“WHO ARE THOSE WHO CAN NEVER BE SAVED?” – A CRITIQUE

WHO ARE THOSE WHO CAN NEVER BE SAVED?

INTRODUCTION

Jack Hibbs created a collection of YouTube videos titled “Who are Those Who Can Never be Saved” and authored a book named “Living in the Daze of Deception,” which he further expounded upon in a series of sermons on YouTube. The book generated significant interest among both believers and non-believers. Notably, it achieved the status of a National Bestseller, securing the #3 position on the Trade Paperbacks List as reported by Publishers Weekly, and attained the #18 ranking overall by USA Today. (Read this article).

Jack Hibbs, the Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in California, exhibits a remarkable knack for cleverly subverting fundamental biblical doctrines, often eluding detection of his doctrinal deviations by many well-known evangelists.

After cautioning certain individuals about prioritizing personal opinions over the truth delineated from Genesis to Revelation (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16), I was promptly blamed for sowing discord among fellow believers. Consequently, they expressed their inhospitable demeanor in the subsequent message directed at me.

I’m sorry, but what I surmise here is someone trying to pit good bible teaching teachers against each other. One thing to keep in mind is that not all teachers will see everything exactly the same in the Scriptures, however their doctrine is the same and is very biblically sound. Man is not perfect, and we won’t get everything right perfectly. God does. So, just because they may not see the same regarding the Nephilim, does not make someone a false teacher. That is not a doctrinal issue. All this does it tries to cause discord within the body of Christ, and we are told in Proverbs 6 that God hates discord within the body of Christ. Yet, there are still those out there trying to stir things up and calling people false teachers because of their view of the Nephilim??? That is pathetic really!

If the Nephilim is not a doctrinal concern, what the heck is the rationale behind preaching about it, creating an entire YouTube series, and writing a book on the subject? 2 Timothy 2:2-3 emphasizes the importance for pastors to preach with longsuffering and adherence to BIBLICAL DOCTRINE AND NOT THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF A DIVERSITY OF SINNERS.

There are a few things in the above email that need to be addressed.

• “MAN IS NOT PERFECT, AND WE WON’T GET EVERYTHING RIGHT PERFECTLY”:
  
  This statement appears redundant. Imperfection is inherent in human nature, and this is precisely the reason why we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as outlined in John 16:13, to lead us toward ALL divine truth. Indeed, it is acknowledged that the full revelation of divine truth is not immediately acquired upon accepting Christ as our Savior at the moment of our conversion. (Deuteronomy 29:29).
  
  The statement contradicts Paul’s aim in Hebrews 6:1-16. Indeed, we should be like little children concerning our faith and trust in Him but we should also grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 3:18), until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; (Ephesians 4:13).
  
  
• “SO, JUST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SEE THE SAME REGARDING THE NEPHILIM, DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE A FALSE TEACHER. THAT IS NOT A DOCTRINAL ISSUE“:
  
  If the theory suggesting that fallen angels married human daughters resulting in the birth of the Nephilim holds true, why did Jesus take the Sadducees to task for their dismal failure to comprehend the power of God, attributing it to their neglect in studying the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29-30)? Jesus’ association of this with the crucial doctrine of the resurrection underscores its profound significance to Him, unlike that of our esteemed brethren who seem to have more respect for one another’s opinions rather than Jesus’s watertight truth.
  
  A false teacher is one who falsely claims to always speak the truth but manipulates the Word of God to deceive. Jack Hibbs asserts that he has thoroughly reviewed all scholarly works on the Nephilim and that they are all wrong while he is the one who is presenting the truth. Consequently, the increasing popularity of his book, “Living in the Daze of Deception,” is misleading thousands of gullible supporters of the hybrid Nephilim hypothesis.
  
  Indeed, discord among brethren is frowned upon by God. Nevertheless, some argue that self-opinionated interpretations of the Bible are permissible, as they believe it fosters a form of benevolent disagreement among believers. This God-dishonoring saying “Let us agree to disagree” originated from this unfortunate tendency to compromise. This notion brings to mind Uncle Angus Buchan, the influential South African figure known for his Mighty Men conferences, who once expressed his sentiments as follows:

Jesus said, “They that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (doctrinal truths and NOT self-opinionated “truths”). By the way, was Paul sowing discord among the brethren when he rebuked Peter for his waywardness or was he fostering unity? At any rate, the New Testament promotes a healthy kind of discord and division in the church. (1 Corinthians 11:17-19).

• THEIR DOCTRINE IS THE SAME AND IS VERY BIBLICALLY SOUND
  
  It might seem like they are discussing the concept of salvation, which could be the case. However, Paul cautions against this in Hebrews 6:1-6, urging individuals not to linger in basic principles of salvation but to press on to perfection. The Greek term for “perfection” is “teleiotēs,” denoting moral and mental completeness. Mental completeness involves having a discerning mind that interprets things accurately based on God’s teachings. This emphasizes the importance of avoiding errors by refraining from hastily drawing conclusions from a single passage in Scripture without considering it alongside other related passages. The opposite approach often leads to disaster.
  
  An interesting example is the assumption that the term “Bene ha Elohim” always refers to angels, both holy and fallen. In the Bible, only 11 verses mention this term, some referring to angels and even Satan, while others in the New Testament relate to believers washed in the blood of Christ. In contrast, Amir Tsarfati’s interpretation is based on a single word, suggesting that “‘Naphal’ in Hebrew means ‘fell down’, implying that the Nephilim fell down. This implies they were not the result of conventional human reproduction.” Ironically, Nephilim (giants) also appeared after the flood, indicating they could not have caused the flood.

Perhaps we should consider rephrasing John 17:17 to read as follows: “Sanctify them through their varied perspectives; thy word is grounded in their varied viewpoints.” Then again, why label something so pompous as a monstrosity when we’re cruising through an era that’s all about bending the rules while we endearingly bow before the altar of opinions?

Even Jack’s closest associates, among them Amir Tsarfati, Barry Stagner, and Mike Golay appear to overlook Jack’s theological inconsistencies for the sake of unity and fraternal love within the Christian community on the basis that we all have differing opinions that warrant mutual respect. God forbid!

