What About Baptism for the Dead?

Summary

Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast

Episode: What About Baptism for the Dead?

Host: Greg Koukl
Date: July 22, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Greg Koukl addresses a question from his daughter about the doctrine of "baptism for the dead" as practiced in the Mormon (LDS) church. He critically examines the biblical basis for the practice, specifically focusing on 1 Corinthians 15:29, and provides guidance for evaluating doctrines that are built on isolated or unclear passages. The show also features in-depth discussions with callers about the exclusivity of salvation in Christianity and the nature of time, both on earth and in heaven.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Responding to a Personal Question About "Baptism for the Dead"

[00:29–~23:33]

• Greg’s daughter asks: "What do you know about baptism of the dead in the Mormon Church?"

  • Greg shares his excitement in being asked theological questions by his adult daughter, emphasizing the importance of parents modeling consistent Christian living to help children maintain their faith.
  • "The most consistent indicator that children of Christians will stay Christians when they're older is whether their parents lived a consistent Christian life." (Greg Koukl, 02:40)

• Biblical basis for 'baptism for the dead':

  • Relies solely on 1 Corinthians 15:29—a single, vague reference.
  • No other scriptural support for this practice.

  "It's based on a single reference Paul makes to it in First Corinthians 15. Nothing else."
  —Greg Koukl (04:38)

• Dangers of Doctrines Built on Single Verses:

  • Inadvisable to construct major doctrines or ecclesiastical practices on one unclear or isolated verse, especially if it appears to contradict clearer biblical passages.
  • Noteworthy quote:

    "It's always dangerous to build any kind of doctrine on one verse, especially if one, the idea is odd."
    —Greg Koukl (09:23)

• Baptism for the dead in LDS theology:

  • Explains the LDS doctrine of proxy baptism (performing baptism on behalf of deceased ancestors), and how Mormons use extensive genealogical records to enable the practice.
  • Greg argues, “It’s a rescue operation by proxy, based on a single, vague and contextually unclear verse.” (paraphrased)

• The verse and its context:

  • 1 Corinthians 15 is fundamentally about resurrection, not about baptism for the dead.
  • Paul speaks in the third person—"those who are baptized for the dead"— indicating the practice may not have been something Christians did.
  • Greg suggests Paul could be referencing a practice among pagans, not advocating it for Christians.

  "He doesn't say, why do we baptize for the dead? It says, why are they baptized for them? This is not something Christians are doing. Somebody else is doing whatever this is."
  —Greg Koukl (08:40)

• Summary of Greg's position:

  • We do not know exactly what Paul meant.
  • Building core practices or doctrines on unclear or solitary references is theologically unsound.
  • Any doctrine essential for the faith is made clear and repeated in Scripture.
  • Baptism does not save; it is an outward testimony of inward change.

  "Any doctrine that's important is not going to be just communicated to the Corinthians in writing in this vague way. No, you're going to find the important things repeated multiple times. Why? Because they're the important things. Duh."
  —Greg Koukl (17:20)

• Concluding counsel:

  • Just because something is obscure does not mean it supports speculative or elaborate doctrine.
  • LDS (Mormon) theological justification may rely on things outside the Bible, like Joseph Smith’s writings, but not on a sound biblical basis.

  "I was able to give her a substantive answer. I don't know for sure, but you can't base anything important on a single reference that's vague and seems to be inconsistent with other passages. That's the thing I want her to keep. And it's the same thing I want you to keep, too."
  —Greg Koukl (22:00)

---

2. Caller Segment: Exclusivism and Salvation

[23:34–47:59]

Caller: Xander (Canada)
Main issue: Reconciling the exclusivity of salvation through Christ with passages that suggest God desires all to be saved (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:4).

• Xander’s question: If "exclusivism" is true (only those who believe in Jesus are saved), what about those who seem to have no chance to believe—are they condemned merely because of birthplace or history? (25:02)

• Greg’s response frameworks:

  • Must interpret unclear passages by the clear—Scripture repeatedly asserts exclusivity through Christ (26:33).
  • The "will of God" in Scripture is used in two senses: what God decrees (which will happen) and what God desires (which can be resisted). (28:09)
  • 1 Timothy 2:4 means God desires all to be saved but does not guarantee all will be saved.

    “There are two different ways of understanding the will of God.” (29:32)

  • Romans 1:18–20—everyone has "enough light" through general revelation to be accountable before God, not necessarily to be saved; lack of explicit knowledge of Jesus is not the only issue, as all have rejected the light given.

    “General revelation is adequate to condemn them. They are without excuse.” (32:44)

• If someone responds to general revelation:

  • Greg affirms God will “honor that” with further light, suggesting God's sovereignty and grace act on those who seek Him, but ultimately salvation after Christ is through faith in Jesus (33:59).
  • The gospel is necessary because, despite initial revelation, people reject God.

• Romans 1 and Atheists:

  • Paul is describing all of humanity, not a subgroup. The suppression of truth applies to every person, including atheists.

    “Paul says they suppress the truth of God. I think the evidence for God is obvious. And this is why even atheists talk about Mother Nature...design is obvious.” (44:26–45:35)

• Big picture:

  • Every human is responsible for the revelation received.
  • There isn’t a biblical loophole allowing salvation apart from Christ in the New Covenant era, but God is just and gracious.

---

3. Caller Segment: The Nature of Time in Heaven and Earth

[48:07–end]

Caller: Gail (Encinitas)
Main issue: Is there time in heaven? Do departed Christians experience events "all at once" or sequentially?

• Greg’s quick philosophy of time:

  "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."

