For the… why?

I splutter sometimes when my brain overloads. It’s probably funny to watch. “I… but… why don’t…!”

Here’s a simple problem. There’s Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention. Simple solution. Invite them to leave and join another, or start their own.

Nobody’s doing that. “But…you don’t…huh?” As Calvinists, they subscribe to unBiblical views. As Reformed Christians, they labor under false doctrines that totally color their thinking. If the Southern Baptist Convention is for Bible Believing Christians, then we should invite those in error to leave. You know, the right foot of fellowship. If they could do it to Fightin’ Frank Norris, certainly they can do it to Paul Washer and Albert Moehler.

Simple problem. We have Bible-denying Emergent congregations in the Southern Baptist Convention. Simple solution. We explain to them that the Southern Baptist Convention is for saved people. And then we invite them all to open their Bibles to Romans 3:23 and start witnessing to them. Bibles, I said. Not “The Message”.

Nobody’s doing that. “For the…but the…why?” As Emergents, they question the Trinity. They question the Deity of Jesus Christ. These are damnable heresies, according to the Bible.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17-18 (KJV, Emphasis mine)

Emergents question the very validity and inspiration of the Bible. They question and deny the very existence of Hell. They question EVERYTHING. They doubt and deny. At this point, I say, “Well, from what I see, there’s no evidence that you’re saved! There appears to be no difference between you and a lost person.”

The Southern Baptist Convention needs to do what is Biblical to do.

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Tim 3:1-5 (KJV)

The Southern Baptist Convention is REQUIRED by the Bible, and by God, to turn these people aside. If entire churches are in apostasy, they must be disenfranchised, or disfellowshipped, or thrown out – whatever wording you prefer. The Southern Baptist Convention, by allowing them to stay, and by lending them an air of legitimacy, is participating in their evil deeds.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John 1:10-11 (KJV)

Pastors are required, by God, to name names and say, “I’m sorry I have to say this… but Dallas Willard is a heretic. Please do not buy his books.”

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Romans 16:17 (KJV)

Departing from the Biblical doctrine of Separationism caused more damage to the Southern Baptist Convention than any other issue. By allowing heretics, wolves in sheeps clothing, and Bible Deniers to remain in the Southern Baptist Convention without saying nary a word is not only in direct opposition to the Bible, its damaging!

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 (KJV)

So… why are these people still affiliated with the SBC? Why do we have a man who is Episcopal in Doctrine, if not completely Roman Catholic (by his own admissions), acting as a missionary under the auspices of the SBC? Billy Graham should have been questioned as to his doctrine and possibly cast out when the first signs of heresy arose in 1957!

When are we going to do something?

Because let me tell you – the Emergents have a plan. They have an agenda. They’ve been sneaking their converts into SBC churches, and slowly but surely are working subtly to convert them all to apostate churches.

And if you think I’m being harsh (I’m not – the harshest words on this post are ALL from the Bible, and therefore God) – consider this. Calvinists are downright aggressive. They will attempt to seize the SBC, and force out all non-Calvinist pastors. John Calvin had people who disagreed with his Roman Catholic-based doctrine dragged through the streets and burned alive. His followers tend towards the same thing, but to a much lesser degree!

If we don’t kick them out, eventually their heresy will spread – and they will kick us out!

Lets get back to the Bible and what the SBC used to be pre-1947, before its too late.


Is Doctrinal Difference Really A Problem?

According to the Bible, yes.

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. (Titus 1:5-11 KJB:PCE)

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42 KJB:PCE)

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:3 KJB:PCE)

No other doctrine. That makes the case. We are to teach no other doctrine. We are to continue in the Apostles’ Doctrine, that which came down to us from the Apostles.

LET as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. (1 Timothy 6:1 KJB:PCE)

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 KJB:PCE)

These teachings characterized the Southern Baptist Convention until 1947, and Harold Ockinga, whose pronouncement “We repudiate come-out’ism!” heralded the birth of New Evangelicalism.