Adversely, those who advocate discernment and observance of the scriptural injunction, “Beloved, believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God,” are summarily and unjustly accused of sowing discord among believers.

In an affectionate bid to extend grace towards divergent viewpoints, these individuals opt to disregard Jack Hibbs’s biblical discrepancies. Like several other biblical terms, the word “lie” is happily substituted with the more palatable and gentler term “opinion.”

Consequently, instead of referring to Satan as the father of lies (John 8:44), the conversation shifts to labeling him as the father of differing opinions which presumably is the brotherly path to take for securing unity.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob cannot be associated with conflicting opinions. If He were linked to various viewpoints, it would imply wavering between truth and falsehood, which is inconceivable, to say the least.

Consider what the implications could have been if Paul extended grace to everyone’s peculiar opinion and had overlooked Peter’s backsliding into apostasy when he gradually withdrew from eating with Gentile converts in Antioch to adhere to Jewish dietary laws.

Can you envision Paul responding with “Brother Peter, let us not dwell on such a minor issue as eating habits. Each of us holds distinct viewpoints that warrant mutual respect and consideration.”

Oh, I understand. Peter was already saved when he went from grace to Law and henceforth could not lose his salvation. Only Jewish unbelievers professing to be Christians can never be saved as soon as they wander off into their Jewish practices like slaughtering animals to gain acceptance with God.

One of Jack Hibbs’ notable talents is to name his sermons in a manner that captivates his audience, leaving them entranced.

In his book “Living in the Daze of Deception,” he defends the provocative theory suggesting that the marriages of fallen angels with human women led to the birth of the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-6) as the primary cause behind the global deluge, contradicting God’s explicit reason for the flood and that being in verse 7,

“And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (man).” (Genesis 6:1-6).  

Nothing is said here about fallen angels being complicit in the Fall.

Jack Hibbs’s interpretation, suggesting that the Nephilim resulted from marriages between fallen angels and human women, undermines the doctrine of original sin. If we were to attribute responsibility for the flood to fallen angels, it would be similar to blaming Satan for Adam and Eve’s transgression.

Surprisingly, however, Jack Hibbs assigns culpability to human women for the actions allegedly committed by the fallen angels, a perspective that is both shocking and regrettably misguided.

The deviation into the darker realms of the doctrines of devils, as one embellishes the Book of Genesis with imaginative, mythical, and mystical concepts, often leads to other distorted interpretations.

Misinterpreting Genesis can have a ripple effect, impacting various other doctrines. One fundamental belief that becomes vulnerable when the truth of Genesis is questioned or interpreted incorrectly, is the doctrine of salvation.

Jack Hibbs’s moment of falling into this trap concerning the doctrine of salvation took a very dangerous off-ramp when he made four videos entitled “Who Are Those Who Can Never Be Saved?” Please highlight the word “never” for further elucidation within the subsequent discussion.

HOW TO DISCARD JOHN 3:16 AT THE SPEED OF A UFO

If it were a reality that certain individuals are beyond salvation, John 3:16 would have had to be swiftly discarded as a non-essential doctrine at a speed matching that of a UFO changing direction rapidly at a 90-degree angle.

It is widely acknowledged that believing, as stipulated in John 3:16, is the only divine prerequisite for attaining eternal life, while disbelief serves as the disqualifying factor.

Belief and its contrasting concept, unbelief, are closely tied to the capacity to choose rather than being predetermined by inherent abilities or limitations.

Essentially, the decision of non-believers who had been thoroughly exposed to Christian doctrines to deviate from Christian teachings or to turn to alternative beliefs does not permanently preclude the possibility of repentance and a return to their original faith. The narrative of Peter serves as a prominent illustration of this dynamic.

Jack Hibbs acknowledges that choice plays a pivotal role in determining an individual’s fate concerning heaven or hell.

However, he holds the view that an unsaved Jewish person who has embraced Christianity superficially but subsequently reverted to Judaism is considered irreversibly lost.

Shall we call his brand of Calvinism a choice-based Jewish determinism never to return to God because it is impossible to repent again?

The pervasive influence of Total Depravity within Calvinism’s TULIP doctrine casts a shadow over Jack’s interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6, suggesting that humanity in toto is inherently incapable of believing in God.

Jack’s moderate Calvinistic perspective on Total Depravity, however, exhibits a degree of leniency by specifying that only select individuals are beyond redemption, notably Jews who, having been exposed to Christian teachings, revert to the Law and ritualistic practices in a self-righteous demeanor.

Such actions, once undertaken, prompt God to irrevocably disown them, as illustrated in Matthew 8:12. Jack Hibbs’s interpretation of John 3:16 would presumably reflect similar sentiments.

John 3:16 asserts with profound conviction, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Jack’s concept of “those who can NEVER be saved,” not only deviates from the essence of John 3:16 but also challenges the divine authority of God as the sole Creator of all things, including man’s God-given free will.

His interpretation would sound something like this: “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son so that all those who go along with Christianity for a while and afterward abandon God and return to Judaism, can NEVER be saved so that they may be damned to an eternity in hell.”

It is rather obvious that those individuals who are deemed beyond salvation also lack the capacity to believe. Their inherent incapacity to believe excludes them from John 3:16, a passage, as suggested by Jack Hibbs, that was never written for them.

May I kindly remind our friend, Jack Hibbs, that the term “never” unequivocally denotes a complete lack of willingness or capability to believe, extending from birth to the end of life. The concept of “never” implies an absolute absence of opportunities to be saved, even if one had previously encountered such chances but subsequently rejected them, thereby forfeiting any prospects of redemption.

Hence, they have not only been deprived of the possibility to believe but also of their inherent God-given free will. We shall see later from Old Testament Scriptures that this is impossible.

If some individuals are deemed beyond salvation, it implies that they are entirely incapable of belief, thereby suggesting that the message conveyed in John 3:16 does not extend to them.

This ideology aligns closely with Calvinism, where those deemed unsalvageable are referred to as the reprobates, predetermined by God before the creation to remain unsaved due to His lack of love for them, and Christ’s sacrifice on the cross excluding them.

ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED

All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately - behaving honourably with personal integrity and moral courage]; (Amplified Bible).

