#STRask - Why Do We Say Someone Was Saved on a Particular Date If It Was Part of an Eternal Plan?

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

Questions about why we say someone was saved on a particular date if it was part of an eternal plan, the Roman Catholic view of the gospel vs. the Bible’s, and why Paul circumcised Timothy but rebuked the Galatians for saying Gentiles needed to be circumcised.   Since God had a plan from all eternity to redeem a people for himself, why do we say  someone was saved on a particular date or moment in time? Can you suggest some tactical questions to ask a Roman Catholic relative who doesn’t see the distinction between the Catholic view of the gospel and the one in the Bible? Why did Paul circumcise Timothy but rebuke the Galatians for saying the Gentiles needed to be circumcised?

This is Stand to Reason's hashtag STRASK podcast. Greg Kogel's here with me, Amy Hall, to look at your questions and to answer them. And this first question comes from average Permian enjoyer. since God had a plan from all eternity to redeem a people for himself, why do we say that someone was saved on a particular date or moment in time? How do we mentally reconcile this date where we are saved with God setting us apart from our mother's womb? I actually don't see the problem. God decides to set us apart from our mother's womb to accomplish a particular end that will happen at a point in time. So I'm out of food. I make a plan.

My plan is to go get groceries at Costco after this show today. Well, since I'm determined in this plan, and let's just say it's fixed and inviolable, it still makes sense, will make sense for me to say when I was at Costco at 6.30 p.m., I bought groceries, even though I had decided earlier in the day for a certainty that I would do it. The action is time-stamped, and I became a Christian, or I prayed the prayer, however you want to characterize it, September 28, 1973. That's when I became a Christian. If I had died before I had put my trust in Christ, I would have. have been lost. I put my trust in Christ because of a purpose God had from time immemorial, but that happened at a point in time, and I identified that time with a date. I don't understand

the problem. I understand why the question is being raised, but I don't see why it's a problem. God could decide something a long time ago that doesn't happen until sometime in the future, but when it happens, the happening is time-stamped. Now, I have actually a particular friend that makes a fuss about this and says, I wasn't saved on this particular date, this spiritual birthday or whatever. I was saved from time immemorial. Well, I understand this point. That's a theological point, and I tend to agree with the broader theology,

but the common sense point is that regeneration happens at a moment in time. you must be born again. So being born again happens in a temporal environment. Being born again is when you're regenerated and all the things that pertain to being born again apply to the believer, which includes eternal life and regeneration and forgiveness of sin and et cetera, it's adoption, redemption, all of those things. They all happen in history. So I don't see there's any problem with identifying the time when that happened.

since the scripture makes it clear that that is a happening in time, even though that happening was secured long before. So even with the case of Christ on the cross, that was God's plan from all eternity, but we still say he died on the cross at a particular time. Yeah, 33 AD or whatever, right. Good point. So, yeah, so, and even though Jesus secured the salvation. of particular people at a particular that would come to faith later on.

It's still the case, as you said, that the regeneration happens at a particular time, so it makes sense. You know, God, I'm trying to think how to explain this. God knew what was going to happen. God planned what was going to happen. God secured the salvation ahead of time. So it's always going to be the case that they will be saved, even though it's at a particular time. Right, right. I don't know how else to say it. Well, I'm thinking of Acts chapter 16, and the

Philippine jailer says to Paul, what must I do to be saved? Future tense. Paul says, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, future tense. He then believes, and then he is saved. So notice all the temporal elements that are involved there. There isn't – Paul doesn't say, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you would have been saved from time, eternity. That's right. Eternity passed, rather. It makes no sense. And in Ephesians, it says that we once were by nature children of wrath.

So you're right. The Bible itself talks about the before and the after. Okay, let's go to a question from Aaron. Please suggest tactical questions to ask a Roman Catholic relative who doesn't see the distinction between the Catholic view of the gospel, Jesus plus works, and the one in the Bible, Jesus plus nothing. So I can think of a couple of things. If I were to ask you, say I was talking to the Roman Catholic friend, on your understanding,

what must I do to be saved? Simple question. Now, I've kind of sprung it a little bit because you heard me say this question a few moments ago. We know the biblical answer, but I'm waiting for the other person to respond. Now, I was raised in Roman Catholic. So my emphasis is going to be based on what I was taught is going to be on my behavior. Well, I have to be a Christian, and I don't know how I'd even would have characterized that, but I have to be good because it is my goodness that is going to qualify.