• Argument: In heaven, as on earth, sequential events occur, so time must also exist there.

• If there were no time, it would be impossible to do or experience anything, even worship; time is intrinsic to action and change.

  "If there's no time in heaven, then nothing happens." (51:41)

• God and time:

  • Traditional claim: God is "outside time"
  • Greg’s view: God is eternal, but Scripture does not require God to be outside time; in fact, biblical events suggest God experiences succession of events.
  • Distinction: Humans are everlasting (a beginning but no end), God is eternal (no beginning, no end).

  "If God's outside of time, then nothing happens for God. He doesn't do anything." (52:44)

• Scriptural support:

  • Paul’s argument that God is currently the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob supports the idea that even for God, time is meaningful (56:40).

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• "It's always dangerous to build any kind of doctrine on one verse, especially if one, the idea is odd."
  —Greg Koukl (09:23)

• "He doesn't say, why do we baptize for the dead? It says, why are they baptized for them? This is not something Christians are doing."
  —Greg Koukl (08:40)

• "Any doctrine that's important is not going to be just communicated to the Corinthians in writing in this vague way. No, you're going to find the important things repeated multiple times."
  —Greg Koukl (17:20)

• "General revelation is adequate to condemn them. They are without excuse."
  —Greg Koukl (32:44)

• "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."
  —Greg Koukl (50:09)

• "If God's outside of time, then nothing happens for God."
  —Greg Koukl (52:44)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:29 – 23:33: Main monologue on baptism for the dead (Mormon practice, biblical basis, doctrinal soundness)
• 23:34 – 47:59: Caller Xander (exclusivism, general revelation, Romans 1 discussion)
• 48:07 – end: Caller Gail (nature of time in heaven, eternity vs. everlasting, “God outside of time?”)

---

Episode Summary & Takeaways

• Do not build theology on isolated, unclear passages.
  Particularly on issues like "baptism for the dead," the biblical warrant is tenuous at best and points more to external or pagan practices than a normative Christian doctrine.

• Sound doctrine arises from the clear, repeated teaching of Scripture.
  Essential beliefs are made clear in the Bible, not left to vague references.

• Exclusivism is biblically grounded.
  All people are responsible for the revelation they receive, yet New Testament salvation is linked to faith in Christ. God’s will can refer to His desires or His unthwartable resolve, an important distinction in reconciling difficult texts.

• Time exists wherever events and sequence exist—even in heaven.
  There is no biblical or philosophical reason to think God or believers in heaven are outside of time in the sense of all things happening at once.

---

For sharp and gracious defense of classical Christian doctrine, Greg Koukl urges clear thinking and consistent engagement with Scripture—especially on challenging or controversial issues such as “baptism for the dead.”

Transcript

[Xander]

Sam.

[Greg Koukl]

