in return for the surrender of the enemy. He sincerely offers pardon and the freedom for enemy soldiers even though he knows that many will refuse to surrender. So, both of the claims are true. The offer is made to all, yet only a few will be saved. Actually, then, (12) is a false claim in the sense that the Bible does not say that "anyone who is chosen may believe on Christ and then be saved." It is true that anyone who believes will be saved. It is just false that there are any clamoring to be saved, who will not be saved. The club analogy is actually correct if we changed a few details: A night club opens its doors to anyone who wants to come in. People see the night club and think it an offense to all proper night clubs. In fact, it serves a dish that only 80 people in the city like. Even though only the 80 enter, the doors were still open for all, they just did not want to enter.
Having looked at Matthies' non-argument from the Bible, we will now look at the rest of his article. I've already pointed out that his basic argument that since people disagree about the Bible, the Bible itself is wrong, is fallacious and, therefore, I do not even need to continue writing. In fact, I could have refuted his entire article with one sentence. But, sometimes people, especially those who publicly renounce the faith they once held, need to be embarrassed. The Church, and its members, need to embarrass these people. Hopefully through public humiliation they will see the temporal judgments for leaving Christianity (once of which is to leave behind your rationality!) and repent in time to escape the everlasting judgment.
When one looks at Matthies' article and gets past the basic fallacy, one will note that he also engages in the nature of lying to defend his rejection of Christianity. I will proceed to argue that not only has he misrepresented the Bible, he also misrepresents many of the groups he surveys. The Secular Web, by hosting his article, tacitly agrees with lies spread about other people. The Secular Web constantly mocks Christians for misquoting evolutionary scientists, but turned their critical eye off one of their own. The Secular Web allows lies to be spread about fellow human beings, wonders of "mother nature." Not only should they shut this article down for its horrendous "argumentation" but they should also remove this blight because of its non-truths about others. Well, I'm speaking as a Christian, one who actually has a foundation for morality, and a reason to be moral, so I may be asking to much. Below I will point out a few examples of the lies Matthies tells:
Matthies tells us that Southern Baptists believe that one is saved by,
Baptism (by immersion) seen as a public testimony to the commitment to Christ (infant or preconversion baptisms not practiced); some require baptism, some do not. Belief in God, eternal covenant between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect, repentance of sin. Communion is seen as symbolic.
For his documentation he cites "About Us." The Southern Baptist Convention. Revised 2002. Available from http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/. [Accessed 17 August, 2002] Now, let’s read what they write,
Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.
He says that "Southern Baptists" answer the question "How one is saved?" by requiring baptism, and believing in the eternal coventnat. But we can read with our own eyes that this is not the case. Indeed(!) Matthies seems unable to read simple summary statements. Nowhere does the above site say that one needs to "believe" in the "eternal covenant between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect."
His second footnote (n. 17) on what "Southern Baptists" believe regarding "How one is saved" cites a "Disciples of Christ" organization and not a "Southern Baptist" one! The Disciples of Christ" website (http://www.disciples.org/general/saved.htm) tells us this about baptism:
Early Disciples argued with other Christians about whether baptism was "necessary" or not, whether one "had to" be baptized in order to be saved. Contemporary Disciples rarely take this approach, but this does not minimize the importance of baptism.
Next, Matthies tells us that "Christian Scientists" believe that there is no such thing as sin. But to marshal support for this he cites the above "Disciples!," who say this,
In the Bible, salvation means deliverance from natural disasters (e.g. Matthew 8:25), deliverance from sickness and physical blindness (e.g. Luke 18:42; Acts 4:12; James 5:15), deliverance from sin(e.g. Matthew 1:21; Luke 7:36-50; Acts 5:31)...
So, he footnotes non-Christian Scientists, who affirm the existence of sin, as support that Christian Scientists do not affirm sin! This is simply pathetic. (Actually, it looks as if Matthies switched notes 16 with 17. This is, at best, a hack job, then.)
One more example should suffice. Matthies writes on what "Presbyterians" believe about "How one is saved." Since I'm Presbyterian this one had special meaning for me. He says we say that salvation is,
Baptism seen as symbolic ritual; salvation through God's Grace; belief in Christ's sacrifice, emphasis on works and "The Great Commission." Believe that The Lord's Supper is seen as symbolic though Christ is present in spirit. "The doctrine of predestination frees us from speculating about who is saved and who is not. God has already taken care of these matters in the mystery of God's own being." (see note # 33)
Now he backs this up with footnoting the Christian Scientists (again!) which are really the Disciples of Christ (not Presbyterian) as well as the PCUSA. Now, since there are different flavors of Presbyterianism, it's a bit misleading to use the PCUSA's website as official doctrine of, say, The PCA.
Regardless of that, let's look at what the PCUSA says regarding salvation,
God has always been faithful to the people of Israel and to the church. Presbyterians believe God has offered us salvation because of God's loving nature. It is not a right or a privilege to be earned by being "good enough." No one of us is good enough on our own--we are all dependent upon God's goodness and mercy. From the kindest, most devoted churchgoer to the most blatant sinner, we are all saved solely by the grace of God. http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-sin.htm
Thus we can see that Matthies says the PCUSA says we are saved by "good works" yet what I cited from the site Matthies refers to we see exactly the opposite! The Secular Web allows lies to be posted on their website all in the name of "refuting Christianity." This is an embarrassment to Atheism in general, the Secualr Web, and Matthies himself. I hope they are shamed by what they allow.