me for heaven. And I think this is a result of Catholic theology conflating justification with sanctification. You are justified as you are sanctified. And maybe that's an oversimplification, but there's something akin to that. You're not justified at a moment in time so that justification becomes a past event. That's the Protestant view, and I think the biblical view, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. And this is eternal life that you know God and his only son, Jesus. This is eternal life. Eternal life is something we get now. And eternal life, that life we have is eternal. It's like never ending. So it's a permanent, present possession that we have in virtue of our faith. I would ask the question, what must they do to be saved? And see what she says. So believe,

believe, if your friend says, believe, and you are saved, then they, so if you do believe, I'd want more clarification, if you do believe, then you are saved, and your behavior after that isn't what keeps you save or gets you saved or gets you more saved. No, no, you're saved by your faith alone. Well, good. That's what Paul told the Philippian jailer. But that isn't, I think, what most Catholics understand their religion to teach them. There are all kinds of different things that you have to do to keep saved, and that's going to confession and getting absolution and going to church on a regular basis and holy days of obligations, all of these rules that relate to the nature of your salvation.

So, de facto, it works out to be a works-based salvation. And I think this is the way most Catholics understand it, though. There are some Catholics, careful-thinking Catholics can explain it very nuanced terms to show, no, you're saved only by faith and not by works. This isn't what the average Catholic learns in that environment. So that would be one question I'd ask. what must they do to be saved? And then I would contrast that, whatever answer that was offered to Paul,

Paul's response to the Philippian jailer in Acts chapter 16, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Now, Paul gives that statement there, but if you read through the book of Galatians, it's amazing, well, in Romans as well, but Galatians has a compact section where he, Paul, compares law and grace back and forth, back and forth a whole bunch of times. And he says, it's not law. It is grace. It's just grace. It's not law. By works of the law, no flesh will be justified. If righteousness comes through law, then Christ died neither. These are all these statements he makes in there to reinforce this notion. So this is where we'd want to go to make

this case, Sola Fide, faith alone. Now, we all understand that faith that is alone is not a saving faith. It produces a changed life, and that's the evidence of the faith that saves, but it still is the faith that saves. So that would be one approach that I'd offer. Here's another approach that I've suggested before, and I think it's entirely fair. The word gospel means good news. So if I were to have this conversation, I would ask the question. We're talking about the gospel. Right. What does the word gospel mean? It means good news. What's the good news? What is the good news?

Now, I think Catholics are going to answer this different than Protestants. And one of the things that is not true about Catholics is that they have no real confidence of salvation. Now, those that do think that they've kept all the laws, done all the things just so and just right, so they're pretty safe. But in terms of full knowledge of it, they can't say, I know I'm going to heaven. Many won't. And in fact, on that theology, when you die, you don't go right to heaven anyway, even if you qualify, you still have to go to purgatory. But the lack of clear confidence is the key here. So my question is, do you know that you're going to heaven? Do you know that? No, I don't know that. In other words, in your theology, you can't know whether

you're going to heaven or not. No, I hope so, and I'm trying to live the way I ought to live, but I can't know that. Okay, so let me see if I understand this. So when let's, what you're facing is two doors. One is everlasting bliss, and the other is a door to eternal damnation, suffering. You're, you don't know which one you're going to go through. No, I don't. Okay, how is that good news? How is that good news? The gospel means good news. is that circumstance that you find yourself in based on your Catholic beliefs, good news. Incidentally, there are a lot of Protestants that are in the same position because they don't understand the grace of God and why the good news is good news. Salvation is secured for us by Jesus.

Read Hebrews 10. What a fabulous chapter because it talks about the completed work of Christ, no longer any sacrifice, once for all, and having obtained for us an eternal salvation. And Jesus has many things to say about the fullness of forgiveness. So those are two ways that I would approach it. I would ask the question, what must I do to be saved on your view? And then I've got that question and an answer to it from Paul in X-16. And then I'd ask about the nature of the good news on her view as a Catholic. What are your options?

Do you know you're going to heaven? No, one or two doors. well how is that good news if you don't know anything short of utter confidence that you're going to be with God forever is not good news if hell is a possibility then the news is not good and and the reason why we are confident is because it depends on Jesus exactly not on us and we know he has succeeded if you're depending on anything else then you can never have confidence because anything else can veil. Now, Erin, if your goal is just to help them understand the distinction and not, I think it would be really hard to convince them of the view that I think is in the Bible, because they have

another authority in addition to the Bible. So I don't know that just going through the Bible will convince them of the Protestant view. But if your goal is just a to show the distinction between them, then it could be that they just don't, have never heard what your view is because they've grown up in the Catholic Church and they're just, and they're just, they're so saturated in it that they have no idea there's something else. Or it could be that they actually agree with you and they don't know what the Catholic Church is teaching. I mean, both of those things are possible. So I would really focus on explaining your view of the gospel,

and then asking him where it differs from what he thinks is true. There's a really good book called What is the Gospel by Greg Gilbert? And maybe you could even just go through that and say, so how does this compare to what you believe? It might be that the relative will say, I agree with that. And then you could say, great, we're on the same page with the gospel. Yeah. I like the way you put it.