Hello, friends. Greg Koukl, Here stand A Reason is the show, and I'm here to answer your questions, take your comments, field your complaints about anything in the broad area of ethics, values and religion. My number is 5624-2487-1456-2424-8714. That's the number to call in if you're listening live or you're not listening live, but you're ready to call in during the live show, which is Tuesdays from 4 until 6. That's when we record 562-524-8714. I'm just as I'm waiting. Oh, there it is. I found it. I was waiting for the music to come up and I'm reading rapidly 1st Corinthians 15 to find a verse. And I found it because something really cool happened today. My sweet daughter, who's 18 years old and loves the Lord, sent me a text. And the text said, what do you know about baptism of the dead in the Mormon Church? What do you know about baptism of the dead in the Mormon Church? Now, I have a number of short things to say about this that are important. The first one is it was really cool for me to get a text from my daughter asking me that question. That's really cool. She's asking her dad about this question she has about, say, the Mormon Church here, the LDS Church. Now, I don't know what's prompted that because right now she's with her older brother in Alaska, but I'm glad she's asking me. And we went to church on Sunday, went to breakfast afterwards, and we talked about the sermon. And I like discipling my daughter. For many of you, it's really ordinary. It's because you homeschool your kids. You have an environment that this is really natural, but that isn't the way our situation is kind of developed, unfolded, whatever. And not that spiritual things aren't things we talk about. We do, but it's just this is really neat that she's in a stage in her life where we're able to talk about these things kind of as grownups and discuss the details. All right. So that's the first very cool thing for me. And I have told her in the past. And, you know, I've talked to so many parents who said to me, who have said to me, we have raised our girl, our boy, our daughter, our son, our children in the Lord all the time. And then now they're not walking with the Lord. They go away to college and they Go, they leave the Lord or whatever. And it burdens my heart. And I know you can't control people. People believe what they believe. You can't guarantee anything like that. Now, my understanding, by the way, just from the statistical analysis and this is trying to remember his name, Christian something or other, who does research on this. He said he did an examinations over at Notre Dame. He said that one of the things he discovered in his research is that the most consistent indicator that children of Christians will stay Christians when they're older is whether their parents lived a consistent Christian life. He said it's almost like determinative 85%. So it's just a thing to keep in mind that your kids are watching you, everything, listening to what you say, everything you say. And, and so consistency in your behavior and thinking and talking with your professed Christianity is really critical. All right. Seems obvious, but sometimes we don't think of it that way. But anyway, so she's asking me now, and this is a good thing. Okay, we get to talk. Okay, now what about her question, what do you know about baptism of the dead in the Mormon Church? Okay, so there's two things going on here. What do I know about baptism of the dead? And the second part of is it really as it's practiced in the Mormon Church? And of course, the show's coming up and I wasn't able to give a full throated response, so I gave her a short one. I'll tell you what I said because there's a lot of good stuff just in this short response, response. And the first thing I said was it's based on a single reference Paul makes to it in First Corinthians 15. Nothing else. That's what I texted back. Nothing else. I know of no other place in the Bible where anything is mentioned about baptism for the dead. And you find it in 1 Corinthians 15. And as my music was coming up, I was frantically searching and then I found it. Verse 29. Now keep in mind, 1 Corinthians 15 is all about the resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus and the final resurrection to reward or judgment. And the broad claim is there's a resurrection, Jesus was raised and will be raised. That's a good summary of 1 Corinthians 15. There is a resurrection. And if there is no resurrection, and we said there is one, then we're lying. And if your salvation is dependent on the resurrection of Jesus and there is no resurrection, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, therefore you're still in your sins and we're all a bunch of idiots. That's my paraphrase. But that's basically what Paul is saying there in 1 Corinthians 15. So there's a whole bunch of stuff about resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. So when you get to verse, what did I say? 29, he's making kind of a reference, a stray reference, and he's talking about the consequence of the final resurrection, where death loses its sting and all things will be put under subjection to Christ. And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him. So that God may be all in all, rather. And so there's an eschatological final ending and everybody lived happily ever after. Kind of note to this. But keep in mind, the whole thing he's talking about is there is a resurrection. Jesus rose from the dead and there will be a final resurrection. And in verse 29 he says this. Otherwise he's kind of going back to this discussion about is there really a resurrection? Otherwise what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them? Now it's interesting, he doesn't say, why do we baptize for the dead? It says, why are they baptized for them? This is not something Christians are doing. Somebody else is doing whatever this is. People might say, well, what is that? And my answer is really easy. I don't know. And I have some ideas and I've heard some things. But the thing is, we don't know. Now that's really important. And this is the second thing that I sent to my daughter, that it's always dangerous to build any kind of doctrine, any doctrinal practice, any church wide enterprise that you're given to as a denomination like the ldsr on one verse. It's always dangerous to build any kind of doctrine on one verse, especially if one. The idea is odd. And the concept of at least the way some people seem to be reading this, where you baptize them for the dead, the dead didn't get baptized, they're not saved because they didn't get baptized, whatever. So what we're going to do is by proxy, we're going to baptize for that person. That's why the LDS is all into genealogies. We're going to baptize by proxy for them and that will kind of spring them from wherever they're at, up higher to wherever they go. I mean, it isn't simply heaven and hell in Mormonism. But nevertheless, it's kind of a rescue operation by proxy. Oh, what's the biblical support? Here it is 1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Oh, well, what the heck is that? And why are they doing? Doesn't tell us is the point. And so what you have to do is you have to take this vague reference that seems to intimate that it's another group of people that Paul is talking about, not Christians. You're going to have to invest it with all kinds of meaning that you can't justify from the bare verse itself. Do you see how dangerous that is? You got this one verse that makes this vague reference and. Oh, okay, well, here's what he means based on. What do you say that, well, it's probably this. So we're going to bank on that. And now we're going to build a whole ecclesiastical procedure around it. Okay, see that the problem. I hope you see the problem. And it's not just a doctrine built on a single verse. But it just seems odd. Why do you say it's odd? Because it seems out of step with other clear biblical teaching. Remember, it says in Hebrews, it is appointed for a man once to die, and then comes the judgment. Jesus says to the thief on the cross, okay, today you will be with me in paradise, not the other guy, but you will. And that's today. So there's a quick turnaround there. It isn't like they're like waiting for someone to get wet on their behalf so they can be sprung out of perdition and into wherever