Faithfulness and Disowning

If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
if we are faithless,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot disown himself

(2 Tim 2)

The proponents of “Once Saved Always Saved” like to use part of the above section of scripture to support their view.
They overlook the bit about disowning and highlight the part about God’s faithfulness.

They must read this as if it means faithlessness on our part towards Him doesn’t matter because He will remain faithful towards us regardless.

But that interpretation is undermined by the preceding statements about disowning, and the reality that the latter part of the quote is about God’s faithfulness to HIMSELF (clue is in “he cannot disown himself”).

So no matter how much He desires to see everyone saved, He cannot grant salvation if doing so compromises the righteous aspect His character.

People always prefer to recognise God as love – but aren’t as keen to balance that with His righteousness.
The tension between those two parts of His character is the reason why God’s love for the world was expressed in the giving of His Son and NOT in the giving of salvation without the sacrifice of His Son.

God’s righteousness made it necessary for His love to be costly to HIM.


Climate Change: Fact and Faith

At a time when the Australian Governmentt (led by a Pentecostal “Christian” Prime Minister”) is rejecting the findings of a UN Climate report, insisting on a continued reliance on coal (,
I thought it worthwhile to revisit the blog post below.

Following the commentary on secular news sites, I’ve seen how “Christian” antipathy towards the issue of climate change has itself increased antipathy towards belief in God.

Onesimus Files

An EXCELLENT interview – primarily on the issue of climate change, but also revealing the reality of political influence shaping the beliefs of Christians, as well as the motivation behind those influential political ideologies.

Caring about climate is entirely consistent with who we are as Christians, but over the last several decades we have increasingly begun to confound our politics with our faith to the point where instead of our faith dictating our attitudes on political and social issues we are instead allowing our political party to dictate our attitude on issues that are clearly consistent with who we are.

[Katharine Hayhoe]

We are being told things by people who don’t like the solutions to climate change and have decided that its a lot better and a lot smarter to deny the reality of the problem than to acknowledge it exists but say you don’t want to do anything about…

View original post 3 more words

Naïve Relativism

Here is a question I saw in the comments of another blog.

I don’t consider your belief in God to be wrong … for you. So why do you consider my lack of belief in God to be wrong for me?

Just consider the kind of mindset behind that question.

Basically the question is saying that objective reality means nothing.

Look at the question in a slightly different way. What if “belief in God” is exchanged for some other idea?

How about belief in the ability to fly? Or the ability to breathe under water? Or belief in being bullet proof?

Should someone’s belief that they can safely launch themselves from a cliff top be considered as wrong for them?

Or a belief they can remain submerged for hours without scuba gear or that they can face gunfire without suffering personal harm?

Whether someone believes in God or not makes no difference at all to the objective facts related to God’s existence.

If God exists then His creation, including mankind, is ultimately accountable to Him, regardless of whether His reality and our accountability to Him is recognised by you, me or any other individual. Therefore, if God exists, lack of belief in Him is wrong for everyone no matter what their personal preference may be.

Pentecostal PM

It’s been an eventful week in Australian politics, with the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull being overthrown by a fringe, extreme element of his own party.

It wasn’t surprising. He has been a target of that group since he took the leadership from his predecessor, Tony Abbott, in a similar coup.

The main difference between the two leadership changes was that the first time the nation seemed to issue a huge sigh of relief, and Turnbull started his tenure as PM with very high approval ratings – a complete turnaround from Abbott’s then rapidly reducing approval among the electorate.

This time the electorate aren’t so happy about the change, and things didn’t go the way expected by the plotters against Turnbull. Their favoured candidate (the very unpopular Peter Dutton) failed in his bid to take over the leadership, and instead Scott Morrison won through as the “accidental Prime Minister”.

The result is perhaps one that many Australian evangelicals are seeing as a miracle. Morrison is a member of a Pentecostal,  evangelical church – the first Pentecostal Prime Minster in Australian history.

Watching him on TV, being sworn in last Friday night, it was easy to feel slightly optimistic…
…until, the political interviews began and his fellow Government members cut through that optimism with a slew of political obfuscation; basically regurgitating the same old rhetorical nonsense they’d been spouting for years.

Despite the alleged Pentecostal/ evangelical connections of the new Prime Minister, the message and the program of his party remains the same.

A telling part of the TV coverage on Friday night came when the studio reporters introduced a guest who had written a book about the religious beliefs of Australian Prime Minsters. Presumably they’d invited him to comment on the new PM’s religious faith, however, when the author started to address that very topic, pointing out that Morrison didn’t take a biblical direction with his social policy, he was cut off mid-sentence so they could take the audience to a reporter on location.
It seemed that something urgent needed to be reported, but that wasn’t the case. I suspect the mid-sentence switch was just an excuse to dismiss their guest when his commentary didn’t fit the kind of message they were wanting to  broadcast.

There seems to be a clear reluctance to broadcast anything purporting to be a biblical point of view, even by a guest invited to present a ‘religious’ viewpoint. And to be acceptable, any expressed religious view is expected to fit the pre-determined stereotypical expectations of the barely tolerant unbeliever.



Some interesting reading related to Australia’s new “Christian” Prime Minister.


Life on Mars?


It’s likely you would have heard about the great excitement about the discovery of a large body of water under the surface of Mars, and the possibilities it creates for there being life on Mars.

But what is the reason for the great interest in finding life beyond earth?

Maybe to some people it would legitimise their belief that given the right conditions and enough time, life could spontaneously come into existence without the need of a Creator?

If life could spontaneously start on earth without the need for Divine involvement then surely it ought to have started elsewhere too.

The more widespread life is out there in the universe, the more it could seem to legitimize the possibility that life doesn’t need a God to create it.

On the flip side – a completely barren universe (apart from earth) would tend to legitimize the Bible account of Creator God. If life can spontaneously come into being, why hasn’t it done so elsewhere? Why earth only?

Therefore scientists with an atheistic bent are desperate to find life elsewhere. It NEEDS to find evidence of widespread universal life.

But from a Christian point of view there’s no need to discount the possibility of some kind of life elsewhere. God could very well have created life beyond the earth for purposes of His own.
An account of that life beyond earth isn’t necessarily relevant to his relationship with mankind so didn’t need to be revealed in scripture