Skip to main content


The Moral Argument for God’s Existence.

  An atheist might say you can be good without believing in God. However the question isn’t can you be good without believing in God but can you be good without God? Here’s the problem if there’s no God. What basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong? If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist. Here’s why. Without some objective reference point we    really have no way of saying something is up or down. Gods nature however provides an objective reference point for moral values. It’s the standard which all action and thoughts are measured. However, if there is no God then there is no objective reference point. All we are left with is one persons view point as opposed to some other persons view point. This makes morality subjective not objective.  It’s like a preference for vanilla ice cream. The preference is in the subject not the object. Therefore it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way subjective morality applies only to the subject. It’s not va

Did Jesus Guarantee "Once Saved Always Saved "?

After years of being a follower of Jesus Christ. Being ordained within a evangelical denomination and getting a Masters in Theological Studies I've come to the opinion that most approach and read scriptures through the lens of theology which then informs them as to what a particular scripture would say. I've decided to look at the scripture for what it says and then to let it inform my theology.

In Luke 12:39-46 Jesus was teaching a group of people that were following him to make sure they were ready for His second coming. He used the illustration of a home owner being ready for the thief that wanted to break into his home. If the home owner is ready then the thief will not be able to break in. Therefore, Jesus followers need to be ready for Jesus second coming so that they won't be caught by surprise if they want to live a self willed life. Peter then asks Jesus if he and the disciples needed to heed this warning. This is what Jesus said to Peter directly, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.  He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers."

When reading scripture one of the most important parts of understanding what is being said is "context". There is first the immediate context. What I mean by that is the passage itself and the surrounding verses. Then there is the intermediate context. What I mean by this is the letter that the passage is found in. Then there is the complete context. What I mean by this is the other letters surrounding the letter the passage is in. Then there is the cultural context of the time of the writing. More often then not, the immediate context is usually enough to glean what is being said.

Now with what Jesus is saying in this particular passage the immediate context is enough to understand what he is teaching. The first thing we see is that Jesus is referring to His second coming. Then, because of the context of the passage, we see the "manager" in this passage is referring to Peter. Why? Because Jesus is answering Peter's question, "Are you telling that previous parable about your second coming to us, meaning those that claim to be His followers or specifically the twelve disciples?" The answer would be to Peter also. It was first to the twelve that Jesus left with the responsibility to teach the gospel of the Kingdom of God and to care for the church. The church is made up of the manservant and maidservants in this passage, that He left behind until He comes again. The master in this passage is Jesus, since He is the only one that can put others in charge of His servants. We know that the twelve were put in charge when the church first started. We know that Jesus didn't give this responsibility of teaching others about himself to unbelievers but to believers, specifically the twelve disciples. This is evidenced by the events at Pentecost and the book of Acts.

Jesus goes on to tell Peter (manager) it would be good when Jesus (master) comes again for the second time that Peter would be doing what He asked him to do, taking care of His servants, both male and female. These servants would be considered those that are followers of Jesus Christ. However, if Jesus comes back and Peter disregards, maybe even stops believing that Jesus is going to return, and lives according to the dictates of his sinful human nature. If Peter starts getting drunk and stops loving the Master servants by his actions. If he doesn't care about Jesus' followers and just lives for himself. Upon His second coming, Jesus will take Peter and assign him a place with the unbelievers. What is this place? It is the place of eternal separation from God, hell. Now if this can happen to Peter and God doesn't show favoritism, then it can happen to anyone that claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. So we can see that Jesus didn't tell Peter that once he was saved he'd be always saved.

This isn't about earning eternal life through good works because this cannot happen. (Eph 2:8-9)
It's not about being good enough through obeying the Law. (Gal 2:16...because by observing the law no one will be justified).
It's about living for the flesh, the sinful human nature. (Gal 5:19-21) Which is what Jesus is describing here in regards to the manager. And Paul reinforces in Galatians.


Popular Posts