nice place, heaven of some sort. I'm thinking from the perspective of Mormon theology. So by the way, I don't at all mean to be minimizing, disrespecting, or dissing in any sense, Mormonism. That's not my point at all. What I'm saying is this. When anybody bases their ideas, theological ideas, on a single reference that's vague, You're in hot water. And I think it turns out that this doctrine teaching of the Mormon Church is problematic because it seems to indicate the scripture seems to teach you get one shot. Once you're dead, you're either with Jesus in paradise or not. You're in Hades, you're in the. You're in the burning dump, whatever, where the fire doesn't go out, where the, you know, the worm doesn't die. It's one or the other. I mean, and this is an ultimate sense. I'm not even weighing in on the nature of the intermediate state. Well, how long does it take to get there? And does it like, snap instantaneous? I don't know. But the point is you got a choice to make before you die, and once you die, that's it. And this is why there is all throughout the Gospels, this sense of urgency to make sure that we take care of this now. And it doesn't seem to say, well, do your best now and if you mess up, don't worry, we'll baptize someone for you later and that will take care of things. So it's an odd teaching, given the rest of the biblical record that seems to indicate otherwise. By the way, notice that I haven't told you what baptism for the dead is yet. What I have told you is I don't know. But that doesn't mean just because we don't know what it is, we can't respond to this issue because this is just one vague verse. So that the lesson is any doctrine that is based on one vague verse is probably wrong. Because any doctrine that's important is not going to be just communicated to the Corinthians in writing in this vague way. No, you're going to find the important things repeated multiple times. Why? Because they're the important things. Duh. And these solitary references may raise questions. What the heck is he talking about? I am going to just make a comment in that direction in just a moment, but I want you to get this bigger picture. The more important issue, frankly, you don't build a doctrine on one verse that seems at odd with other passages that are clear, not vague. And this one is unclear. The single passage where it shows up. Okay, now there's the other thing that I want to mention, and that is that this doctrine trades on the idea that there is no salvation without water baptism. That's false. We've talked about it before and there are people who have denominations where they believe in baptismal regeneration. I have plenty of respect for them. No disrespect, certainly. I just think they're wrong. And of the passages that we see that seem to indicate water baptism is necessary for salvation ought a closer look at those passages and the rest of them that speak of baptism. It seems really clear that it's not the case that water baptism is part of the salvation package. It is a result or a proper response to salvation we cannot withhold. Now we see they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. Peter says in John, make that Acts 10 regarding Cornelius. After he speaks the Gospel to them and without any altar call or invitation, bang. They start manifesting evidence of the Holy Spirit now within them and their regeneration. Well, look at. They've already received the Holy Spirit, having believed, received Ephesians chapter one, the Holy Spirit of promise. They've already received it, just as we have. Now, we can't withhold the water for baptism from them. See how the baptism follows the believing and receiving and. And regeneration. I'm not going to say a lot about that, but I'm just saying that's a problem also with this view, because this implies it is salvation that saves or at least is central or vital. I'm sorry, it is baptism that saves or is central or vital to it. And so, okay, well, they died without any of this, so let's get them baptized by proxy. Baptism for the dead. Now we got them going at least. No, baptism is unrelated to salvation in that way. It is related to being saved, not to getting saved. All right. No. Having said all of that, what the heck is going on in 1 Corinthians 15:29? Well, I don't really know for sure, but I remember something that I was told about it. I haven't done a deep dive in the verse. It's not a concern to me. Really? Why not? Because it's one verse in the whole Bible that makes reference to this. Then it can't be that important. That's kind of my view. Plus there's a hint in the passage, and I emphasized it a couple of times when I read it. But let me go back to it. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? Now that's a little vague so far. If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Now it's more clear. It's third person. He's not talking about something that's going on inside, like first person plural. Us. It's third person plural. They. Them. It's a different group. This is probably a practice that's done by pagans. It's not a biblical practice. And now this would make a lot of sense. Remember, Paul is arguing here in 1 Corinthians 15. The resurrection is real. Jesus was raised, there'll be a final resurrection. And people who are saying there is no resurrection, really look at all this. By the way, even the heathen get it. Even the pagans understand that there's going to be a resurrection, which is why they them baptize their dead, expecting it will have a ramification in the future. When there's a resurrection, that's the best explanation I can come up with. I don't have to even go to a commentary. I don't have to go in a commentary to know that one verse isn't adequate to make a doctrine. I don't have to go to a commentary to read the pronouns in here and realize probably what Paul is referring to. It's right there in the words. Now, Isis, you know, I could go do a deeper dive on this if I want, but what I do know too is that there's nothing in this passage that justifies what the LDS Church is doing on behalf of a bunch of dead people. There's no benefit there. Now, maybe there's in their mind there's further justification in things that are written by Joseph Smith. That could be the case, but I don't know about that because I don't deep dive in Mormonism. Amy would have more understanding of that than I would. All right, this isn't her show. That show is a different show called Strask, and maybe somebody can send in a note to that and Amy then will be able to weigh in. All right, but I'm so thrilled that my daughter asked me a question like this and I was able to give her a substantive answer. I don't know for sure, but you can't base anything important on a single reference that's vague and seems to be inconsistent with other passages. That's the thing I want her to keep. And it's the same thing I want you to keep, too. All right, let's take a break and we'll come back to your calls here on Stand to Reason in just a moment. Have you ever wondered how Stand a Reason is able to produce fresh, accessible content each week? We rely on generous donors so that we can provide you with the tools and tactics you need to be an effective ambassador for Christ. If you've benefited from this podcast or any of our donor provided resources, including our apps, blog posts, articles and short videos, consider making a financial contribution to Stand to Reason today. Just visit str.orgdonate to show your financial support. It has been an honor providing you with a host of free resources for more than 27 years to help you give voice to the Christian worldview. Help us continue by making a financial gift [e-mail] Would you like a Stand a Reason speaker at your event? Greg Allen, Tim John, Megan and I Tripp are available in person or online just email bookingstr.org our team speaks on a wide range of topics from issues in bioethics, gender and science, to topics in apologetics, theology and philosophy, and how to respond to other worldviews, all from a biblical perspective. Whether it's a conference, youth event or Sunday service, we're here to give confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter. Alrighty, friends, time to go to calls here. You want me to go to Canada first? Is that why that's flashing? Okay. This is Xander in Canada. Xander, welcome to the show.

