Paul writes of the "hope of eternal life," which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in His word (a paraphrase of Titus 1:2–3).

The hope of eternal life was promised to the Jews long ago, but was only fully revealed in Paul's generation.

What about the multitudes of people and nations who had no knowledge of the true God and the salvation that came through the Jewish messianic hope? The same could be asked about peoples around the world today who still have no knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ. Are they automatically saved? Are they saved by virtue of what knowledge they have? I believe the answer to both is no.

But wouldn't God be unfair to condemn the multitudes who never once heard the name of Jesus and never had a clear presentation of the Gospel? What about those with severe intellectual disabilities? What about children? Would God condemn those unable to understand to an eternity in hell?

It has often been said that God is not unfair, and that everyone who goes to hell deserves to be there. While the latter is supported by Scripture, I don't believe the former is, at least as we usually understand fairness. There is no passage in Scripture that declares God to be "fair" in that sense.

Fairness suggests equal opportunity. But does a person living in Indonesia have the same opportunity to hear about Jesus as someone living in America? How many times does a stillborn child hear the Gospel, compared with a ninety-year-old atheist?

How many people do you think would reject the Gospel if they could see the eternal flames of the lake of fire? Is it not because they cannot see that they cannot believe? Is their rejection only rebellion against God? More than unwillingness, isn't there also inability? It is not only that they won't believe; they can't believe. And isn't it the case that many won't believe because they have been misinformed or lack information?

Someone told me that if a person even in the most remote place responded to the light they had — the witness of creation around them — then God would send the Gospel to them. As problematic as this scenario is in many ways, let's assume for a moment that it is true. On what basis could such a person conclude that the God of the Bible is the true God who created the things around them, especially when generation after generation of their ancestors told them a different story? The occasional stories I hear of Bibles or messengers arriving unexpectedly in remote villages are just that: rare stories.

Friends, I do not dispute the biblical teaching on human depravity: that from conception every person deserves eternal separation from God by virtue of our common sinful humanity. But I do not think it necessary for Christians and Christian leaders to invent alternative stories to defend God's honor. To speak of God as an "equal-opportunity" God in dealing with people is to do just that.

We may not like it, but I believe God is not unjust to condemn any of His creatures — whether those who never heard the Gospel, or those with severe disabilities, or even stillborn babies. Somehow we think it is fairer for God to condemn atheists, ruthless murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Really? Short of insanity, would any of these truly reject heaven and choose the lake of fire for the sake of their autonomy? Who is to say that one is more deserving of eternal punishment than another? The judgment is determined not by the offender or the particular offense, but by the One offended: a holy and eternal God.

I believe the Bible. All of these, in whichever group, are condemned because they have not believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. All deserve condemnation, whether by virtue of a common sinful humanity or because of actual sins committed in life, for they have offended a holy and eternal God. Fairness does not enter into it; human depravity and God's sovereignty do.

I realize I could have belonged to either group. I could have been born into a life where the name of Jesus was never mentioned from birth to death. I could have inherited a North Korean dictatorship from my father and practiced the same ruthless, murderous methods to stay in power. At the same time, I could have been a great philanthropist or worked with lepers and orphans my whole life.

In all these scenarios my fate would have been the same if I did not trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior: I would have been condemned forever.

I can understand a person like Rob Bell. His perspective is logically consistent with his view of God's fairness. But I believe he is wrong, because this is not what the Bible teaches. God is not fair, as most people understand fairness. He is just, and He is sovereign. I do not believe this because it sits well with my sensibilities, but because I believe it is true.

Friends, we are Christians because the Bible tells us so. We know the way to eternal life only because the Bible tells us so. We know right and wrong by biblical truth. So all our knowledge, experience, and hope depend on this holy Book. Read it, meditate on it, memorize it, become an expert in it, for there is nothing greater than His Word for you.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment wrestles honestly with one of the hardest questions Christians face, and it is right that Scripture grounds God's judgments in His justice and holiness rather than in human notions of equal opportunity. It is also right that no one is saved by being good enough or by sincerity alone (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).

On the specific question of those who die in infancy or who never have the capacity to understand, however, many Christians — including a large number within the Reformed tradition the comment generally follows — hold a different view. The Westminster Confession (10.3) states that "elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit," and theologians such as Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and B. B. Warfield taught that all who die in infancy are saved by God's grace in Christ. They point to David's confidence after the death of his infant son — "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:23) — to Jesus' welcome of little children (Mark 10:14), and to passages that link judgment to deeds done and knowledge rejected (Deuteronomy 1:39; Romans 1:20; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Others in the church hold that such children are saved because they have not committed actual sin, or leave the matter to God's mercy without claiming certainty. For parents who have lost a child, these views have been a deep comfort, and they are held by faithful believers across traditions.

