HOW LONG IS ENOUGH?

One of my questions for Free Grace people - and anyone else firmly in the "once saved, always saved" camp - is this: How LONG does a person need to experience "faith" in order to get their irrevocable ticket to heaven stamped?

As soon as you claim that faith instantly guarantees a person eternal life from that moment it is expressed, you are implying that faith can be genuinely salvific even if it proves to be a passing thing.

So what is the minimum amount of time a person would need to "believe in Jesus"? 

A day? An hour? A minute?

Does it just need to be long enough to walk the aisle at church, kneel at the altar and have a deacon pray over you? 

Why does the Apostle Paul talk about being "IN THE FAITH"? 

2 Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

When we talk about salvation by faith alone, are we picturing "faith" as being possibly short-lived or necessarily continuous?

More importantly, how does Scripture envision saving faith?

IT'S ALL ABOUT RENEWAL

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 

This verse is foundational to my way of thinking about faith and to my way of preaching.

My working assumption is that most every believer desires a stronger faith, a closer walk with God. 

We read about miracles - of olden times and in our own age - and we long to see God at work in our own lives in a dramatic, undeniable way. We look at the Scriptural heroes of the faith or modern saints and we feel inadequate, well aware that we are not living up to our potential. We battle the same sins over and over and it leaves us questioning whether our faith is real or even whether God is real. We pray and pray and pray for the healing of our own body or for a loved one, and nothing happens. 

And all of that can lead to one of three outcomes.

Either we end up deconstructing our faith and walking away. We are saturated in the world's way of thinking - and the world says there is no God - so we stop fighting the world and just give in and go along.

Or we get stuck in Peter's position - unable to walk away from Jesus and the church because we know there is SOMETHING there ("You have the words of life!" John 6:68) but then we simply continue uncomfortably in the status quo. Perhaps for a lifetime.

OR we go on a quest to really nail down what faith is about. To explore it to its depths. To get our own hearts and minds in alignment with God's word and His will. 

But this doesn't come by learning some new Bible study technique or starting a new prayer habit or attending church regularly. 

At least those sorts of things are not the starting point.

Paul says the starting point is your mind: how you conceive reality. 

He says the question is this: Is your mind shaped according to the world - with all its various philosophies, assumptions, traditions, and conventional wisdom? 

Or is your mind being shaped and renewed in accordance with the Word of God?

So here is the scary truth, then:

A person could miss out on the fullness of life that Jesus promised (John 10:10) because their thinking is off. Their imagination has not been renewed. 

Human transformation is God's goal. Renewal is the path.

IS GOD NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING BAD MEN GOOD?

Earlier today, I came across this quote from Leonard Ravenhill:

“Jesus did not come into the world to make bad men good. He came into the world to make dead men live!”

I don't know what to make of it. Can't both be true?

What exactly is wrong with the idea that God is interested in making bad people into good people? Especially when we consider that Jesus implied that one can only be truly good by being like God.

Is it not God's goal that we become good? That we become like Him?

It seems to me that a homeowner's process of demolition followed by a remodel would be a fitting metaphor for God's desire for humanity.

A general breaking down followed by rebuilding is seen all over the Bible:

• Baptism of Repentance followed by Baptism of the Holy Spirit
• Justification followed by Sanctification
• Forgiveness followed by living as the Image of God
• Cleaned Up followed by Faithful
• Old Ways Gone followed by New Life Begun
• Believe followed by Confess
• Death followed by Resurrection
• Grafted In followed by Producing Fruit
• Remove Heart of Stone followed by Giving a Heart of Flesh

It seems like "bad men becoming good" is God's general goal.

And "dead men becoming alive" is just one metaphor of the larger goal. 

RIGHT MEANS, WRONG END

In typical American Christianity, a person's forgiveness by God is seen as a means to an end.

And the end is his or her eternity in heaven. 

It's simple. 

Now, I would agree that God's forgiveness should be understood as a means, but time and again, the Scriptures make it clear that the end He has in mind is our righteousness.