[Xander]

Yeah, this is my first time calling.

[Greg Koukl]

Say again?

[Xander]

This is the first time I've called.

[Greg Koukl]

Oh, it's the first time you called. I'm glad to have you. Are you on speakerphone?

[Xander]

I have my earbuds.

[Greg Koukl]

You have what?

[Xander]

I'm using my earbuds right now.

[Greg Koukl]

I still couldn't understand you. That's the problem. Okay, can you just talk directly onto a phone or. Are you sure?

[Xander]

Okay, I'm here. I'll speak. Closest to my point,

[Greg Koukl]

I just have a really hard time understanding.

[Xander]

Hello?

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, that's much better, Xander. Thanks so much. Okay. What's up?

[Xander]

Yeah, hold on. Okay, so I know you've already answered a lot of, like, questions about inclusive information, but this is kind of something that I wanted to know a little bit more about. So if you don't mind.

[Greg Koukl]

Hold on. You just went back into that mode where it's really hard to understand. Are you still talking directly into the phone?

[Xander]

Yeah, I am.

[Greg Koukl]

Huh. Okay, well, I'll do my best to understand. I have your question written down here so I can respond to it even if I don't understand. But you are interested in how do I reconcile the concept of exclusivism, like, only those who believe in Jesus are saved, with first Timothy 2. 4, right? Where it says, God desires all men to be saved. Okay.

[Xander]

I feel like if exclusivism is true, then a lot of, like, millions of people will be, like. Will have no opportunity to be saved simply because, like, they were born at the wrong place in the wrong time.

[Greg Koukl]

Well, okay. Well, that isn't the reason they're not saved, that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe we can revisit that in a moment. But here's the difficulty of citing 1 Timothy 2:4 regarding the issue of exclusivism. The reason that I believe in the exclusive view or the exclusivist view that one must believe in Jesus to be saved is because that view is repeated over and over and over again in very clear terms all through the Gospel. There is no ambiguity regarding that. From Matthew 1:1, all the way to the Revelations 20, whatever. Or 22, whatever. So what there is, is a massive. Your question is a fair one. But we have to weigh the statement in 1 Timothy 2, 4, which says, As I recall, something to the effect of God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ. J. That's the verse, right?

[Xander]

Yeah. And the thing is, like, I've been looking into Catholicism lately, and this is like one of the doctrines that I've had some difficulty, like trying to support some Scripture. So, yeah, I understand, like, where you're coming from.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so you. You understand that the inclusivist doctrine is not consistent. The Roman Catholic is not consistent with Scripture. But this does raise a legitimate question. Okay. And I want you to think about it. Cause I have something for you to chew on. But I just didn't want anybody to miss the procedural kind of element here. And that is we've got to interpret, let's just call it the unclear in light of the clear. So if it is true that the doctrine of exclusivism is God's biblical doctrine when it comes to salvation, then how do we incorporate this other verse into that? That's the way we want to go. It isn't like, well, I can't explain one Timothy. So therefore inclusivism is false. Exclusivism. My bad. Therefore exclusivism is false. No, it's true because of everything that is said. But what about this passage? That's the question. So there's a verse in 1st Thessalonians 4, and you might be familiar with it, and it goes something like this. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that is that you all abstain from sexual immorality. So now we know that it is God's will that we abstain from sexual immorality. Clear enough, Right?

[Xander]

Right.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay. But God allows all kinds of people to do things they shouldn't be doing sexually, even though it's his will that they don't do it. And what this shows us is there's some things that it's God's will regarding that. He's leaving up to us to do. In other words, we can violate his will. So in a sense, there is two ways that the concept of the will of God is used in Scripture sometimes when it says, this is God's will. And no one can thwart it. Okay. No one can put off the hand of God if he's decided to do Something. David talks about this. And of course, there are lots of places in Scripture that make it clear that in one way of understanding the will of God, God's going to do it. No one can stop him. Okay, is that fair so far?

[Xander]

Yeah, that's right.

[Greg Koukl]

And in another way of the scripture using the term God's will, God isn't committing. He says, this is what I want, but I'm not committing myself to do it. That's on you to do. So there are two different ways of understanding the will of God. Fair enough.

[Xander]

Yeah, sure.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so now when we come to 1 Timothy 2, when it says God desires, or we could say God wills all to be saved. Well, that doesn't mean that he's going to save all. He could want everybody to turn to him even though they don't. Does that make sense?

[Xander]

Yeah, but like, I get. But again, like, why doesn't he. Why doesn't he, Like,

[Greg Koukl]

I heard that. Why doesn't he, like. I didn't hit the wrist.

[Xander]

I'm sorry, but my dad is calling me a little bit. Just give me a second.

[Greg Koukl]

Say it again.

[Xander]

All right. I'm sorry. I was. My dad was calling me. I decided to, like, say something to him.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay. It's just hard. Partly. You're talking really fast for the connection you have.

[Xander]

Oh, yeah, sure, sure.

[Greg Koukl]

Yeah. And I apologize. Just slow down a little bit because I'm not sure what your question is at this point.

[Xander]

Okay, but like, again, like, why doesn't he, like, God give people like that opportunity to be saved?

[Greg Koukl]

Well, you're presuming that he doesn't give them an opportunity. And what Paul says in Romans one is at one level, everybody has an opportunity to turn to him at one level of revelation. But instead of responding to the modest revelation about God that is adequate for them to know about the true God, they instead turned from that. They suppressed that truth because they had unrighteous motives. Jesus said, the light has come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. Now, that's John 3 and Paul's reflecting the same thing in Romans 1. So you're presuming something about people that the Bible says is not the case. You're presuming that they don't have the opportunity or enough knowledge at least to know some of the basics about God.

[Xander]

Wait, hold on. So would you say that if someone did respond to, like, general revelation, then they could be saved?

[Greg Koukl]

Well, it's interesting what Paul says in Romans 1. He doesn't say that general revelation is adequate to save people. What he says is general revelation is adequate to condemn them. They are without excuse. Okay? Now, if a person is responding in their heart to the general revelation in an appropriate way, let's put it that way, they want to know the true God. I actually think God is going to honor that. And part of the reason I say that is my conviction is that their move towards the true God is something that God is already working in their heart to accomplish. They're not just doing this on their own, because if they were all on their own, they wouldn't pursue God. They need God's help in some sense. And how much help they get from God is going to be different depending on who you talk to theologically. Right, but everybody needs help because the weight of sin and the distortion sin causes on our minds is so powerful that just that alone would never be adequate, would never allow anybody. It would not be adequate for anybody to turn to God and worship him because they love sin. Just like Jesus said John 3. So people do have adequate revelation to be condemned for their rejection of it. Your question is, what if they don't reject it? Well, if they don't reject it and they're moving towards the true God, then God's going to help them along the way. That's my conviction. But they all end up at the same place after 00 A.D. whatever. After the zero year, after the Pentecost, let's call it that, for the time being. In the new era, the New Testament era, the New Covenant Era, it's always Jesus. There's no substitute for that. And this is why we're to go hither, thither and yon. And the Christian did that with the only message that could save fallen human beings. So all of that is completely consistent with Scripture. Xander rather.