The passage from 2 Timothy 3:16 aptly asserts the divine inspiration inherent in all Scripture, emphasizing its value for guidance, correction, and moral development, as elucidated in the Amplified Bible.

This verse encapsulates some key facets regarding the nature of God’s Word:

1. Divine Inspiration: The entirety of Scripture is imbued with divine inspiration. While some may differentiate between primary and secondary truths within the Bible, all aspects are equally God-breathed. The misinterpretation or alteration of these truths can lead to consequences, as cautioned in 2 Peter 3:16. To underscore this point, consider an Entomologist who meticulously documented an ant’s anatomy in a scholarly work. Disputing a minor detail like the number of body segments (two or three) the ant has, would not be taken lightly. It would be considered unacceptable to the same extent as modifying the truths found in Scripture. It would be unfounded to assert that an ant has only a two-segmented body solely on subjective opinions. Such a proposition is clearly untenable. At all events, God assured his followers that the Holy Spirit would lead them to absolute truth, free from a mishmash of truths and personal opinions.
2. Authoritative Nature: The 66 books of the Bible are not products of human invention but bear the mark of divine authorship. These sacred texts hold unique authority in convicting sinners, guiding believers in their understanding, and shaping their moral conduct in both private and public spheres.

A CONFUSING INTERPLAY BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS

Jack Hibbs frequently transitions between addressing believers and unbelievers, creating a challenge in tracking the continuity of his thoughts. His distinction between believers who have backslidden and the outright apostasy of unbelievers, a questionable concept in itself, results in a fluctuation between these two groups, notably highlighting Jewish unbelievers.

They’re Hebrews [Jews] who say, I believe Jesus is the Messiah that he died on the cross for me, and they make that profession and they go to church, and they have been worshiping with all the other believers, including Gentiles but they become disillusioned by whatever means. Maybe it’s because the Lord hasn’t come back, or maybe life has gotten tough or things didn’t go the way that I thought, and, you know what, most of my family are still Jews, this isn’t going the way that I expected, I’m gonna go back. The problem with going back is that there is nothing to go back to because when Jesus Christ rose from the dead, technically Judaism was ended. Do you understand that? The Messiah had come. And you either understand that or you don’t. You either believe the Hebrew prophets or you don’t. You either read from Genesis to Malachi the whole thing or you don’t.

Those who react in such a manner to the Gospel may not have encountered or embraced the authentic Gospel message but instead a distorted version (2 Corinthians 11:4).

The Bible emphasizes that those truly saved, anchored in Jesus Christ, are likened to a house built on a rock—steadfast amidst life’s storms, unshaken by adversity (Matthew 7:24-25).

Apostasy among individuals who have not embraced salvation properly may arise when the pastor neglects to deliver a pure and unadulterated Gospel message.

A genuine servant of God ordained to preach the Gospel, would not mislead individuals by promising favorable changes upon accepting Jesus as their Savior—be it in their circumstances, health, wealth, politics, or predicting a grand global revival in the end times.

Jack Hibbs references Dr. Charles Ryle in support of this perspective.

It is like a classroom of students who are told “It is impossible for you students once enrolled in this course, if you seek to turn the clock back (which cannot be done), just to start the course over again — that will be impossible. Therefore, let all of you go on into a deeper knowledge of God.” The sentence is structured in such a way as to encourage the true believer to press on while others who merely say they are followers of Christ not only in time will depart of fall away from all that they know — but eventually turn back to the old practices and traditions of the Law. For such a person who has rejected God’s way of salvation, salvation itself becomes impossible for no other form of salvation exists apart from Christ.

(The Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1843).

The teachings of the Bible emphasize that salvation originates from the Lord (Jonah 2:9) and underscore the concept that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility with God (Matthew 19:26).

These profound truths directly challenge Jack Hibbs’s assertion regarding those deemed unable to attain salvation, a notion that will be dissected in more detail later. Among the notable statements attributed to Jack Hibbs is the following:

Listen up, Jack. How can today’s Jews go back to animal sacrifices when temple sacrifices ended in 70AD with the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman General Titus in Jerusalem?

Do Rabbinic Jews currently perform animal sacrifices in their synagogues, homes, and festivals? No, they don’t. As a matter of interest, the fourth temple — the third, as you know, is the one Antichrist will allow the Jews to build in the Tribulation — will see the reinstitution of animal sacrifices during Christ’s Millennial reign in Jerusalem.

Can we speculate that those Jews participating in animal sacrifices during Christ’s Millennial Kingdom cannot attain salvation because the reversal to Judaic animal sacrifices is incompatible with salvation? This is precisely why the majority of Protestant pastors dismiss the notion of a literal Millennial Kingdom on earth, as they view the reintroduction of animal sacrifices as a regression to the sacrificial practices outlined in the Old Testament book of Leviticus.

On a related note, how can you or Charles Ryrie (in his lifetime) determine the sincerity of people’s statements about their salvation and commitment to Christ Jesus?

Romans 10:9 explicitly states, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

How can one discern the contents of individuals’ hearts? The most reliable method to ascertain genuine salvation is by requesting their personal testimony — is it not? (1 Peter 3:15).

Furthermore, what is so wrong when Jews celebrate their customary and seasonal festivals? Surely, this cannot make it impossible for them to be saved.

Indeed, there is only a single reason for them never-ever to be saved and that is to cling to and observe the blood sacrifice of an animal in our times of the Gentiles, but as I already said and which you should have known, is that sacrifices of animals are obsolete in this time, as you so fervently contended that Judaism had ended when Jesus came. If Judaism were to cease, Jesus would no longer be considered a Jew, thereby potentially negating his revered epithet as “The Lion of the tribe of Judah” as mentioned in Revelation 5:5. Nonetheless, let us gracefully extend our gracious acceptance of Jack’s elated opinions, shall we?

GOD HAS NOT GIVEN UP ON YOU

In the third installment of his four-part series titled “Who are those who can NEVER be saved?” Jack Hibbs asserts, “God has not forsaken you. While you may have turned away from Him, His commitment to you remains unwavering.”

Hibbs’s discourse prompts reflection on whether his message is directed towards lapsed Christians who have strayed from the faith, or whether it encompasses individuals who have only superficially engaged with Christianity without experiencing genuine repentance and embracing a transformative faith.

