Teaching Tuesday | Lesson 9: Salvation Part 2 - Who, Where, and Common Questions with John Cueto

Welcome to the September 2025 session of Teaching

Tuesday. Tonight we're finishing up our two -part

series on Salvation. If you missed the previous

session, you can check it out on our YouTube

channel to see the version with slides and pretty

much every podcasting platform if you just want

to listen. But you'll be missing out on the amazing

pictures I borrow from the internet, so I recommend

the YouTube version. Last month we talked about

the what, why, when, and how of Salvation, and

I'll start tonight's session with a brief recap.

But I mentioned last time that those four pieces

of the salvation puzzle are relatively uncontroversial,

with only two small disagreements between Christians

on those details. I also promise that this session

will be a little more spicy, because it turns

out that the who and where of salvation are much

more contentious topics. I also want to answer

several common but very important questions Christians

have about salvation. And that leads us to tonight's

resource. Last month, I introduced you to the

Views type of book, in which Christians present

and debate different understandings on various

doctrinal topics. We're often familiar with what

our own denomination believes on a topic, and

we may think that it's the only possible interpretation.

We may be missing out on a rich interdenominational

conversation that could help us dive deeper into

our beliefs. For instance, there are more than

10 legitimate Christian interpretations of the

creation story in Genesis, and more than a dozen

different understandings of Christ's second coming

in Revelation. Now, one downside of the views

books is because they're targeted at a scholarly

audience, they can be dense and hard to read.

And I'll be honest, the first resource for tonight,

called Perspectives on Election, Five Views,

was interesting, useful, thorough, and miserable

to read. So I'm also suggesting an alternative

called Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keithley.

It'll cover 95 % of what we're talking about

tonight. And although the author openly endorses

one of the positions, he's still fair in his

presentation of the other perspectives. Even

more importantly, it was fun to read, so it's

not a slog to get through. Let's start with that

quick recap. Salvation is the restoration of

our intended relationship with God. We were meant

to live in an intimate relationship with our

Creator, but Adam and Eve's sin drove a wedge

between man and God. We live with the consequences

of that sin now. Creation is not as it was meant

to be. Things like natural disasters, disease,

famine, and death are the result of God distancing

himself from the world. And he didn't do that

because he was mad at us, but for our own good.

The fall left us with a sin nature, a tendency

to rebel against the one who made us. Because

of God's perfect sense of justice, sin deserves

the punishment of destruction. So, God's distance

allows us to live, but leaves us in a tough spot.

Fortunately, he knew in advance this would happen

and had a plan ready. And Jesus was that plan.

God worked throughout history to prepare humanity

in the world for Jesus. We had to learn certain

lessons, and society had to progress a certain

amount before the message could be received and

disseminated. That message, which we call the

gospel, makes the work that Jesus did on the

cross available to all who choose to follow him.

It is forgiveness from sin, rebirth, and regeneration

into a person capable of an intimate relationship

with God and the promise of eternal life in his

presence. So with all that said, why in the world

do we need a second session? It sounds like God's

got it all taken care of. Well, rewind a few

sentences to when I said, available to all who

choose to follow him. Whatever the word choose

means to you, disagreements over who can and

does choose to follow Jesus have been brewing

since the beginning of the church and have led

to more Christians killing other Christians than

anyone else has ever killed Christians, even

at the height of Roman persecution. Ironically,

there's also plenty of disagreement over how

to categorize these positions. Look at the resources.

One of them has five perspectives, and the other

three. One of my systematic theology books has

two, and the other has five. But one of the five

is a subset of another, so it's really just four.

And four is the magic number tonight, because

I think that categorization is the clearest and

most logical. However, the final perspective

can be applied to one of the others, or exist

on its own. So let's say 3 .5, just to be as

nerdy as possible. We're going to begin with

the one perspective that I think it's safe to

totally discard. Universalism, or the belief

that every person who has ever lived will be

saved. This perspective has popped up from time

to time since the beginning of the church and

even found some support in a few early church

fathers like Origen. It's recently exploded in

popularity alongside post -modernism and relativism

because if there's no such thing as objective

truth, then it would be rude to imply that any

single religion is correct and others are wrong.

