God. Real. Right.

“Once-saved-always-saved,” the doctrine of eternal security, is a hard pill for some people to swallow. A caller to my radio program is witness to just such. He claimed that since the letters to the churches in the Revelation were written to believers, and that God said to them that if they did not repent He would blot them out of His book, that it is obvious that some believers can lose their salvation. As I struggled to figure out what passage he could have in mind, it became apparent that his well-intentioned argument was based, as is often the case, on something not quite the same as the actual content of the passage of scripture so casually referenced.

To be precise, the caller’s claim was, “If the believers do not repent, God will blot them out of His book.” For perfect clarity, that statement could be symbolized as
~ R –> B
where “~” means “not”, “R” means “that believers repent”, and “B” means “that they will be blotted out.” The arrow, “–>”, represents implication, the “if-then” relationship in this case.

However, as it turns out, the only passage in the chapters he mentioned even vaguely similar to the caller’s reference is Revelation 3:5, which actually (more…)

Share on Facebook

Previously, Dr. Everett Berry addressed a listener’s claim that John 6’s statements about eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood are about the Eucharist, a common belief among Catholics and others who hold the doctrine of transubstantiation—not my view, of course. Here are the follow-up emails regarding that interchange. Obviously, I agree with Dr. Berry, and find his comments sufficient to make the point.

Here’s Gene-the-Catholic’s reply to Dr. Berry’s first explanation:

Dr. Everett, thanks for responding to (more…)

Share on Facebook

Dr. Everett Berry (Ph.D. Theology, Southern Seminary) is a frequent guest on “Live from Criswell”. His presence allows me to address more significant theological issues. He is a theologian, after all!

Here’s a follow-up e-mail he received after mentioning John 6’s comments about “eating my flesh” and such, followed by his reply to the email.

Dr. Berry, I heard you on Dr. Creamer’s radio show. I have a question for you. Why should we take John 6 verses 50-69 as symbolic? Why not take Him literally as Catholics do?
Thank you, Gene

And here is Dr. Berry’s reply:

Gene,

Thanks for the question. Briefly, when we deal with John 6, verses 50-69 are a part of the larger discourse that Jesus is having with the crowds, the Jews and his disciples. He begins by saying that the people are following him because they have eaten “literal” food. But they should rather seek the food which is eternal (6:27). He then interprets the eating of that food in several ways; as believing in the Father who sent him (6:29), as coming to him and believing (6:35), and as beholding and believing in the him (6:40). This being said then, when Jesus claims that the one who eats his flesh and drinks his blood will be raised on the last day (6:54), the point is that the one who has eternal life is the one who believes he is the bread from heaven who gives his flesh for his people. Furthermore, Jesus tells the disciples that the flesh profits nothing but his words are of the Spirit and so they give life (6:63). Those who eat them have eternal life but still there are those who do not (6:64). Also, just as a practical question, how does it make sense to interpret this passage as referring to the Eucharist when this ordinance has not been established yet. This would seem to be anachronistic.

Just food for thought. No pun intended.
Blessings,
Everett Berry

And my comment? I think the pun was intended.

There is more on this interchange here.

Share on Facebook

A weakness in my personal study of texts, biblical and otherwise, has always been my reluctance to rely on secondary sources for interpretation. I’m not sure whether my motive is noble in the sense of relying on self-discipline or arrogant in the sense of rejecting any reading other than my own. But either way, or more likely somewhere in between, there my commitment has lain.

And either as a result of that commitment or in spite of it, I have been blessed to learn from texts some interesting things apparently often overlooked.

As a high-schooler, my argument for my approach was simply that it was not my responsibility to find out what everyone else thought—that it was my responsibility actually to think. My experiences and personal characteristics would create a unique intersection with each text I encountered. Why, I reasoned, would it be worth existing just to think other people’s thoughts? (My vocabulary was not the same then, but my argument was.)

The only serious problem with that line of reasoning is that it presumes there (more…)

Share on Facebook

I teach and find biblically indisputable the doctrine of eternal security—once saved always saved. But there are passages which leave even those who agree with the doctrine scratching their heads. John 15 contains one of those passages. However, as with every similarly “offending” passage, the offense is all in the reader, and not in the text. Here are the first six verses of John 15:

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.  2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.  3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.  4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.  5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.  6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The confusion in the passage is built on (more…)

Share on Facebook

Here’s an e-mail I received from a listener troubled by a particular passage in the Old Testament. He says “Leviticus” but means “Exodus”. It’s an interesting e-mail because a slight shift in how one phrase is understood completely changes the implications of the passage for the issue of life in the womb. He takes it a way I have heard it taken on other occasions as well. However, as I mention below the letter, I believe both the context and wording itself point in a different direction.

Hi, Dr. Creamer:
I listen to your show almost every day on my way home, and really enjoyed the Christian perspective on various issues of our time. One of the most frequent topics that have been discussed is abortion. While I am staunchly pro-life, I have doubts whether abortion is tantamount to murder. Here is the verse that causes my doubt:

Leviticus 21:22-25 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (ASB)

A couple of things I observe from these few verses:

1. If a man commits murder, he will receive capital punishment.
2. If a man kills a pregnant woman, he will receive capital punishment.
3. If a man kills only the fetus without killing the pregnant woman, he only needs to pay a fine.

So the only conclusion I can (more…)

Share on Facebook

There are a few key passages which are disappointingly abused in defense of determinism in its varying forms and implications. Here is one of them.
(For those who already know the terms and want to save some reading: the point of this post is simply that Paul’s argument is inductive rather than deductive. This post is, by the way, an amendment of an insufficiently clear one from several years ago.)

Romans 8:29-30 is usually taken as an unbroken chain of activities directed at the elect—meaning: God glorifies every person He justifies, justifies every person He calls, calls every person He predestines to be like Christ, and predestines every person He foreknows. Of course, such a reading is not as self-evident as its proponents make it out to be. In fact such a reading controverts, or at least eisegetically obscures, the contextual meaning of the passage.
The problem reading it that way is evident when (more…)

Share on Facebook

It dawns on me that a lot of the e-mail correspondence I receive is actually very interesting, comprised of questions from students, former church members, friends, and sometimes even family. So I figure I’ll start posting some of the more interesting and frequent questions and my all too often all too brief answers.
Here’s one such question:

Hey Dr. Creamer! I was wondering what it means to be above reproach? (more…)

Share on Facebook

Here is the audio of a message on Hebrews 9:1-15. If you right click the previous sentence you can download the file. If you left (normal) click it, it will begin playing in a new page. If you click the little arrow next to it, it should play on this page.
I presented it to one of my “home” churches, Bethany Baptist Church in Pleasant Grove. It is based on a sermon I prepared from that text for a summer leadership camp for youth in Kerrville, TX.
I apologize to those of you who listen to most of the messages I put online, because the final illustration is one I have used in another sermon here. :O

Share on Facebook

Because I am normally speaking in other churches on Sundays, I don’t get to sit in my Sunday morning Bible study class as often as I would like. But I was there this week. I am fortunate to have a teacher (Tom Green) who is smart, loves to study, and very good at provoking the members of the study to think about the material he is covering each week. Like many other SBC Bible study groups this week, we were studying 1 Samuel 24-31–in particular, the narrative about Saul in the cave (chapter 24) and camped with his troops (chapter 26), and the one about Nabal and Abigail (chapter 25).
Here is one thing provoked by that Bible study.
The context: Chapter 24 is about David’s (more…)

Share on Facebook