Given God’s impartial nature, wherein no individual is beyond redemption, the juxtaposition arises: if God perseveres with backslidden Christians, why would He abandon those deemed unsalvageable?

The apparent contradiction lies in God’s egalitarian stance, devoid of favoritism, which raises questions about His consistency in offering hope and salvation to all, irrespective of past actions or beliefs.

RETURN TO ME AND I WILL RETURN TO YOU

Jack Hibbs seems to have a profound interest in paradoxes. In a cinematic analogy within an action-oriented film, he enacts the concept of salvation by walking from the left side of his pulpit, symbolizing salvation, to the right side, representing Law and works.

He asserts that unsaved individuals who feign redemption but choose the path of Law and works can never go back to the redemptive side of the pulpit to attain salvation.

However, with a shift to a more subdued demeanor, he mentions that they are capable o to doing so yet lack the willingness.

It is apparent that Jack is overlooking the significant and obvious disparity between “can’t” and “won’t.” Had he been aware of the distinction, he would not have selected such a conclusive and decisive title for his series as “Who Are Those Who Can Never Be Saved?” The title hardly suggests any shape or form of unwillingness.

Jack Hibbs asserts the explicit biblical notion that certain individuals are beyond salvation due to their persistent refusal. Notably, he also emphasizes that God’s desire is for all to repent rather than perish, as conveyed in 2 Peter 3:9.

The very fact that God wants all to be saved, proves that all can be saved. He would NEVER have expressed the desire for everyone to be saved if some could NEVER be saved. That would have made Him a liar. Nonetheless, the majority won’t be saved because they refuse to bow in obedience to God’s only requirement for salvation, i.e. faith in his Son, Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, this does not prove that some can never be saved, as Jack Hibbs consistently maintains.  

The paradox arises when considering how individuals who are supposedly incapable of repentance and salvation can actively reject it.

You cannot reject something when you are unable to do so. Logically, the inability to choose stems from a complete lack of capacity, as denoted by Calvinism’s belief in total human depravity, indicating an incapacity to opt for positive outcomes.

The concept of refusal is intrinsically tied to human consciousness, distinguishing it from entities devoid of free will such as animals, who are unable to be saved.

It is crucial to recognize that declining a gift, including the gift of salvation, does not signify an irreversible stance, as individuals possess the capacity to reconsider and accept the gift.

This aligns with the essence of “metanoia,” or repentance, signifying a transformative change of heart towards a better course of action.

Jack Hibbs asserts that individuals who, having been exposed to Christian teachings, revert to their former beliefs, as is the case with some pseudo-Christians, are deemed beyond salvation, even though they possess the potential for redemption — a choice they opt not to make.

According to Hibbs, such individuals reach a point of no return where their opportunity for repentance and embracing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is irrevocably lost. Jack Hibbs asserts,

For scholars or enthusiasts of the Old Testament, transitioning to the New Testament’s Gospel is a logical progression, aligning with the natural flow of divine revelation. It is paramount to understand that the division of the Bible into Old and New Testaments does not denote a distinction between Jewish and Gentile origins but rather represents a cohesive narrative authored by God through human agents, where the promises of the Old Testament find fulfillment in the New. Jesus had come. Judaism has ended.

If the principles of God’s grace, goodness, lovingkindness, longsuffering, and mercy are consistently upheld in both the Old and New Testaments, what prompts Jack Hibbs to assert contrasting attributes of God in each testament, particularly concerning His longsuffering and willingness to forgive, as referenced in 2 Peter 3:15?

Jack’s interpretation of God’s patience towards unbelieving Jews in the New Testament is fundamentally flawed. According to Jack, these Jews had once been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, and even partaken in the Holy Ghost.

However, they regressed to their former Jewish practices, forfeiting these divine blessings. Jack asserts that terms like “enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” and “partakers of the Holy Ghost” do not signify genuine salvation but rather an experience close to salvation without truly attaining it. Consequently, they lack a definitive conversion experience, making their renewal to repentance seemingly impossible.

Of note is the term “again” in Hebrews 6:6, which Hibbs suggests is a prior state that cannot be revisited. To illustrate his discrepancy, it would be viable to compare it to tennis. The expectation for someone who has never played tennis before to play it “again” would be illogical. Therefore, it is equally irrational to maintain that anyone who has never genuinely come to repentance and faith to be renewed to repentance again.

Albert Barnes clarifies this by emphasizing that “those awakened and convicted but not genuinely converted should be encouraged to seek conversion rather than to be warned about the peril of falling away.” Those who do not believe cannot experience a fall from grace, as they are already subject to God’s wrath regardless of whether they pretend to be saved or openly deny Jesus Christ. (John 3:36).

This concept applies to individuals of Jewish and Gentile descent who, despite encountering the Holy Spirit, in Jack’s estimate, do not authentically embody His presence but instead feign possession of full redemption. (Romans 8:9).

In response to his disciples’ inquiry about salvation, Jesus emphasized the impossibility of human efforts, stating, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:25-26).

Ultimately, salvation is a divine undertaking. If salvation is indeed from the Lord, and it is His will that none should perish but all should repent, why would He ordain that certain individuals can never be saved? Such a notion appears wholly contradictory.

The Old Testament, as Jack aptly notes, serves as a precursor or foreshadowing of truths that find their ultimate revelation, comprehension, and fulfillment in the New Testament.

Nevertheless, the deliberate sermon title chosen by Jack, “Who are those who can NEVER be saved?”, seems to contradict the inseparable unity bridging the Old and New Testaments.

To express my dissent regarding Jack’s perspective, I wish to draw attention to God’s poignant plea for Israel to repent from their deviations and idolatries, as articulated in Malachi 3:7:

"Yet from the days of your fathers You have gone away from My ordinances And have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the LORD of hosts. "But you said, 'In what way shall we return?'"

This plea is perfectly juxtaposed with Jesus’ lament in Luke 13:34, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” Note carefully that He said “would not” and not “can not.”

Please pay close attention to the term “often” as mentioned in the passage from Luke. It emphasizes the consistent and enduring nature of the Lord’s efforts to welcome back the Jewish people whenever they turned to Him.