On the question of those who have never heard, Christians also differ, from the view the comment holds, to the belief that God may save some through Christ who respond to the light they have (sometimes called inclusivism), to other positions. The missionary conviction that the comment's view supports — that people need to hear about Christ — is shared by all: "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" (Romans 10:14). And Abraham's question stands over all these discussions as a statement of trust: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Genesis 18:25).

So that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7).

Sometimes so much is made of justification by faith that justification by grace is neglected. Yet in the very book where the former is most emphasized, the latter is also taught (compare Romans 3:24). Why does the "by grace" aspect matter? Because it addresses the notion that faith arises out of a person's own unaided will. Grace is a sovereign act of God independent of human effort. So it is correct to say that believers are justified by faith, which is by grace.

Then Philemon: although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal on the basis of love (a reference to Philemon 8–9).

Paul's method in commending Onesimus, who had fled from his master Philemon and had since become a Christian, is a study in diplomacy. Rather than ordering Philemon to receive him as a brother, he appeals on the basis of love — loving a fellow believer, and also loving Paul, who makes the appeal. Paul does not avoid confrontation but tempers it, commending Philemon's reputation for love and faith, making an appeal rather than issuing an order, and employing a play on words about a once-useless slave becoming useful.

AI-Expanded Reflection

What Paul actually calls him is worth noting: my son, whom I became a father to while in chains; my very heart; a beloved brother. He offers to pay whatever Onesimus owes from his own pocket, and reminds Philemon in passing that he owes Paul his own self. The letter is short and almost every sentence is doing work.

The pun the comment mentions is on the name itself — Onesimus means useful — and Paul builds the request around it: formerly useless to you, now useful to both of us. The rhetoric is careful, but the substance is a request that a master receive a returning slave no longer as a slave but as a beloved brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord, and that he welcome him as he would welcome Paul.

This project has taken up the biblical material on slavery several times, and Philemon is where the New Testament's own trajectory is clearest. Paul does not issue a general emancipation decree, and he does say he could command and chooses not to. What he asks for is the thing that makes the institution unsustainable wherever it is granted: that the man be received as a brother. Christians arguing for abolition drew on this letter heavily, and with good reason.

The conflict between the Gentiles and the Jews fill the letters of Paul and Acts. This conflict was not only with unbelieving Jews but also with "believing" Jews, who insisted on requiring believers to obey the Old Covenant Mosaic Law. During the early church, this was a major issue. And it is a primary subject in Paul's letter to Titus. Understanding this conflict will give context to Paul's warning against arguments with respect to geneaologies, Jewish fables, and the law. He was not trying to shut down all doctrinal discussions and debate, but only those arguments that centered around the Mosaic Law, which was now obsolete and had no bearing on Christian life.

So Paul writes in Titus 1:10–11,

For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.

Notice that Paul highlights "those of the circumcision." This is one way Paul refers to Jews (Ephesians 2:11; Colossians 4:11). And these Jews are not outsiders but within the believing community. Therefore, Paul tells Titus that their "mouths must be stopped." Paul even commands Titus:

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth (Titus 1:13).

The reference to "commandments of men" reminds me of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for replacing God's Word with their traditions, which were but the commandments of men (Mark 7:6–13). Notice How Paul describes the mindset of these Jews:

They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work (Titus 1:16).

Doesn't this make perfect sense? They are Jews, so of course they would profess to know God, even in their special relationship as God's chosen people. However, Paul describes them as "being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work." In another text, Paul would say that the Jews are zealous for God but truly ignorant of God's ways (Romans 10:2–3).

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

This is the backdrop for Titus, who is battling against a sinister and dangerous (e.g. Titus 1:10) Jewish influence in the church. This is why Paul repeatedly speaks of the necessity of soundness in doctrine, faith, and speech (Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1–2, 8).

After Paul has commanded Titus to rebuke and silence these Judaizers (i.e. Jews that try to reestablish the Law among Christians), he advises him against arguing with them:

But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned (Titus 3:9–11).

Paul is essentially telling Titus not to waste his time trying to persuade these Jews. They will not be persuaded because they are "warped." Since the law, that is the Law of Moses, along with the whole Old Covenant, is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13; Ephesians 2:15), what profit would there be to discuss its decrees and ordinances with them. To continue to argue with them would only give credibility to their folly and damage Titus in the process. As Jesus also taught in the Sermon on the Mount,

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces (Matthew 7:6).