We're on the same page with the gospel. Great, you're as opposed to, great, you're a Protestant. because I think in these kind of conversations, it's not helpful to pit Protestantism against Catholicism. I think it's better to talk about what the scripture teaches about the nature of the gospel of the grace of God. Being raised Roman Catholic myself, I had a very clear picture of the demands of the law growing up, which I was glad to get rid of when I was 17 or 18 years old and off doing my own thing for five or six years. But then when my younger brother who had come to Christ in the interim told me about the grace of God, this was something that was news to me. And that was what made the big difference on me and has been through my whole life.

This interview I was on yesterday, a podcast, somebody said, yeah, we're always talking about hell. Everybody's focused on hell all the time and thinking about hell. We don't even talk about heaven. These were not Christian guys, but they were just interviewing me as a Christian, and I said, I don't think about hell at all, except for as the unfortunate end of people in God's justice who don't trust his rescuer. I don't think about it at all because it's not an option for me. I'm safe in Christ. I do think about heaven, but only in very general terms because we don't have a lot of details about that. And I wrote about that at the end of the story of reality.

So I don't want people to be thinking you should become a Protestant and not a Catholic. I want people to be thinking you should understand the grace of God and benefit and trust in the grace of God. I think when that happens, other things are going to begin falling into place biblically once this particular issue is resolved. Well, since you brought up Galatians, let's go to a question from Michael. Why did Paul have Timothy circumcised, then rebuke the Galatians for saying the Gentiles needed to be circumcised? That's a fair point, and because the circumstances were different. When you read through the book of Galatians, especially this point raised in chapter 5, Paul says, if you are circumcised, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. you who are seeking to be justified by law.

Now, I'm paraphrasing a little. I don't have it in front of me, but that's the way I recall it. I'm pretty close. And the point there is, when circumcision represents a law-keeping effort by which you are justified by circumcision at all, now you're in a different system.

You're not in grace anymore. You're in the law system. That wasn't the case with Timothy. Do you remember Timothy and Paul were going to Jerusalem, and they were facing a cultural problem? Paul was being accused of being anti-law, and even at one point of corrupting, in a sense, the sanctuary by bringing in an uncircumcised Gentile. So what Paul is doing is he's just trying to be careful. He's, remember, at another point, he says to the, the Jew who was under the law, I came as under the law, though not under the law myself, so that by all means I might win some is what his point was. He is adapting culturally to them to avoid trouble.

That was the rationale, not justification. So in another place, he says, it's circumcision nor, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, nor uncircumcumcision. decision means anything. It's not really related to the issue of salvation. Now, if you make it related to salvation, then you are in a legalistic frame of mind which nullifies the grace of God. And that's Paul's point in Galatians 5 there where he mentions that. You have fallen from grace, those of you who are seeking to be justified by law. That's the big difference here. In Timothy's case, it was an adjustment to the circumstances and the cultural circumstances not to give offense to the people that he was trying to reach.

It wasn't to be justified. That was the concern with the Galation. I have the two passages here, and I'll just read them quickly. The first one, Act 16, 3, Paul wanted this man to go with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father. was a Greek. And then the Galatians 2 through 4, it was because of a revelation that I went up and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation for fear that I might be running or had run in vain. But not even

Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus in order to bring us into bondage. So what we see very clearly here that the first case was for the sake of evangelism. So it was because of the Jews who were in those parts that he had him circumcised. So that was for their sake outside the church. The second one was for the sake of those inside the church because there were people who had sneaked in and they were to spy out their liberty, which they had in Christ Jesus. So the first, it was focused on the outside of the church, but for inside the church, it was not something that was required. So let me read the Galicians

5 passage. I have it here, chapter 2 and following. Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Now, if he just stopped there, there would be an ambiguity. But he goes on to explain what he means by receiving circumcision. And I testify again that every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law, you have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace. So the issue there is receiving circumcision in order to be justified by law. It's not the circumcision itself.

It's the motive that people have in doing so, and this is the whole issue. that he's dealing with in the Book of Galatians. Well, thank you so much, Aaron and Michael, and average Permian enjoyer. We appreciate hearing from you, and we'd love to hear your question. Just send it on X with the hashtag STR ask or go to our website at STR.org.

This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason. Thank you.