Next I'd like to point out that Matthies names numerous groups who are not Christian in order to bolster support for his "argument." He names us with such groups as the Mormons, the Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostals. I mean, how can a group that denies the trinity and one that affirms the trinity both be called Christians? This would be like if I said that deists were atheists. This is more sloppy scholarship and more evidence that non-believers chuck reason at the door of their in-house meetings.
In closing I'd like to point out that this paper has been used by many atheists to point out the errors within the Christian faith. I hope this blog entry serves as an embarrassment to atheists and so-called "atheist scholarship."
I’d also like to argue for the Bible’s clear teaching on Salvation. I’ll post what I believe is a faithful summary of its teaching and if Matthies or anyone else wants to debate it then we’ll be waiting. I only ask that the atheists put on their little thinking caps and not repeat the horrendous errors we’ve seen above.
SALVATION
JESUS RESCUES HIS PEOPLE FROM SIN
by J.I. Packer
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. ACTS 4:12
The master theme of the Christian gospel is salvation. Salvation is a picture-word of wide application that expresses the idea of rescue from jeopardy and misery into a state of safety. The gospel proclaims that the God who saved Israel from Egypt, Jonah from the fish’s belly, the psalmist from death, and the soldiers from drowning (Exod. 15:2; Jon. 2:9; Ps. 116:6; Acts 27:31), saves all who trust Christ from sin and sin’s consequences.
As these earthly deliverances were wholly God’s work, and not instances of people saving themselves with God’s help, so it is with salvation from sin and death. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it [either faith as such or salvation and faith together] is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). “Salvation comes from the LORD” (Jon. 2:9).
What are believers saved from? From their former position under the wrath of God, the dominion of sin, and the power of death (Rom. 1:18; 3:9; 5:21); from their natural condition of being mastered by the world, the flesh, and the devil (John 8:23-24; Rom. 8:7-8; 1 John 5:19); from the fears that a sinful life engenders (Rom. 8:15; 2 Tim. 1:7; Heb. 2:14-15), and from the many vicious habits that were part of it (Eph. 4:17-24; 1 Thess. 4:3-8; Titus 2:11-3:6).
How are believers saved from these things? Through Christ, and in Christ. The Father is as concerned to exalt the Son as he is to rescue the lost (John 5:19-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:4-14), and it is as true to say that the elect were appointed for Christ the beloved Son as it is to say that Christ was appointed for the beloved elect (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Col. 1:13; 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 John 4:9-10).
Our salvation involves, first, Christ dying for us and, second, Christ living in us (John 15:4; 17:26; Col. 1:27) and we living in Christ, united with him in his death and risen life (Rom. 6:3-10; Col. 2:12, 20; 3:1). This vital union, which is sustained by the Spirit from the divine side and by faith from our side, and which is formed in and through our new birth, presupposes covenantal union in the sense of our eternal election in Christ (Eph. 1:4-6). Jesus was foreordained to be our representative head and substitutionary sin-bearer (1 Pet. 1:18-20; cf. Matt. 1:21), and we were chosen to be effectually called, conformed to his image, and glorified by the Spirit’s power (Rom. 8:11, 29-30).
Believers are saved from sin and death, but what are they saved for? To live for time and eternity in love to God—Father, Son, and Spirit—and to their neighbors. The source of love for God is knowledge of God’s redeeming love for us, and the evidence of love for God is neighbor-love (1 John 4:19-21). God’s purpose, here and hereafter, is to keep expressing his love in Christ to us, and our goal must be to keep expressing our love to the three Persons of the one God by worship and service in Christ. The life of love and adoration is our hope of glory, our salvation now, and our happiness forever.
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation. from CRTA
The Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]
Chapter XI
Of Justification
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10]
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the sate of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]
VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[17]
Chapter XII
Of Adoption
All those that are justified, God vouchsafes, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption,[1] by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God,[2] have His name put upon them,[3] receive the spirit of adoption,[4] have access to the throne of grace with boldness,[5] are enabled to cry, Abba, Father,[6] are pitied,[7] protected,[8] provided for,[9] and chastened by Him as by a Father:[10] yet never cast off,[11] but sealed to the day of redemption;[12] and inherit the promises,[13] as heirs of everlasting salvation.[14]
Chapter XIII
Of Sanctification
I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]
Chapter XIV
Of Saving Faith
I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]
II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein;[5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9]
III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]
Chapter XV
Of Repentance unto Life
I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace,[1] the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.[2]
II. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,[3] purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.[4]
III. Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof,[5] which is the act of God's free grace in Christ,[6] yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.[7]
IV. As there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation;[8] so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.[9]
V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.[10]
VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof;[11] upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy;[12] so he that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended;[13] who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.[14]
Chapter XXXII
Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
III. the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.[7]
Romans 8: 28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