Therefore, to avoid hurt feelings, salvation

gets handed out like Oprah handing out cars to

her audience. Christians get saved. Muslims get

saved. Atheists get saved. Everyone gets saved.

Now, to be fair, there are a number of nuances

within this belief, even when we restrict it

to Christian universalism. Some believe that

all are immediately perfected and glorified upon

death and taken to God's presence, regardless

of their beliefs or actions in life. Others believe

that those who follow Jesus go immediately to

God's presence, but others go through a form

of purification, the duration of which will depend

on their beliefs and actions. Some say that all

non -Christians go to a holding area until they

decide to follow Christ, and that eventually

all do. Here are the problems with universalism

and why it's largely considered heresy. First,

and most importantly, is that it goes against

Scripture. Jesus in John 14 .6 in the NLT says,

No one can come to the Father except through

me. Peter in Acts 4 .12 NIV also says salvation

is found in no one else. Not to mention the countless

times that Jesus says in the Gospels and the

Apostles say in Acts and write in the letters

that some will be saved and some will not be

saved. Second is that it violates God's character

and respect for free will. If God was just going

to force everyone to be with him in the first

place, there was no reason to allow people to

have free will. He could have avoided the fall

and sin and all the problems we have now and

just made a bunch of robots that automatically

believed in him and loved him. Now let's be fair.

It's easy to see why people like universalism.

It feels good. Nobody likes the idea of hell,

and nobody likes the idea of someone they loved

going to hell because they didn't choose to follow

Christ. I even see the incredible opportunity

for glory for God, for someone like Hitler being

purified and redeemed after death, to spend eternity

showing love to the people he murdered in life.

Unfortunately, it simply isn't compatible with

Christianity, and Christians who promote universalism

may be well -intentioned, but they've not thought

through the implications of their position. Okay,

it's time to move on to the biblically compatible

answers to the question of who gets saved. The

three we're going to learn about tonight are

Arminianism, Calvinism, and Molinism, and we're

going to look at them in the order they were

developed. I wanted you to hear the names ahead

of time because they're involved in each other's

history somewhat. We're starting with Arminianism,

which can be called the church's default position

from the time of Jesus and the apostles, and

remains the dominant position today. It's named

after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian that

lived from 1560 to 1609. Why wait until 1600

years later to name it? while there were no serious

contenders on the answer of who got saved until

Calvinism emerged from the Protestant Reformation.

Sir Arminius' work formalizing the church's historical

position led to his name being immortalized as

the name of the doctrine. And, as I mentioned,

it remains the dominant position to this day,

with all Roman Catholics and somewhere between

40 -95 % of Protestants falling into this category.

It's also largely compatible with the Orthodox

position, though not a perfect fit. As we learn

more about Arminianism, you'll find that this

is what Chris preaches at our church every week,

so it should feel very familiar. If I had to

summarize Arminianism with one thought, it would

be that Arminianism emphasizes human free will

in answering the question of who gets saved.

But let's look at the position in more detail.

The Calvinists came up with an acronym to describe

their beliefs, and the Arminians did the same

in response. The Calvinist acronym has the benefit

of being read in the order of the letters, whereas

the facts, or F -A -C -T -S, of Arminianism is

best understood as T -A -F -C -S. As we examine

everybody's acronyms, we'll also look at one

of the many verses proponents use to derive that

position. The T, in fact, stands for total depravity.

Now that's a heavy term. It sounds so bad that

the name alone can scare people away. But it's

a very biblical concept backed up by verses such

as Jeremiah 17, 9, which reads, The heart is

deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who

can understand it? Both Arminians and Calvinists

are quick to point out that total depravity doesn't

mean that we're all as wicked as we could possibly

be or that there is no good in people. Instead,

it harkens back to the idea of sin nature and

how we're oriented away from God. Think of total

depravity as the idea that we would not and could

not pursue God unless he revealed himself to

us and did all of the work of salvation. The

Arminian A, which stands for atonement for all,

means that God has made salvation available to

everyone. Coming from our perspective, meaning

us, HCV, and Vineyard, this probably sounds weird.

What other way could it possibly be? Well, as

we'll see when we look at Calvinism next, not

all Christians believe that. We look at verses

like John 3 .16. For God so loved the world that

he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes

in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Focus on that first part, God loved the world.