This starkly contrasts with Jack’s assertion that a New Testament Jew who reverts to the Law after exposure to Christian teachings can never attain salvation.

How does he reconcile the notion that the axe falls only once in the New Testament, offering no chance of redemption to apostates, with the numerous opportunities for repentance provided to the Jews in the Old Testament? Indeed, the confusion in Jack’s message can be very perplexing to his audiences.

In the Old Testament, the history of Israel is punctuated by numerous instances of apostasy, signifying a departure from God and His covenant. The book of Judges in the Old Testament vividly portrays this lamentable trend. Judges 2:11-23 succinctly encapsulates Israel’s recurring cycle of apostasy spanning over 400 years.

The repetitive pattern of falling into idolatry, facing divine consequences, experiencing brief periods of relief and deliverance, and subsequently returning to God was a continuous cycle.

This cyclic behavior underscores God’s enduring patience and willingness to forgive each time Israel sought repentance.

This narrative challenges Jack Hibbs to recognize the profound depth of God’s forgiveness and mercy, prompting a reconsideration of his pessimistic query, “Who are those who can NEVER be saved?”

DENNIS PRAGER SERVES AS AN EXEMPLARY ILLUSTRATION OF GOD’S ENDURING PATIENCE AND LONG SUFFERING TO THIS VERY DAY.

The following discourse challenges Jack’s perspective regarding the fate of a Jewish individual who rejects Christian teachings and reverts to Judaic practices, suggesting that such a stance lacks theological validity.

The Old Testament consistently portrays God’s enduring patience towards the Jewish people, notwithstanding their historical lapses in faith.

Dennis Prager, a prominent radio host renowned for his exceptional communication skills, commands an extensive audience of over a billion listeners annually.

Covering a broad spectrum of subjects including politics, culture, and religion, Prager’s overarching goal is to propagate Judeo-Christian values and to encourage a broader acceptance of them.

While he has departed from Modern Orthodoxy, he continues to uphold Jewish customs, exemplifying a fusion of traditions while remaining steadfast in his Jewish identity.

Prager has actively engaged in numerous interfaith dialogues, spanning various religious traditions. These discussions have included dialogues with Catholics at the Vatican, Muslims in the Persian Gulf, Hindus in India, and Protestants at Christian seminaries across America.

Notable among these interactions was a dialogue titled “Ask a Jew, Ask a Gentile” with Jack Hibbs over a year ago, hosted by Pastor Dudley Rutherford at Shepherd Church in Porter Ranch.

In this dialogue, Prager expressed profound admiration and respect for the Christian faith while stopping short of acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Messiah who has already fulfilled God’s laws. Prager forcefully says,

I regard Christianity as a divine way of bringing the world to Sinai. So, I see, all of you here, well, nearly all of you, and the two wonderful pastors between whom I am sitting, as divinely ordained, in your Christianity. I don’t see you as a false religion. I would respectfully say there’s truth to it. I’m happy you have it. I believe that it is a divine way of bringing the Gentiles to Sinai, and the world to Sinai. [Maimonides in the 11th Century] wrote that it’s Christians who overwhelmingly brought the Torah to the world. more than Jews have. And for that I thank you and how could I not believe that that is a divine calling since that’s what I want. I want the world to know the Torah, and you’re making it possible. (Emphasis added)

Prager’s profound respect for Christianity, which he views as a legitimate faith rather than a false belief system, indicates exposure to the teachings of numerous evangelical ministers.

Prager appears to have gained insights, experienced spiritual revelations, and even encountered the Holy Spirit, albeit from an external perspective as a non-believer, according to Jack Hibbs.

Despite this, Prager consistently reverts to his Jewish faith, even considering Christianity as a divine instrument for reinstating the principles of Sinai (the Torah; Law).

The pivotal question I would like to pose to Jack Hibbs concerns whether Prager, by persistently returning to Judaism despite exposure to Christian doctrine, has forfeited the possibility of salvation, and can NEVER be saved.

“FALLING AWAY” VERSUS “APOSTASY”

The term “never” is explicated in the Oxford Languages Dictionary as “not ever, at no time in the past or future,” and in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not under any condition.” In other words, as I confirmed earlier, never is the timespan between birth and death.

Taken to be the correct and exact definition of the word, we have no option but to conclude that it suggests that individuals who are deemed unsalvageable are excluded from the world that Jesus Christ loved and was sacrificed for, as outlined in John 3:16.

Jack Hibbs, a zealous preacher known for his staunch opposition to Calvinism, paradoxically aligns closely with some of Calvinism’s fundamental tenets.

Central to Calvinist beliefs is the concept that Jesus reserves His love solely for the elect, never extending it to the reprobate (those predetermined by God for eternal damnation), and thus, His sacrifice on the cross was intended exclusively for the elect.

While Jack Hibbs would likely disavow this view, his selective emphasis on particular theological concepts while neglecting others raises concerns about the discernment exhibited by him and his followers.

This unbalanced presentation of biblical truths can lead to extreme interpretations, complicating the clarity of his message.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORDS “NEVER,” “IMPOSSIBLE,” AND “AGAIN”

Whether Jack intentionally omitted the term “again” or inadvertently overlooked it remains uncertain. Nevertheless, he crafted the narrative to bolster his argument.

Through the deliberate exclusion of “again” and his emphasis on “impossible,” he tailored the message to reinforce his claim that specific individuals are irreversibly beyond redemption.

Jack Hibbs acknowledges the possibility of believers who have strayed coming back to God and receiving forgiveness upon their return.

It is paramount to recognize the significance of the term “return” in grasping the essence of repentance. Hibbs distinguishes two concepts: apostasy and falling away.

In his interpretation, apostasy pertains to those who have been exposed to Christian teachings but have not truly embraced them with faith.

Conversely, “falling away” refers to individuals who initially embraced the faith as true believers but later became disenchanted with a church or its members, leading them to regress into worldly practices or revert to legalistic beliefs.

THE JH MANDATORY DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN “FALLING AWAY” AND “APOSTASY”

In his analysis of distinguishing between “falling away” and “apostasy,” Hibbs undertakes two key points. He underscores that the Book of Hebrews was directed at Jewish individuals familiar with Christian teachings, who reverted to the Mosaic Law upon disenchantment with the Christian community or for some other reason.