It also characterizes the Independent Baptist.Many Independent Baptist churches initially came out of the Southern Baptist convention over rejection of theological modernism and over rejection of the New Evangelicalism, dubbing it “Ecumenism”. Apparently the Vatican agreed, as in the 1960’s they created the Ecumenism ministry to reach out to “separated bretheren” to “bring them back into the fold” – i.e., back to Rome.

A simple study of Baptist history shows that Baptists have been around since the time of the Apostles. Some may believe the original church fell into apostasy, and became the Roman Catholic Church. I disagree. I think I can make a case that the Roman Catholic Church is “Those not of us” that John warned about in his epistles. It is noteworthy that the Roman Catholic doctrines arose in Alexandria, Egypt and not Jerusalem or Ephesus, the first church outside of Israel.

Baptists have fought to keep and preserve their doctrine for centuries, despite the constant threat of death, torture, banishment, imprisonment. Yet in the 21st Century, they are rushing headlong to throw them aside.

Christians are commanded to separate from those who depart from true doctrine. I tend not to put Baptist Briders in that category, because although they remain in error in supposing an unproven physical “church successionism”, they still hold to all other doctrines as correct doctrine. They merely have mistaken Doctrinal Successionism (which can be found in the New Testament) with a physical successionism, church begetting church begetting church.

Rather, a church that holds to correct doctrine is a church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Roger Williams for example. Baptist Briders would reject any church descended from his church, as he was not baptised by anyone with “authority to baptise”. yet he held to Baptist Doctrine, and started the second Baptist Church in the United States (the first was started by John Clarke – everyone loves Williams because he also started the state of Rhode Island).

With that stated, the rejection of other doctrines remains a source of concern. If a church rejects Separationism, do we associate with them? Maybe at first – but be warned that that church will quickly slide into compromise and error. Why not separate from them right away? Because they are in the position of backsliding, not yet questioning God or denying God. Some would counsel separating from them immediately – I disagree. But I do state you will have to eventually. When you reject separationism, you open the door for heresy.

If they reject King James only-ism, do we reject them? No. Again, it’s an issue if backsliding. We should reprove the backslider, and encourage them back to continuing in the Apostles doctrine.

If they reject the infallibility and inspiration and preservation of the bible, do we associate with them? No, at this point they have descended into heresy. They now question God. They now deny God. The Bible states God has maginified His word over His name (psa. 138:2). God states He will preserve His words forever (Psa. 12:6-7). The Lord Jesus Christ promises letter for letter preservation and inspiration of the Bible. Rejecting the Bible as containing errors is calling God a liar, or denying God even exists.

If they reject the virgin Birth – separate. If they reject the Divinity of Jesus Christ, we separate. If they begin befriending Rome, we separate. Otherwise we share in Rome’s evil deeds, and will have to account for that to God.

Continuing in sound doctrine is important. The Bible makes that clear. Paul warned Timothy to teach no other doctrine, and not to allow others to do so.

If God caused Paul to warn Timothy so, we should heed likewise.

The Call of the Pastor

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. (Titus 1:5-11 KJB:PCE)

How does one know they are called of God to be a pastor?

it’s not the desire to stand before the congregation, and receive the ego boost of preaching a sermon. If that’s your motivation, you may not be called.

The desire to care for a congregation is one strong clue. God does not give just the desire to preach – this could be how Satan counterfeits the gift in wolves in sheep’s clothing. it’s also in the need to care for and shepherd a congregation.

if you find yourself musing on how best to feed a flock, you are probably called to the ministry. Not just in what topics to preach on, but which topics will they need to grow as Christians?

If you find yourself thinking about needing to work on a statement of faith, you’re called to be a pastor.

If you find yourself musing at odd times on your Sunday School curriculum, you’re called to be a pastor.

If you find yourself thinking about church programs, what you’re good with and what you’re not… you’re called to be a pastor.

If you’re thinking about all these things, and also about teaching Sunday School Classes, you’re called to be a Pastor.

If on the other hand, you find yourself only thinking about starting the church, and never anything beyond setting up the programs… you’re called to be an Evangelist, a church planter.