We understand this as God offering salvation

to everyone. F, which stands for free to believe

by grace, or free to believe by pervenient grace,

is the solution to the apparent contradiction

of total depravity and atonement for all. We're

too wicked to believe, but God wants us all to

believe. Fortunately, verses like Titus 2 .11

offer hope. Paul writes, For the grace of God

has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Last time we talked about the idea of effective

calling, and that's a good way to understand

pervenient grace. God touches our hearts and

reveals himself to us, both globally and individually,

in a way that is the most effective for each

individual without violating their free will.

The Arminian C, which stands for conditional

election, can best be understood by examining

a verse that's already on the screen, John 3

.16, and specifically the second half, which

reads that whoever believes in him shall not

perish but have eternal life. We read whoever

believes as the idea that people can choose whether

or not they follow Jesus. This is in contrast

to unconditional election, the idea that people

can't choose whether they follow Jesus. More

on that in the section on Calvinism. Finally,

the S stands for security in Christ. There are

a lot of different terms for this, such as perseverance

of the saints, but they all refer to the idea

that God will not allow someone's salvation to

be taken from them. For instance, in Romans 8,

38 -39, Paul writes, That leads to a follow -up

question. We've ruled out external causes of

lost salvation, but can a currently saved person

give up their salvation? There's a lot of debate

over the answer, which we'll examine in detail

towards the end of the presentation, but we should

examine the principles of Calvinism and Molinism

first. We'll wrap up Arminianism by looking at

some strengths and weaknesses, but we want to

be careful that familiarity doesn't bias our

analysis. Here are two positives and two negatives

for you to consider. Pro number one. Arminianism

seems to be the default understanding of Jesus,

the apostles, the early church, and most people

who read the Bible. Popularity doesn't automatically

make something right, and there are many parts

of the Bible that require study and interpretation,

but there's just something obvious about Arminianism

that seems right. Pro number two. Arminianism

is in line with God's value of human free will

and loving character. Why would he go through

all this trouble to send Jesus if he wasn't giving

us a choice in the matter? Con number one. Arminianism

can be wishy -washy on the concept of election.

The Bible does reference God selecting or electing

people. There are debates over whether that is

applied to individuals, nations, certain groups

of people, or all people, or even all people

that God knew would freely believe. But we simply

can't ignore tough concepts like election because

they make us feel uncomfortable. And con number

two. Most Arminians aren't guilty of this, but

some can take the focus on human free will to

such an extreme that it overrides God's sovereignty.

Remember the open theism heresy we discussed

last time, where some people believe that God

doesn't have full knowledge of the future, or

that humans are capable of changing God's plan

for the future? That's Arminianism on steroids

and taken to a ridiculous extreme. Next up is

Calvinism. We've mentioned it a few times already,

and now it's time to dig deeper on what it is

and why its proponents believe what they do.

Many people are familiar with the name Martin

Luther and the story of him nailing his complaints

against the Roman Catholic Church to the door

of a church. Nobody knows for sure whether or

not that happened. But Martin Luther did write

95 criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church and

that event did spur the Protestant Reformation.

Luther had a number of legitimate complaints

which led to a re -examination of every bit of

the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices.

During this process, the French theologian John

Calvin came up with a new answer to the question

of who gets saved. Referred to as Calvinism,

it focused primarily on God's sovereignty, and

you'll find this belief system primarily in churches

and denominations that call themselves Reformed.

What I find fascinating is that even though Calvinism

and Reformed churches have had a massive historical

impact, it remains a tiny minority, estimated

at less than 3 % of Christians worldwide. Earlier,

I mentioned that Calvinists were the first to

outline their beliefs with an acronym. That acronym

is TULIP, or T -U -L -I -P. It has the virtue

of presenting the beliefs in their logical order,

unlike the Arminian acronym. One interesting

thing about the Calvinist school of thought is

its proponents tend to be heavy theological thinkers,

who seek to enumerate their beliefs completely

and accurately. You'll occasionally hear Arminians

say that they don't agree with one or two of

the points, but it's rare. Calvinists, on the

other hand, commonly refer to themselves as five

-point... four -point, or three -point Calvinist

based on how many and which parts of Tulip they

agree with. Now bear with me, because coming

from a Romanian perspective, you're probably

going to find at least three of these points

quite foreign. But not the T, which also stands

for total depravity in Calvinism. The understanding

is also nearly identical with some minor points

of disagreement that aren't relevant tonight.