[Xander]

Yeah? Do I still have time, or.

[Greg Koukl]

What was that?

[Xander]

Do I still have time? Like, how much time do I have?

[Greg Koukl]

Oh, yeah, you can sure you have some more time. Just speak slowly, please.

[Xander]

I'm just a little bit nervous because I don't really talk on the phone that much.

[Greg Koukl]

You used to live where.

[Xander]

I'm just a little bit nervous.

[Greg Koukl]

Oh, yeah. Well, I'm sorry. You're doing fine, but just talk more slowly. But I understand that you can be nervous. That's okay.

[Xander]

It's just.

[Greg Koukl]

Hey, it's Xander. Just you and me having a conversation. No worries. All right. Okay. Nobody's listening.

[Xander]

When it comes to the Romans 1 passage, that's Romans 1, 1820, right?

[Greg Koukl]

Yes. That's one of them that I made Reference to. Correct.

[Xander]

Okay. I actually want to ask a little bit about that, so can you. So your interpretation of that would be that every, like, unbeliever is suppressing knowledge of God. Right.

[Greg Koukl]

Well, you know, let me just read it. Okay. And then you're familiar, obviously, with it. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made. So that they are without excuse. Even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give him thanks. But they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, exchanged the glory of God for the image in the form of corruptible man and birds, etc. Etc. Now my question is. I mean, I could keep reading, but you know the passage you asked me. Well, is that your interpretation? I've just read the passage. How else is anybody going to take that?

[Xander]

Right. And I, I would say that. I would agree that, that that's like the most straightforward interpretation of the passage. Yeah. But I guess my question would be later on, like, if you read to like verse 29, it talks about how they have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay.

[Xander]

And that they are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. So I would ask, like, who do you think Paul was talking about when he wrote that they have become filled with every kind of like, wickedness?

[Greg Koukl]

Well, I think what Paul is doing here, you can look at numbers or other passages where there's kind of incidental application of some of these notions. What Paul is doing is he is not just kind of spouting off about heathen people. He is making a case regarding salvation. That's what his book is about, or at least the first half of it. He's developing an argument. And as he's talking about they are without excuse here, then he talks. I think in chapter two there's a they are without excuse too. Or he certainly implies that if he doesn't use those same words. And then in chapter three, he says that, are we better than they, We Jews, Verse nine? Not at all. For we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. Then he goes and he quotes from the Old Testament and that every mouth then his Conclusion. Every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God. That's chapter three, verse 19. The point I'm making here is that I don't think that Paul is talking about certain people, but not others. He said, this is humanity and humanity is lost. How can they be saved? For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. So that's from chapter three and chapter six. I'm kind of jumping around in Romans, but, you know, the kind of Romans wrote. The reason that Paul wrote Romans was to give a very clear explanation and characterization of the grace of God given the fallenness of man. And that's why I think it's fair to use Romans Starting in Romans 1, as I've done, because all I'm doing in my use of Romans 1:18 and following is the same thing it appears that Paul himself is doing. All human beings are condemned. There is no justification by any other means that they can find at all. All are under sin. Now, that's the bad news, and that's what he means to communicate.

[Xander]

Okay, but if you would apply.

[Greg Koukl]

Are you frustrated?

[Xander]

No, no, I'm just. I take a little bit of time to think.

[Greg Koukl]

So, okay, so what. What next from here, based on what I said, what else can I help you with, do you say? It sounds like you don't entirely agree with me. Is that. Is that a fair thing to say? I could be mistaken.

[Xander]

I guess a little bit.

[Greg Koukl]

What do you think Paul is doing in Romans as a book?

[Xander]

I mean, actually, I would agree with you when he says that. When you say that he was using it to build a case that everyone is under sin and they're guilty. I would agree with that.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so that's kind of his point. And then that's the bad news. Now he gives the good news and that's Jesus. But we can't say here's the bad news. But it doesn't apply to a whole bunch of people who never heard because Paul doesn't allow that loophole. He's talking about everybody who. In fact. Let me just flip forward then. Might take a second. There's a place where it talks about the gospel going out and who's going to call on the Lord if they haven't heard. Oh, here it is in Romans 10. It's interesting in light of. Part of the case I'm making is natural revelation, which is a concept you understand, obviously you use the phrase is a way that God has communicated to everybody about himself so clearly enough that he can hold them accountable. Okay, that's my point that I'm making. Does it make sense so far?

[Xander]

Yeah, sure, sure.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so here's what he says in Romans 10. How will they call on him? Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But wait a minute. How will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how will they believe in him whom they have not heard? That's kind of your point. Right, right. And how will they hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are sent and just as written? How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good tidings. Look, so far this is kind of your point, and I'm sympathetic so far. They didn't all heed the word. Oh, wait, I'm jumping. Okay, so now we're here in verse 16. They didn't all heed the word. Who has believed our report? So faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of God. But I say, surely verse 18. They have not heard, have they? And he says, indeed they have. And then he cites Psalm 19, which is one of those passages that talks about natural revelation. He says their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. All right, so in other words, he's saying natural revelation is a voice. It does have words. It communicates content, and they will be held responsible for that. No one could say I haven't heard. No, they didn't hear about Jesus. They didn't get to the Son. They've already rejected the Father before they got to the Son. You with me?