Paul’s epistles were not aimed at non-believers specifically. Instead, the letter he wrote to the established churches primarily served to guide, uplift, and correct the congregations. Additionally, Paul defended his apostolic authority and the message of grace against false teachings and adversaries. At any rate, Paul would never have written to unbelievers in an attempt to encourage them to leave the first principles of the doctrines of Christ and to press on to perfection.

At this juncture, Jack’s interpretation begins to teeter perilously on the brink of misinterpretation, at risk of a catastrophic collapse. Paul’s correspondence did not target disenchanted Jews exposed to Christian beliefs who subsequently rejected them.

Jack contends that these individuals never truly embraced Jesus Christ and are beyond salvation as they essentially re-crucified Him by their apostasy back into Judaism.

The writer of Hebrews delineates a cohort of individuals who have undergone transformative repentance to Christ, employing the term “once been enlightened.”

This expression is similarly utilized in 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 to signify a parallel spiritual awakening.

Additionally, the writer characterizes these individuals as having “tasted the heavenly gift,” a notion commonly associated with conversion, as evident in John 4:10, Romans 6:23, and James 1:17-18.

While some may perceive the term “tasted” as implying an incomplete experience, this interpretation is challenged by its usage in Hebrews 2:9 to describe Jesus’ experience with death, emphasizing the genuine nature of it.

This depiction leaves no room for doubt regarding the authenticity of this experience. A comparable reference is found in 1 Peter 2:3, drawing upon Psalm 34:8 for additional context.

This is the essence of the term ‘again,’ isn’t it? The Oxford Dictionary of Languages elucidates it as ‘returning to a former position or state,’ which, in this context, alludes to a state of remorse and repentance.

Contrary to Jack Hibbs’ assertion, it does not signify an irretrievable state devoid of the possibility of repentance.”

Again, it may suffice to use the allegory of playing tennis. To illustrate, Jack Hibbs’s view to expect someone who has never played tennis in his life, to play it “again” would be illogical and downright foolish.

THE APOSTLE PETER’S APOSTASY/FALLING AWAY

Jack, I have a question that relates to Peter’s actions during a conference in Antioch where he, alongside other apostles such as Barnabas, started to separate themselves from the Gentile Christians.

The separation culminated in his reluctance to dine with them due to concerns about those who advocated circumcision. Do you perceive this behavior as indicative of Peter deviating from the faith to the extent that it stripped him completely of ever returning to God and being saved again?

Or was it just a slight glitch of falling away into sin such as going back to your old life? Jack Hibbs describes this category of falling away as the possibility of appearing like a Christian throughout the day. Still, sometimes, someone might say something hurtful over the phone and cut you off while speaking, or slam on his brakes while driving.

It’s not fair, and it can be scary, says Jack, and continues, you may have an un-Christian thought in response, but it’s essential to acknowledge it and repent immediately, and thank God, you and I can.

However, it’s important to remember that unbelievers who reject the hope of eternal life and abandon the assembly of believers of whom they had been a part for some time to return to the world of unbelievers can never be saved. It’s tickets and game-over for them.

Was Jack referring to the incident in his church when some church attendees got up and walked out when he began to speak about the strange and weird happenings in Genesis 6:1-6, and fallen angels who supposedly married human women and produced the Nephilim?

He seems to have spoken an anathema over them concluding that they can never be saved because they abandoned the assembly of his church.

A misguided or sinful notion concealed within the mind of a Christian, known solely to God, does not impede the spread of the Gospel among diverse nations, particularly the Jews, for whom the Book of Hebrews was intended, as Jack asserts.

Regarding Peter’s conduct in Antioch, was he simply harboring dissenting sentiments and thoughts towards certain apostles due to disagreements? This scenario seems improbable. Could he have been feigning a Christian demeanor and mindset? Such a notion is to be dismissed.

It is undeniable that the situation was more insidious than initially perceived. Peter regressed to adherence to the Law, a course condemned by Paul as one that undermines and compromises the authenticity of the gospel.

Paul’s statement, “If righteousness could be attained through the law, Christ died for nothing,” underscores this point. It is plausible that Barnabas and some other Jewish companions, following Peter’s deviation towards the Law, were in danger of forsaking the path of righteousness for a vain attempt to please those of the circumcision by adherence to the Law.

Paul expressed profound dismay at their conduct, likening their departure from the teachings of the Gospel to an act of betrayal that nullified the significance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (Galatians 2:21). Notably, Peter, an established apostle who had performed miracles in the name of Christ and professed genuine faith, was among the chief culprits involved.

On a different note, Jack Hibbs posits that individuals identifying as Christians but lacking genuine salvation, particularly those who had been exposed to the Gospel yet reverted to adhering strictly to the Law, such as certain Jewish converts, face a state of permanent loss, irretrievable in terms of salvation. This perspective underscores a decisive fate for them. “That’s it. It’s tickets for them. They’ve had it.”

I wrote a comment on the first video of his series titled “Who Are Those Who Can Never Be Saved?” but I haven’t received a reply yet. In my comment, I asked him to explain whether Peter, Barnabas, and other Jews who followed Peter in his apostasy had lost their salvation or proved that they had never been saved owing to their reversion to the Law, as mentioned in Galatians 2:11-21. However, since then, most of my comments mysteriously disappeared. So, it’s not only non-believers such as META who suppress believers’ Instagram content but also believers stifling their fellow brothers’ and sisters’ comments. That’s not kosher, to say the least (no pun intended).

In my most recent comment, I wrote:

@lessingtom

It seems that Jack Hibbs is deleting every comment that exposes his errors. That’s the first sign of a budding false teacher. He preaches Jesus Christ and Him crucified but cleverly weaves in horrendous erroneous doctrines that subtly contradict what he says.

I am confident that this comment may not withstand Jack’s wrath.

Peter experienced a vision where he witnessed a sheet descending from heaven, containing animals both clean and unclean. Instructed by God to slaughter and consume these animals, Peter hesitated, arguing that he had never consumed anything considered impure.

This episode provided him with a valuable lesson. However, Peter later veered into apostasy, a perilous path that could have compromised the integrity of the Gospel if left unchecked. Fortunately, Paul intervened, publicly reproving Peter at the conference.