The first different letter is going to be the

U, which stands for unconditional election. It's

based on verses and passages such as John 1,

12 -13, which reads, The key part of the verse

is used to understand unconditional election

are always the parts about human will versus

God's will. Calvinists understand those verses

to say that when God chooses to save someone,

they have no say in the matter. There is no element

of human choice or response, simply God choosing

who to save and who not to save, and that choice

was made before creation. To fully understand

the reasoning, the U, L, and I have to be examined

together, so hold on while we do that. The L

stands for limited atonement, which basically

means that when Jesus died on the cross, he was

only dying for the specific people that God had

chosen to save. This is derived from verses such

as Ephesians 1 -4, which reads, For he chose

us in him before the creation of the world to

be holy and blameless in his sight. Because it

is Jesus' sacrifice that allows us to be holy

and blameless, it can only have been made on

behalf of the ones that God chose. Then, to tie

these three concepts together, we have the I,

which stands for irresistible grace. It comes

from verses such as 2 Corinthians 4 -6, in which

Paul says, For God made his light shine in our

hearts to give us the light of the knowledge

of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ.

The Calvinist interpretation of these verses

is that when God saves someone, it is done to

them and without concern for their consent or

agreement. And so, in contrast to Arminianism,

where Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to save

all and God makes the offer open to all, but

only those who accept the offer are saved, Calvinism

holds that God created the universe knowing who

he would save, Jesus died only for those people,

and those people are forced to be saved without

any choice in the matter. Finally, Calvinism's

P, which stands for Perseverance of the Saints,

is almost identical to Arminianism's Security

in Christ. In addition to Arminianism holding

that no external force can remove someone's salvation,

Calvinism asserts that because a person is saved

irresistibly, they are also kept saved irresistibly.

I'll give my perspective after we look at Molinism,

but even if the tenets of Calvinism seem odd

to us, or we don't agree with their interpretation

of scripture, we should acknowledge some major

strengths of the philosophy. One is that it includes

and accounts for different parts of scripture

that talk about election. I criticized Arminians

for being wishy -washy on election. The same

can't be said about Calvinists. They will take

those verses at face value and readily admit

that God chooses who does and doesn't get saved,

no matter how it makes them or anyone else feel.

I applaud that kind of honesty and conviction.

And a related one is the proper respect for God's

sovereignty. A lot of us have the bad habit of

agreeing with God's plan when it's good for us

and disagree with God's plan when it isn't. But

you're not going to find a Calvinist making that

mistake. They know who's in charge, and that's

another admirable trait we can all aspire to.

But there are cons, and one of them can arise

based on a person's interpretation of unconditional

election. Most Calvinists would say that by default,

all people are unsaved, but God chooses to save

certain people. Think of it like a Coast Guard

chopper coming to rescue the survivors of a boat

wreck. The guardsmen might prioritize the children,

knowing that some adults will die due to that

choice. But there's an extreme version of unconditional

election called double predestination, which

states that God doesn't just choose not to rescue

certain people, but actually created them specifically

to be damned. That view leaves a sour taste in

my mouth, because it has God holding people morally

accountable for choices that he forced them to

make. It makes him cruel and it violates the

many passages on free will. The second con is

somewhat related. Although most Calvinists honor

Jesus' great commission to make disciples by

participating in evangelism, some see unconditional

election as a reason to skip evangelism. They

say, if God's going to save who he's going to

save anyway, what's the point? It seems to me

that if your interpretation of scripture leads

to a violation of one of Jesus' most clear and

explicit commands for believers, that ought to

be a red flag. And finally, we come to Molinism.

Think of Louis Molina as the younger brother

egging his older siblings on and getting them

to fight, then getting extra ice cream when they're

both grounded. He was a Jesuit priest who lived

from 1535 to 1600. He was watching the Protestant

Reformation and the debates between Calvinists

and Armenians, and he didn't like what he saw.