[Xander]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Greg Koukl]

So I think in chapter 10, following the same argument Paul is developing here, he sidetracks with a couple of chapters on different things. But now we're back to a similar argument being raised right at the beginning. And york, legitimate concern. What about those who never heard? And Paul says they have all heard, therefore there is no excuse. I don't see how else you can read that, interpret that, if you will, Zander, without coming to that conclusion. It's not that hard.

[Xander]

Yeah, I would agree with one of my.

[Greg Koukl]

Are we good, then?

[Xander]

Yeah. Well, actually, just one more thing. So when it comes to Romans 1:18 to 20. Yes, 21. I mean, I guess I would ask. Hold on a second.

[Greg Koukl]

You guess? You guess you would ask?

[Xander]

Yeah. Okay.

[Gail]

Okay.

[Xander]

So if you would apply, like, Romans 1, 18, 21 to, like, every atheist, wouldn't you also have to apply it?

[Greg Koukl]

What do you think Paul has in mind when he makes Those statements, the 1821.

[Xander]

Yeah.

[Greg Koukl]

All of that. Yeah. You're asking, would I apply that to every atheist? And does Paul seem to be speaking all inclusively there or just to a smaller group of people? But it doesn't count atheists.

[Xander]

I mean, one thing I've heard from some people is that at that point in time, atheists in the way that we would speak of them didn't really exist. So they're not the people that Paul had in mind.

[Greg Koukl]

What was the last you said?

[Xander]

Well, at that point in time, atheists as we think of them, didn't exist. So they're not the people that Paul had in mind. That's one thing I've heard that there were no.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, well, see, this is kind of specializing, reading into the text. Paul is talking about the name nature of humanity. That's what he's talking about. Now, atheists are human. They fall under humanity. Paul says they suppress the truth of God. I think the evidence for God is obvious. And this is why even atheists talk about Mother Nature, because they look at the natural realm and they anthropomorphize it. They have to use a human type being to talk about the miracle of Mother Nature. Isn't Mother Nature brilliant? Look at the power. Don't ever. Don't fool Mother Nature, blah, blah, blah. Why do they do that? And I think that belies this interior notion that the appearance of design of the world is actually evidence for the design of the world. And even atheists know that.

[Xander]

Well, I mean, when it comes to like Mother Nature and stuff, I think doing that just helps people be more like sympathetic to taking care of the environment. To the environment.

[Greg Koukl]

Because, well, I don't think that's why this phrase is being used. So people are sympathetic to the environment. Look at if there is no God, why should anybody care about the environment per se? If what, except for whatever we're doing with the environment helps us. But people have kind of deified the environment to some degree and it says we have to protect Mother Nature, protect Mother Earth from human beings. So human beings can't do it. Just, I'm just making a simple statement. And the simple statement is design is obvious. Even Richard Dawkins says this in his book the Blind Watchmaker. The biological realm is a complex world that gives the appearance, he says, acknowledges of having been designed for a purpose. Now he said, not really because it's, you know, natural selection working on mutations and Darwinian evolution. But what I'm saying is it just even people who are atheists in different ways acknowledge that the universe seems like it's designed by a person. And so what they're doing is affirming what Paul says in Romans Chapter one. It looks like that. No. Well, maybe it is designed. No, no, no. And they what? Suppress the truth? Paul is just saying you're responsible for that. You know better. That's what he's saying. Atheists aren't accepted. The fool has said in his heart there is no God. This is from the Old Testament, and part of that is in reference to the natural order. If you follow the psalm, I think it's. Maybe that's how Psalm 19 starts. I think that is Psalm 19, which is the same psalm Paul is quoting here in Romans 10. All right.

[Gail]

Yeah.

[Xander]

Well, in verse 20, actually. How much time do I have? Do I have.

[Greg Koukl]

Well, you know, I got another caller on board. I'm going to need to get to him. Xander. Well, let's just do this. We've covered a lot of bases here, and I'm really glad you called, and I've given a lot of time to you. Let's say goodbye for now and you can call back another time and we'll chat about more of the things on your mind. Is that fair?

[Xander]

Oh, yeah, sure.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks, Andrew. All righty.

[Xander]

Bye.

[Greg Koukl]

Bye. So we're going to talk with Gail and Encinitas. There we go. We got it. Gail, welcome to the show.

[Gail]

Yes, thank you so much.

[Greg Koukl]

You're welcome, Gail. And you're coming through nice, loudly and clearly. It's nice there. No static from across the border. Yeah.

[Gail]

I have followed you since the beginning of your ministry and donate to you. I want to tell everyone how wonderful. The story of why God died that you wrote like, I use it as a witnessing tool and give it to people. And the story of why God died, everyone listening. Buy it from Greg Kogel.

[Greg Koukl]

Oh, well, thank you so much. And that, just so people know, that is a portion of the story of reality, and it's the portion that has to do with Jesus and the cross and the resurrection. So we have that in a smaller volume, isolated, excerpted, so to speak, from the story of reality. So thanks, Gail. I'm glad to hear that you're on the move. Good for you.