This statement was made in the context of Jesus' warning against hypocrisy, of which the Jewish leaders were most notorious. "Dogs" and "pigs" represent what is unworthy and unclean, and such were people that could not or would not see the error of their ways. It was futile to speak to such people, and it would only harm those who tried . As the Proverbs also teach,

Whoever corrects a mocker invites insults; whoever rebukes the wicked incurs abuse

Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you (Proverbs 9:7–8).

One of the worst things that could be said of me, or of anyone for that matter, is that I was "unteachable." For me this would be the height of arrogance and "spiritual" pride. When a person closes their mind to learning, to growing in their knowledge of the truth, I believe they have begun to die. It is worse than those that act like they know more than they actually know. It is worse than those that parade their knowledge.

In one sense, this is similar to what Jesus described as the "unpardanable sin" (Matthew 12:30–32; Mark 3:28). Jesus said the Pharisees committed the unpardonable sin when they interpreted the signs of the Holy Spirit, revealing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, as the work of the devil (Mark 3:22,30). They had already fully decided that Jesus was not the Messiah, and so they had to reject and reinterpret the very obvious signs done by the Holy Spirit, which were given for them to believe. Since they rejected the very things that were given for them to believe, there was no more hope for them. That it is why Jesus spoke of this sin as being "unpardonable," for it described a hopeless path.

Those that decide to close their minds, particularly those that have not grasped even the fundamentals of the Christian faith, they too are on a hopeless path. And the person who knows the fundamentals but thereafter decides that there is no more to learn, even if they are saved, would be putting a ceiling on the progress of their faith and limiting the effectiveness of their ministry.

Therefore, dear friends, keep an open mind. Keep learning in humility. Remain teachable always. Pursue God's truth with faithfulness and diligence, knowing that your labor is not in vain. And keep this also in mind - what we were before God's grace and what we are now because of it:

For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:3–7).

Praise the Lord!!

AI-Expanded Reflection

Titus explicitly connects some of its false teaching with the circumcision group, Jewish myths, and disputes about the Law. That supports the original's effort to give the warnings a historical setting. The accusations, however, concern particular teachers and their conduct; they should not be generalized into a judgment about Jewish people as a whole. Paul, Titus's correspondent, was himself Jewish, and the Christian argument is an argument over faithfulness to God's revelation, not an ethnic explanation of moral failure.

The immediate test is practical as well as doctrinal: these teachers upset households and pursue dishonest gain (Titus 1:10–11). Paul insists that teaching should produce sound faith and good works. In chapter 3, the alternative to foolish controversy is not intellectual passivity but attention to what benefits people. Theological discussion is valuable when it clarifies the gospel and forms obedience; it becomes destructive when it sustains prestige, faction, or endless quarrels without those fruits. Read Titus 1:9–16 and 3:1–11.

The instruction about a divisive person contains a process: a first and second admonition precede rejection. This matters alongside the comment's warning not to waste effort on the unteachable. One disagreement is not enough to establish that someone is incapable of repentance. Boundaries protect the community after correction has been resisted; they do not remove the obligation to explain, listen, and examine one's own understanding. The analogy with the unpardonable sin should likewise remain an analogy, not a diagnosis applied to every stubborn disputant.

The comment closes with the passage that should govern its strongest rebukes: “we ourselves” were once deceived, and God saved according to mercy (Titus 3:3–7). That confession prevents discernment from becoming self-congratulation. A church may need to stop destructive teaching and still remember that its own soundness is a gift to steward, not evidence of inherent superiority. Teachability and firm boundaries can therefore serve the same aim: a community whose doctrine and behavior bear witness to God's kindness.

Reading Titus again, I couldn't help but notice the repeated theme of "good deeds." Paul encourages Titus to be an example of good deeds (Titus 2:7); God saved us to be a people zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:14); believers need reminding to be ready for every good deed (Titus 3:1); and even though God didn't save us on the basis of our own deeds (Titus 3:5), believers should still be careful to devote themselves to good deeds (Titus 3:8). These verses give a clear picture of the theology of faith and good deeds — we're saved through faith and for good deeds, with both faith and good deeds being the gift and purpose of God's grace. Paul explains this directly: God's grace has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone, teaching us to reject ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in this present age, watching for the blessed hope of Christ's glorious appearing — He gave Himself to redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people zealous for good deeds, entirely His own (a paraphrase of Titus 2:11–14).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The "through faith, for good deeds" formula this comment identifies gets its most compact statement in Ephesians, where Paul says believers are saved by grace through faith, not by works, so no one can boast — yet immediately adds that believers are God's own creation, created in Christ Jesus specifically for good works, which God prepared in advance for them to do (a paraphrase of Ephesians 2:8–10). That single passage holds both halves together in the same breath, which is worth noticing: good deeds aren't presented as a later addition tacked onto salvation for the more committed, but as the very purpose salvation was designed to produce from the outset.