Jesuits are known for their intellectual pursuits,

and Molina was no exception. He saw weaknesses

in both philosophies and began to work on what

would come to be known as Molinism, an answer

to the question of who gets saved and many other

questions that resolve the apparent paradox between

human free will and God's sovereignty. He did

this using a concept called middle knowledge,

which we'll look at in more detail in the next

few slides. Molinism is not particularly compatible

with Calvinism because it maintains the importance

of human free will, but it can sit nicely on

top of Arminianism. It keeps God sovereign even

as people make real free choices. Molinists make

up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of Christians

worldwide, but it seems to be exploding in popularity

with many contemporary theologians and philosophers

seeing it as an emotionally, mentally, and spiritually

satisfying answer to the salvation question.

To get this out of the way, Molinism II has an

acronym, only I won't be using it because it's

terrible. The Molinist acronym is ROSES, or R

-O -S -E -S. Number one, you shouldn't repeat

a letter in an acronym meant to represent complicated

theological concepts. Number two, to get those

concepts to fit into a flower name, whoever came

up with it gave them the most confusing and obscure

names possible. I go so far as to say that if

I explained roses, you'd understand Molinism

less than if I didn't. So I won't. But here's

the gist. When we describe God, we often use

his omni -properties. We say he's omniscient,

or all -knowing, omnipotent, or all -powerful,

omnipresent, or everywhere, all the time, and

omnibenevolent, or all -good. These attributes

are universally agreed upon by Christians. Molinists

see evidence in the Bible that God's omniscience

is not limited to knowing what is, but also what

could be. They call this type of knowledge middle

knowledge, and the hypotheticals that God knows

are called counterfactuals. A counterfactual

describes how a free creature, like a human being,

would react in any given situation, and God knows

them all. Now consider what that means. It means

that before God created the universe, he knew

every possible outcome of that universe based

on every possible variable that would influence

any free creature's choice. The scale of this

is staggering. Think of every decision you make

on a daily basis and the butterfly effect of

those decisions on the rest of history. Now think

of the mental ability needed to calculate that

essentially infinite number of permutations of

possible universes. Within every possible universe,

humans were acting with free will, and God sovereignly

chose to actualize this one. Molinism doesn't

just maintain human free will, it shows God's

immense care for it. And it doesn't just maintain

God's sovereignty, but it paints a picture of

God far grander and in more control than most

people could imagine. So it sounds great. Is

it biblical? Well, Molinists say it is. And I'll

give you a selection of verses that support the

main points. Luke 10 .13 reads, Woe to you, Chorazin!

Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that

were performed in you had been performed in Tyre

and Sidon, they would have repented long ago,

sitting in sackcloth and ashes. Similarly, Isaiah

48, 17 -18 reads, These are two among the many

verses in which God recognizes the consequences

of human choices and appears to know counterfactuals.

Then we have Psalm 139 .16, which says, If that

verse is applied universally, it's clear that

God knew the final outcome of the universe before

creation. And when we take those verses amongst

many others, we find that Molinism has a solid

biblical foundation. Lastly, let's give Molinism

the same pro -con treatment as Arminianism and

Calvinism. Pro. Molinism attempts to include

all of God's attributes in Scripture instead

of hyper -focusing on one. When we talked about

reading and interpreting the Bible, the fourth

step was making sure your interpretation aligned

with the rest of the Bible, and this was the

motivation behind Molinism. The Christian faith

is meant to be an intimate relationship with

our Creator. It's not an abstract intellectual

exercise. It's a relationship. There are many

wonderful, godly proponents of Molinism, but

there are also plenty who sound indistinguishable

from secular philosophy professors. If you ever

start thinking of your Bible as a textbook and

not a book that contains the way to have a relationship

with our Creator, you've got to take a step back.

Pro. There's exhaustive biblical evidence of

God's knowledge and predictive power. Whatever

criticism someone may have of Molinism, it's

got a solid scriptural foundation. And one last

con. Molinism can be taken to such extremes that

it leads right back to universalism. I once read

an article by a Molinist who argued that since

God is also all good, he would take a person's

actions in all possible universes into account

when judging them for their life in the universe

he did decide to create. In other words, if Bob

was saved in at least one of the other possible

universes, but not this one, God would be required

to save him because it was God's choice to create

this universe that led to him not being saved.