Fortunately, Peter did not reject Paul’s stern warning with a stubborn attitude. Instead, he humbly and immediately accepted the correction. This is also the reason why he could write the following stern warning.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16).

WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF HEBREWS 6:1-6?

Using a metaphor can aid in better comprehending the passage. A newborn infant cannot digest solid foods and, as a result, should exclusively be nourished with milk.

However, as the infant progresses to a stage where milk alone no longer meets the nutritional demands of his/her growing body and they are prepared to transition to solid foods while still consuming milk, concerns begin to arise.

This is precisely how Paul introduces his cautionary message about avoiding spiritual stagnation in Hebrews 5:12, where he issues a warning.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14).

A thorough examination of the passage reveals that Paul did not address the epistle to unbelievers who were already familiar with Christian teachings and likely close to accepting salvation.

The word “milk” is mentioned five times in the New Testament and always in connection with spiritually newborn individuals rather than unbelievers. Furthermore, all the words the writer uses are terms applicable only to believers.

ENLIGHTENMENT: The Greek term in question is “phōtizō,” which finds translation in English as “illuminated” in Hebrews 10:32, and as “enlightened” in Ephesians 1:18 and Hebrews 6:4.

It is important to note that these terms do not pertain to unbelievers. In contrast, unbelievers are depicted as “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.”

The term “enlightened” typically alludes to the transformative experience of conversion, as seen in 2 Corinthians 4:3-6. Therefore, Jack Hibbs’s assertion that it pertains to unbelievers is categorically incorrect.

TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT: Jack Hibbs’s simplistic attempt to extend this concept to nonbelievers is similarly misguided. It also can only be applied to the initial conversion experience (John 4:10; Romans 6:23; James 1:17-18), and not, as Jack Hibbs suggests, to unbelievers who have superficially responded to the Gospel message.

WHO HAVE SHARED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT: WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 

The interpretation of words in the Bible holds significant weight. In this context, the term “made” (ginomai) stands out as pivotal, underscoring that it does not apply to individuals who, after encountering Christian teachings, subsequently regress into apostasy.

The term “ginomai” denotes “receiving being” or “coming into existence.” Given that the Holy Spirit is the One who bestows “being” (new life) or “existence,” it unequivocally pertains to the creation of an eternal entity primed for eternal life.

Therefore, to suggest that unbelievers have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit just by attending a Christian church while feigning or professing to be Christians is downright foolish.

The vital need for spiritual growth and a deepened understanding of God weighed heavily on Paul, leading him to believe that the only solution for the Hebrew Christians’ tendency towards spiritual immaturity was to urge them to advance in their journey of faith.

By advancing appropriately, they could circumvent the risk of revisiting the fundamental aspects of renewed repentance. Such an act of repentance would putatively necessitate Jesus Christ being crucified anew and enduring the shame of the cross once more as far as each defector is concerned, a scenario deemed impossible by Paul.

Why is it impossible? Having established that only believers are included in Hebrews 6:1-6, the only way to accommodate Jack Hibbs’s rendition thereof would be to accept the notion that believers can lose their salvation furnishing them completely maladroit to be saved again, a scenario which Jack Hibbs fortunately does not support.

Henceforth his forced opinion that those who can never be saved are not believers who had lost their salvation but professing Jewish unbelievers who had been exposed to Christian doctrine and had returned to the Mosaic Law, a situation which again must be stressed is impossible since Paul is not addressing unbelievers, let alone professing unbelievers but, in fact, believers who cannot lose their salvation.

The question that emerges is: Can the term “fall away” be associated with believers? Can believers fall away and become entangled in doctrines detrimental to their Christian demeanor and shipwreck their faith?

In his second epistle to Timothy, Paul references two incidents that demonstrate when born-again Christians veered into detrimental paths during their lifetime. He reproaches Hymenaeus and Philetus for propagating the notion that the resurrection had already occurred, leading to the destabilization of the faith of many (2 Timothy 2:18).

Moreover, in an earlier account in 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul took severe action by handing Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan to teach them not to blaspheme. These actions and statements by Paul are distinctly directed towards individuals within the Christian faith rather than non-believers. Ananias and Saphira are two similar examples of the destruction of their flesh when they lied to the Holy Spirit and were immediately struck down dead (Acts 5:1-11).

The expression “have made shipwreck of their faith” in 1 Timothy 1:19 is specifically relevant to individuals who have already embraced the faith, as only they can undergo a shipwreck of their faith.

The phrase “making shipwreck” of their faith is utilized here to depict an individual whose moral judgment or compass has veered off course, leading them to navigate their vessel towards perilous rocks instead of a secure harbor.

Hence, individuals who have consciously dismissed a sound conscience have experienced a corresponding erosion of their faith. This correlation is reminiscent of the notion that theological misinterpretations frequently stem from ethical and moral lapses.

Furthermore, only a believer can be handed over to Satan with a single purpose in mind and that is for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Two individuals in Ephesus, Hymenaeus (mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:17) and Alexander, exemplify this particular principle. It remains uncertain whether this Alexander is the same person referenced in Acts 19:33 and 2 Timothy 4:14, though it is likely not the case.

In response to these two individuals’ blasphemous actions, Paul advocated for their expulsion from the congregation, a practice akin to excommunication (as seen in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5) and their abandonment into the dominion of Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4).

Paul regarded the congregation as a sanctuary and safeguard for believers, without which they would be vulnerable to significant harm. Therefore, the act of excommunication was intended to correct the behavior of these two apostates.

It’s worth noting that Paul’s intention was rehabilitative rather than punitive, as evidenced by his writings in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. Unbelievers do not need any punitive measures to correct them in Jack Hibbs’s framework of apostasy since his interpretation leaves no room whatsoever for repentance.

Individuals who profess faith but remain entrenched in unbelief and subsequently deviate from Christian teachings cannot be considered part of a church or congregation and, therefore, are ineligible for excommunication from the community of believers.

CONCLUSION

When I expressed concerns to Jack Hibbs’s colleagues, regarding his beliefs on the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-6, I was criticized for fostering discord among fellow believers by focusing on a secondary doctrine as my point of departure.