We were created to function as God's image here on earth and I don't see anything in Scripture to indicate that He scrapped that original plan when humans through the sin wrench into he works.

It only meant that we all had to take the long way around.

For example, it's right there in one of the most famous Old Testament prophecies of a coming time when God's Spirit would dwell in God's people. Take a look at what is bookended by talk about getting people cleaned up in Ezekiel 36:

24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. 

FAITH ALONE?

I continue to debate with my friend about Free Grace Theology - the extreme version of "once saved, always saved" which maintains that faith is mere mental assent to the proposition that Jesus died for your sins. And once that is established, you have a salvation that can never be taken away from you. Even if you spend the rest of your earthly life living like the devil, heaven is guaranteed by your single profession of faith. 

From what I can gather, one of the central tenets of Free Grace is a firm, clearcut distinction between justification and sanctification.

Justification, of course, comes first and is based on faith alone. It is your ticket to eternal life. "Just believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved."

Sanctification is a completely separate process where the believer now moves toward Christlikeness.

At least, preferably.

Not NECESSARILY, just preferably.

And if you think of it, if you believe in "once saved, always saved", sanctification can't be a requirement for a believer's salvation because sanctification in an ongoing process which obviously involves "works".

And works cannot be a part of salvation. 

Right? 

"We are saved by faith and not by works." Isn't this what we Protestants are taught?

But while Protestants are big on salvation by "faith alone", you know what is funny?

There is only ONE time in the entire Bible where you find the phrase "faith alone".

It is in James 2:24:

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Hmmmm. 

That's a bit problematic, isn't it?

[To be clear, I'm not implying Catholics are necessarily on the right path with their doctrines. I think both sides tend to make a lot of assumptions about the core of Christian faith and those assumptions are based on the accumulation of centuries of reactionary theology which has been alternatively skewed and then recovered.]

5 DAYS ON SARDINES

It's Saturday, June 6, 2026.

I didn't write my sardine wrap up yesterday because I went to pick up Melissa at the airport at 11:30 pm instead. Can't do it all!

Here's the recap of my weight loss over 5 days of eating only sardines:

Beginning weight: 200

After 1 Day: 197

After 2 Days: 192.4

After 3 Days: 192

After 4 Days: 191.8

After 5 Days: 191.6

Obviously, my weight loss plateaued after a few days. And I'm honestly not sure what this means. 

I was definitely in a calorie deficit every day. A can of sardines has about 170 calories and I was eating 5 each day. That's only 850 calories. 

Day 5 was the roughest of the week. I got some weird hunger aches in the afternoon, but I just wasn't in the mood to crack open a tin. I guess my brain decided the hunger was more tolerable than another fish!

I was hoping to experience the rise in metabolism and clarity of thinking that some people report on a sardine fast. MAYBE I had a bit more energy and MAYBE my brain fog lifted a bit, but it's hard to tell because I just don't sleep all that well when Melissa is not here in the house. And when I don't sleep well, I lack energy and clarity. So, with one too many variables, it's hard to say anything definitive on that front.

All in all, I would do it again. In fact, I am tempted to do it again to see if my initial weight drops are comparable or if this week was a fluke.

But not anytime soon. 

END OF SARDINES DAY 4

Maybe I'm weird, but this week's sardine diet hasn't been all that tough. 

Here's what it's done to my weight so far:

Monday morning, before my first sardine: 200 lbs

Tuesday morning, after 1 full day: 197

Wednesday morning, after 2 days: 192.4

Thursday morning, after 3 days: 192

If this trajectory holds, that's a crazy amount of weight loss in a few days, even accounting for the fact that some portion of it is water - which will return when I go back to a normal diet on Saturday.

The truly amazing thing is that it's rapid weight loss that didn't come with the expense of hunger pains. Truly, this little experiment has not been physically uncomfortable in the least. 

And it's been economical! Most days I have consumed 5 cans of sardines - at a cost of $1.17 a can. 

And talk about quick and convenient! 

I find I don't linger over a can of sardines. 

No need for a lunch HOUR!