That's a huge leap, and there is zero evidence

that anything like that is true in the Bible.

So, what's the verdict? Well, the whole point

of these sessions is to educate you on your options

and empower you to make an informed choice. And

ultimately, that's what you need to do. But I

also think it would be a cop -out if I didn't

explain my conclusion. So here's my present position

as of September 2025. For reasons we already

covered, universalism is out. It'd be awesome

if it was true, but the best evidence says it

isn't. I also don't find the Calvinist position

convincing. That's not to say that I don't respect

Calvinists or that I don't consider them fellow

Christians. I have a lot of respect for their

theological rigor and their honesty about their

convictions. I wish all Christians showed the

same levels of both. But when I read the verses

that they use to back up their positions, I simply

do not come to the same conclusions. The three

verses I mentioned earlier, I just don't see

how you could get the Calvinist conclusions from

a plain reading of those verses. And in some

cases, I see explicit disagreements with the

verses about free will. God as presented by Calvinism

just doesn't seem like the same God that saved

me. What I do find is that Arminianism and Molinism

seem like reasonable, compatible interpretations

of the scriptures and my personal experiences

with God. HCV leans Arminian, and Vineyard leans

Arminian. The vast majority of present and historical

churches lean Arminian. I think as long as you

maintain the proper respect of God's sovereignty

and you don't run from tough passages on election,

Arminianism is a very reasonable conclusion.

I personally find that Molinism's default inclusion

of a satisfying answer to the free will -sovereignty

paradox puts it slightly ahead for me. I don't

know if I'd describe myself as a pure Molinist.

or an Armenian with a Molinist hat, then frankly

I don't think it matters because of how compatible

the two systems are. I'm in full agreement with

your average Armenian on the implications of

our positions and what it means for ministry

and things like evangelism and outreach and how

I teach the kids on Sundays. And I've never heard

anything preached at our church or any other

vineyard churches that would disagree with any

of my convictions. But again, you're now empowered

to make this decision for yourself. You've got

the resources and the skills to do the research,

and I encourage you to do so. We've covered a

lot of different information over the past two

sessions, so I'd be surprised if we've hit this

point and you didn't least have a few questions.

Salvation is a big, complicated topic, and if

you're anything like me, you probably had a lot

of, but what about this situation moments as

we talked about the general ideas. I wanted to

hit a few of the big ones, but also point you

towards a great resource called gotquestions

.org. I'm going to give you the Cliff Notes version

for the answers to these questions, but gotquestions

.org has an exhaustive list of scripture verses

with in -depth analyses for these and thousands

of other common questions on Christianity. Also,

I love funny pictures, but there weren't too

many opportunities for funny pictures in the

first part of this session. So each of these

questions is accompanied by a cute animal, such

as these very inquisitive -looking meerkats.

Okay, we're starting big with this monkey that's

either deep in thought or staring longingly at

a banana. This is the number one question Christians

ask about salvation. How do I know that I'm saved?

Why is this such a popular question? Well, there's

verses like Matthew 7, 22 -23 that give people

some pause. In this verse, Jesus says, I consider

this probably the scariest verse in the entire

Bible. Because Jesus is saying that there are

some people who think that they are saved or

think that they are working for him when in fact

they are not. So how do we know that we are saved?

Well, I think John 3 .16 that we already saw

earlier gives us a good hint. Let's read it again.

And then we compare this with a lot of other

verses. For instance, we've got James who says

that faith without works is dead. And Jesus himself

says that it is the fruit of a tree that tells

you if it is good or bad. And so if we sincerely

believe, there should be visible effects on our

internal and external lives. For instance, the

fact that this question concerns you, the fact

that you're asking this and that you're worried

about this is a good sign. It means that you

are concerned about what is pleasing to God and

you're concerned about your relationship with

him. That's one really good sign. Last time we

talked about sanctification, the process of the

Holy Spirit gradually making you more holy. This

is also something we want to see. If you were

the exact same person that you were when you

were saved 10 years ago, that's not a good sign,

especially if you're living in constant unrepentant

sin. However, even if you are struggling with

sin, if you are making an effort against it and

you are seeing improvements, that's another good

sign. When the kids ask me this question, I always

ask them if their relationship with God is important

to them and if they're actively working on it

by doing things like reading the Bible and praying

to get closer to God. And I tell them that that's

a good sign. And I give them the same advice

that I would give to anybody else who asks this

question. If you ever get to the point where

you no longer care what God thinks about something,

where you're not spending time with Him, or you're

happy to sin without feeling any guilt at all,

that's probably a really good sign that there's

something wrong with your relationship with God

and you need to seriously consider your salvation.