If the attribution of creative abilities to Satan and his demons, allowing them to unite in matrimony with mortal women and become one flesh, is not considered blasphemous, only then would I entertain Jack’s and his colleagues’ criticism that it is a peripheral doctrine and gladly retract my stance.

It is imperative to clarify that this issue does not merely revolve around divergent opinions that warrant respect, as our esteemed brethren have pointed out, but that it attacks the very heart of the Gospel and especially God’s righteous dealings with mankind.

I sincerely hope that this discourse concerning Jack Hibbs’s perspective on the belief that certain individuals are beyond salvation is not marginalized. Should this topic be treated as insignificant or a secondary doctrine, it raises the question of why a prominent preacher such as Jack Hibbs would base an entire series of YouTube videos and a book on a seemingly tangential doctrine as the Nephilim.

Do these subjects only hold significance as peripheral doctrines when highlighted as a cautionary measure through biblical discernment, while the tendency of prominent preachers to emphasize these purported secondary doctrines extensively in their sermons and books leads to fame and fortune? It is worth noting that Eric Stakelbeck briefly references the royalties garnered from Jack’s book “Living in The Daze of Deception,” in an interview he had with Jack to which Jack promptly redirected the conversation.

It is understandable why Erick Stakelbeck expressed amusement and remarked, “As long as you get the royalties, it’s OK.” Let us delve into the potential royalties that Jack’s book, “Living in the Daze of Deception,” could generate. Typically, authors receive royalties ranging from 15% to 25% of the total sales. Assuming a selling price of R330 in South Africa, a 15% royalty calculation for 100,000 copies sold amounts to a remarkable sum of R4,950,000 (equivalent to 260,902 US Dollars). On the other hand, a 25% royalty would yield nearly half more, totaling R8,250,000 (equivalent to 434,837 US Dollars). Certainly, the distortion of God’s Word with the excuse that it is a matter of personal opinion is a very lucrative business.

Amir Tsarfati points out that the narrative in Genesis 6:1-6 which explores the emergence of hybrid giants (known as Nephilim), resulting from unions between mortal women and fallen angels, is not a doctrinal matter. This implies that it does not pertain to matters of salvation. Jesus unequivocally stated, “In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30).

With two distinct resurrections specified in God’s Word—one for the righteous and another for the unrighteous (Acts 24:14-15)—it prompts us to consider to which resurrection Jesus was referring: the first, the second, or both.

The phrase “like angels of God in heaven” is commonly interpreted as evidence supporting its reference solely to the first resurrection. This argument hinges on the notion that the terms “angels of God” and “in heaven” do not apply to fallen angels. Fallen angels, known as the sons of God (Bene ha Elohim), share the same designation of “angels of God” as holy angels. Consequently, the term “angels of God” can encompass fallen angels as well. Similarly the word “heaven” has different meanings. The dictionary defines it thus:

Ouranos (οὐρανός) is a Greek word that appears in the New Testament 273 times. It is the genitive plural masculine form of the word οὐρανός. Ouranos has many meanings, including:

• Sky
• Air
• Firmament
• Any area above the earth
• Heaven (God’s abode, third heaven)
• The place of sun, moon, and stars
• The atmosphere of the earth (first heaven) (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Considering these facts, it becomes apparent that Jesus regarded both the holy and fallen angels as genderless beings incapable of marriage or reproduction. This perspective is anything but pathetic. Really! Should these gentlemen choose to continue in their pathetic errors, it may be prudent for them to discuss their perspectives on the resurrection with Jesus Christ.

Bear in mind that the Sadducees challenged Jesus on the veracity of the resurrection by posing a hypothetical question about a woman who had multiple husbands and died one after the other. They pompously inquired, “In the resurrection, whose wife will she be out of the seven?” (Matthew 22:23-33).

It is important to consider that the Sadducees believed that a person’s soul and spirit die with the body, which means there is no resurrection or afterlife. Jesus responded to this belief thoughtfully. He said, “In the resurrection, people will not marry or be given in marriage. They will be like angels of God in heaven.” However, this response did not convince the skeptics. The turning point came when Jesus reminded them of what God said: “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” At this point, the people were truly amazed by Jesus’ teachings.

After considering Jesus’s teachings regarding the resurrection and its correlation with the absence of gender distinctions in the afterlife for both the saved and unsaved individuals, it becomes apparent that Genesis 6:1-6 holds significant relevance in the context of salvation. The concepts of resurrection and the afterlife are integral components of the doctrine of salvation. Any belief or doctrine that contradicts Jesus’s teachings is considered another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4) and is deemed anti-Christ. Thus, it is essential for individuals to carefully study and comprehend Jesus’s words in Matthew 22:30 for a proper understanding. Anything other than this is dangerous.

ADDENDUM

WHAT IS A FALSE TEACHER?

It is important to differentiate between rogue false teachers and those that may have momentarily taught falsely, which I would call momentary false teachers. The first type of people intentionally distort the Scriptures for personal gain (Jude 1:11; 2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

Unlike the rogue false teachers, the momentary false teachers teach a pure and untainted Gospel concerning salvation, sanctification, and eventual glorification, but weave in certain minor doctrines, as they call them, that lead, others astray from the truth. Some teachings may appear trivial at first glance, yet diligent scrutiny through Biblical research reveals their latent perils. Jesus did not merely caution against false teachers but specifically admonished us to “Take heed that no man deceives you” (Matthew 24:4), underscoring the susceptibility of even revered preachers to mislead their audience.

For this reason, church elders should diligently study and uphold God’s Word as faithful stewards, ready to address any doctrinal deviations in the pastor’s teachings. It is essential not to assume that interpretations of the doctrines within the Holy Bible are subjective, with the notion that everyone has his own opinion.

A clear example of this could be a believer in Calvinism who comes across Jack Hibbs’s YouTube series titled “Who Are Those Who Can Never Be Saved?” The reader may conclude that their Reformed Theology must be true, as Jack references the reprobate who are believed to be incapable of being saved. On the flip side of the coin, an individual of the Jewish faith, such as Dennis Prager, may hold the belief that there exists inherent truth within Christianity. Nevertheless, the urge to return to his Hebrew heritage may lead him to a sense of being unredeemable. In short, this is known as deception of your neighbors.