[Gail]

Also, give the story of reality. They have to read that first. Anyway, my question is. Yeah, it's wonderful the Bible speaks. I believe that time has a beginning. And is time only on earth, or is it in heaven? Only because I thought there'd be no time in heaven. And if there is no Time in heaven, when Christians die. Like when I. When I die, am I entering one by one as in time? Or when I die, will everyone be there already? Even those who have not been born yet, who God knows will become Christians?

[Greg Koukl]

So this is a really good question, but it reflects confusion a lot of Christians have. And I'm fully sympathetic to the confusion because of the way we talk. Now. I have. Drumroll, please. A master's degree in philosophy that allows me to talk about this in a way that I wouldn't have been able to talk about it before. But I'm going to give you the philosophy of time in one easy step. All right, Think of it this way. I didn't make up this line, but I think it's great. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

[Gail]

Great.

[Greg Koukl]

So you and I are having a conversation. You called past tense. We are talking now about some things, present tense. And shortly you will not be on the phone anymore. If there was no time passing, then all of those things would be happening coterminously. I want to say at the same time, but it doesn't even make sense to say it's at the same time because there is no time passing that happens at once. It is time that separates all of those events. Does that make sense so far?

[Gail]

Yes, it does.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so when we go to heaven, are things going to be happening with us and God and others in heaven that are separated from one another, or are they everything happening all at once? What do you think?

[Gail]

I would say separated.

[Greg Koukl]

Yes, of course, of course, of course. You can't bow down if there's no time because it requires you to be erect and then you're down and then you're raising your hand. Yeah, look at those are all temporal terms. Of course there's going to be time in heaven. And if there's no time in heaven, then nothing happens.

[Gail]

Yes, so true.

[Greg Koukl]

Does that help?

[Gail]

Yes.

[Greg Koukl]

Okay, so that is what I did is condense four painful months. No, actually it was during the inter term, so it was the month of January. A bunch of intensive classes with Professor William Lane Craig on the issue of time. That was really hard for me, but there it is. We're translators at Standareo, so I could take all of that gobbledygook and I can just offer it to you here. And really, whether or not time had a beginning, whether God was temporal before the creation or not is debatable. William Lane Craig thinks that time started when God created. That was the first event of time. Before that, God was atemporal. But after that, God's involved. And if God's involvement is separated and it all isn't happening at once, then even for God, time is passing.

[Gail]

Wonderful.

[Greg Koukl]

So by the way, what that means then? I mean, because a lot of Christians talk, well, God's outside of time. That's not my view. And if God's outside of time, then nothing happens for God. He doesn't do anything.

[Gail]

Oh, my goodness, you're right.

[Greg Koukl]

So I.

[Gail]

May I ask if I. When, When I die? Because Apostle Paul says that I think when you, it's when you die, you're present with the Lord, absent from the body, you're present with the Lord.

[Greg Koukl]

Correct.

[Gail]

Do you believe that, like, oh, of course. As a Christian, I'll be right in his presence.

[Greg Koukl]

Yes. I, I, I. There's a lot of ambiguity about all that's entailed. So maybe like to be. I agree with the statement taken as a whole. I'm not sure. Okay. Does this mean that when I close my eyes and breathe my last breath and there's the last beat of my heart and that's the last jolt of ekg, then right there in front of me is Jesus, or do I have to kind of walk across the street to be there with Jesus and everybody else? I don't know. I mean, is there a little interim or, you know, a few moments? I don't know. But the point that Paul is making is that we're here or there, we're away from him and we trust in him and we believe in him. We don't see him, though, but one day we'll see him and then our hope will be fulfilled. Because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So I agree with that statement. I think he's right. I don't know how tightly the time is wound there. And we'll see, but we will be there and say, hey, hi, Jesus, I'm here, I'm home, whatever.

[Gail]

Thank you for shedding your blood to save me, however.

[Greg Koukl]

Sure, worship, whatever that. But things are happening. Things are happening. Okay. And that's why I think God is temporal. No. And by the way, the Bible does not require that God be outside of time. This is very important. The Bible doesn't weigh in on that directly. I actually think there's a verse that makes it clear that God is temporal. And I'll tell you in just a second. But what the Bible requires is that God is eternal. He had no beginning, he will have no end. What about us? We have a beginning, but we will have no end. But we are not eternal. We are everlasting. That's different. God had no beginning, he has no end. So he's eternal. There are no boundaries. For us, there is a boundary. Our birthdays or nine months before our birthdays, however you want to talk about it.

[Xander]

But

[Greg Koukl]

we will never live for an eternity. But we will live forever and ever. Okay? We will always have an age. I mean, I know it sounds creepy, especially for a woman, but you will always have an age, no matter how long you live. Okay? So we will live forever and ever. But I wouldn't say that God is not temporal. I mean. Sorry, I wouldn't say he's timeless or that he is outside of time. Because if there are no temporal moments to God, then he's not doing anything. I think that's really what it comes down to. Now, I'll tell you the verse that I think makes the point. I got 40 seconds here where Jesus makes an argument for the resurrection with his disciples, where he says, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So for God to say, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus is pointing out that means Abraham, Isaac and Jacob still exist. They just haven't been raised yet. And that's an argument for the resurrection. But that only works if God is temporal, because he's offering at what they call a temporal index. Like now. Now is a temporal index. And so Jesus is saying for God right now, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exist. Now, there was some when they didn't exist right now for him, but at that point, they did. And this is evidence. Jesus argues for the resurrection. So, anyway, there's a lot to think about there. Gail, it was wonderful talking to you and nice to end the hour with your conversation with you. That's it for me, friends. Greg Kokel for Sanderson. Give him heaven, friends. Bye bye now.

[Xander]

Sam,