Then we've got this sad -looking cat here asking

the number two question on salvation, which we

already talked about a little bit earlier. And

that's, can you lose salvation? Now, there's

pretty much universal agreement amongst the different

philosophies that we looked at that you can't

have salvation taken from you externally. You

know, the devil or a demon or another person

can't just come down and take it from you. But

the question did remain, could a person give

up their salvation or lose their salvation by

their own actions or attitudes? Well, let's look

at one verse this time. And I want to look at

2 Corinthians 5 .17 from the NIV. Paul says,

therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation

has come. The old is gone. The new is here. When

you get saved, you are a brand new creation.

You're a brand new person. You are not the same

person that you were. Last time we talked about

all the steps of the salvation process. Things

like regeneration, adoption into God's family.

You know, you are the heirs to the inheritance

that Jesus earned. And part of that inheritance

is eternal life. And I think that's the key.

Eternal means forever, and it wouldn't be eternal

life if God gave it to you and then took it away.

And then when you decide to come back to church

ten years later, he gives it back to you. And

then maybe you fall away for a couple years and

it's gone, and then you come back to church and

then you get eternal life. Now, I think when

we look at doctrines like the perseverance of

the saints or eternal security, we know that

God knows the outcomes of everything. So if a

person falls away, what it most likely means

is that they were never saved in the first place.

God knows when a person commits if they're being

serious and if it's going to last. And so, if

a person sincerely converts and they're going

to remain a Christian for the rest of their lives,

at that point they are saved. They may have other

moments in their lives where they thought they

were saved, but they actually weren't. Now, I

realize that may not be the most satisfying answer

to this question, but that does seem to be what

the evidence says. When you are finally saved

for real, you cannot lose that salvation. This

puffin standing on a remote island wants to know,

what about people who never hear the gospel?

Are they saved? Are they not saved? Is everybody

who never hears about Jesus just going straight

to hell? Let's see. First, let's look at what

Paul says in Romans 1 .20. He says, And so even

if a person never hears the gospel, they never

even hear the word Jesus, they are in some way

accountable to God because he has made his presence,

his existence obvious to everybody through what

he does in creation. And there are tens, if not

hundreds of thousands of testimonies showing

that God responds to people who pursue him from

this information. We have a lot of testimonies

from Muslim countries where people have never

read a word of the Bible. They've prayed to Allah

for him to reveal the truth about himself to

them, and they've gotten a vision of Jesus. And

we have the same testimonies from countries all

around the world where people never heard a word

of the Bible, and they were given visions of

Jesus. And so we know that if people are seriously

pursuing the truth about God, he will give it

to them. Now, we might consider it unfair for

a person who didn't grow up in a Christian country

to not be saved and to go to hell when they die.

But we also have to remember that Jesus talks

about different levels of rewards and different

levels of punishment. He says the person who

is given much will be held accountable for much,

and the person who is given little will be held

accountable for little. So there's evidence that

a person who never was exposed to the gospel

and chose not to pursue the obvious calling from

God, that they may not be going to heaven, but

they will not be punished, like a person who

actively rejects the gospel. These cute puppies

are asking one of the most impactful questions

about salvation. What about babies, children,

and the mentally or physically disabled that

can't understand the gospel? In other words,

what about people who are incapable of understanding

the gospel? This question is rarely asked for

purely philosophical reasons. I've been asked

this question by a man with an adult son whose

mental age never progressed beyond three or four

years old, and a mother who just lost her child

to a miscarriage. Fortunately, our God is good,

and there is a lot of biblical evidence that

he bestows grace and mercy on those who can't

make the informed choice whether or not to follow

Jesus. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence

comes from 2 Samuel. In chapter 11, David sees

Bathsheba bathing and invites her to the palace.

Mysteriously, she soon falls pregnant with his

child. In response, David brings her husband

Uriah home and attempts to engineer a situation

where the child can plausibly be his, but Uriah

is wise to the king's efforts and refuses to

play along. David responds by sending Uriah to

his death on the battlefield. Shortly after,

he marries Bathsheba, and she gives birth to

a boy. As punishment, God strikes the child ill,

and he dies seven days later. While the child

was sick, David prayed, fasted, and mourned.

But his servants were shocked that he returned

to normal life as soon as the boy died. David's

response? While the child was still alive, I

fasted and wept. I thought, who knows? The Lord

may be gracious to me and let the child live.

But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting?

Can I bring him back again? I will go to him,

but he will not return to me. Despite his many

sins, David was faithful to God, and he knew

he would go to be in the Lord's presence someday.

And, just as certainly, he knew that the child

would already be there because of God's mercy

to those who can't be held accountable for their

choices yet. This leads to a concept called the

age of accountability by theologians, but it's

not limited solely to age. This idea, which has

existed in some form for most of the church's

history, is that God shows grace upon those that

are incapable of understanding sin or Christ's

saving work and brings them into his presence

when they die. It's not universally accepted.

There will always be some dissenters on any doctrinal

stance, but I can give this answer confidently

because of how good our God is. This picture

from my average morning commute is going to help

us answer the next question. What about people

who commit suicide? Historically speaking, the

answer wasn't great. The church taught that someone

killing themselves was no different than a person

committing murder, and because they hadn't had

a chance to repent for that sin yet, anybody

who committed suicide would go to hell. As we've

learned more about the human mind and body and

how things like chemical imbalances can make

somebody's actions seem completely irrational,

we've come to realize that people are not always

in full control of themselves. Psalm 34, 18 says,

The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saved

those who are crushed in spirit. And I think

we can all agree that a person who has gotten

to the point in their life where they feel like

their only solution is to end their life definitely

qualifies as brokenhearted and crushed in spirit.

And so the teaching of the church has evolved

on this to emphasize compassion. We know that

God loves every single person, and he is especially

close to those who are brokenhearted and crushed

in spirit. And so people who commit suicide,

if they are a saved Christian, when that happens,

they will go to be with the Lord. That doesn't

change the outcome for somebody who is unsaved

when they kill themselves, but it is good news

for those Christians who reach that point. This

scary -looking snake here is going to help us

answer one of the other really tough ones. What

is the unforgivable sin? In Matthew 12, 31 -32,

Jesus says, And so I tell you, every kind of

sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy

against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone

who speaks a word against the Son of Man will

be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the

Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either this

age or in the age to come. The context of Jesus'

words here is that he's just been doing miracles

and the Pharisees accuse him of working for Satan.

In effect, they're giving Satan credit for the

works of the Holy Spirit and that's what Jesus

is referring to as blasphemy against the Spirit.

Here's the tricky part. There's a debate between

the theologians over whether this was only possible

while Jesus was on earth and it was the Holy

Spirit that was doing his miracles or whether

this is something that is still possible. And

whatever speculation people may have, there's

no clear answer in the Bible about this. So my

recommendation to people is to be very careful

not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. And finally,

this adorable little dinosaur is going to help

us answer, what about the people who lived before

Jesus? Except, he's not going to answer it tonight,

because this is actually a preview of next month's

session, which is called, What the Hades? And

it's all about the Jewish and Christian understanding

of the afterlife. If you thought that it was

just as simple as when you die, you go to heaven

or hell, well, good news, because we have a lot

to talk about next month, and I think that you're

really going to enjoy it. I certainly had a great

time doing the research for it. Now, that's going

to wrap us up for tonight. I put the two resources

for tonight back up on the screen. I've also

got my email address on here. If you ever have

any feedback or ideas, it's john at hcv .church,

and you can find copies of these slides at hcv

.church slash teaching. Thank you so much for

taking the time to listen tonight. I'm very grateful

for it and I always love hearing feedback and

questions from people. Have a wonderful night

and God bless.