If you find yourself only thinking about teaching the Sunday School, then you’re called to be a teacher, not a pastor.

if you find that your interest in the church merely is that of wanting to be more than just a pew sitter, you’re being led into some kind of ministry. If nothing more than that feeling arises, then that’s ego, and one should hold off until you feel the call of God. If it remains, then you’re a Deacon.

If you find yourself thinking only about the money a Pastor makes, and think it’s easy work – you’re not called to be anything. If you find yourself thinking how easy it would be to take the church from the pastor, you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and probably need saving. Don’t hesitate! Tell the Pastor. Let him know what you’re feeling, and ask him – “Are you sure I’m saved?”

What a Church should not be

A church should not make you feel worse when you leave – than when you come in.

Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. (2 Corinthians 12:19 KJB:PCE)


ED’IFY, v.t. [L. oedifico; oedes, a house, and facio, to make.]

1. To build, in a literal sense. [Not now used.]

2. To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally,and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness.

Edify one another. 1 Th 5.

3. To teach or persuade. [Not used.]


ED’IFYING, ppr. Building up in christian knowledge; instructing; improving the mind.

A church should build up. Yes, the Word is to correct, reprove, teach doctrine, and instruct in righteousness – but some churches excel in the correcting and reproving part.

We are to build up the saints, not just tear them down.

A ministry must always be in balance. If your focus is always just on a warning ministry, your congregation will get a “holier than thou” attitude. Why? All they hear about is why everyone else is in error! While this is the ministry David Cloud is called to, he keeps it in balance by writing and publishing works that teach how to grow as a Christian, how to study your Bible… indeed, his most famous work is the “Way of Life Encyclopedia“, which I strongly recommend.

If all you do is chasten, rebuke and correct, your congregation will leave feeling guilty and condemned.

If all you do is encourage and build up, your congregation will be fluff, just feeling good about themselves, but not growing as Christians. and if you’re taking repentance out of the Gospel, your filling your pews with unconverted souls, who will feel really good about themselves as they happily march off to hell.

If all they learn is doctrine, then you’ll have a cold, heartless church that knows all about separation and Baptist history and doctrinal successionism, etc… but they have no love for one another.

All things must be emphasized in balance, to prevent these issues.

E-Sword, TheWord, and Davar

Yup. I keep going back and forth. Davar is a program most people have never heard of. I’ve tried every free Bible program, and in many cases, I think I like The Word the best. But here’s the step by step review.

Davar: Its main strength is the dictionaries. It has several language dictionaries, and I have the windows set up for “Hebrew to English” and the Hebrew Dictionary. This way I can check my iffy Hebrew spelling! Aside from these… I don’t use it much. If they were to concentrate o this feature, and get people to help them with other foreign languages, it’d be a big hit.

E-Sword: The Reigning champ. It’s strong points are, well, the image gallery/maps, and its search functions. I think Rick realized a while ago that its search functions would keep the program from obsolescence. The drawback? slow. very slow. And the main criticism by some users is that when Rick plans on making changes to E-sword, user objections amount to absolutely nothing. This resulted in one of the most prolific module creators for E-Sword (David Cox) switching to The Word instead.

The Word: Pretender to the throne. If they ever added the image gallery/maps and greatly improved the search function… I think that The Word would easily replace E-Sword. I know I enjoy doing commentary much more in The Word. The main drawback? Lack of user documentation and software authoring tools. I would love to distribute my verse and topic notes as a commentary module, but lack of second party software makes that difficult.

Now, for the issue – I can’t make up my mind which to use. Between E-Sword and The Word, I have probably 15% of a complete Bible commentary. When the thought takes me to jot down notes on a book verse or chapter, I usually set it down in whichever program I’m using at the time!

UPDATED 5/5/12:

Bible Explorer – someone bought me Bible Explorer. It’s a little clunky to use.

Updated 4/28/13

I no longer use Davar. It’s been removed from my computer. I mostly use Bible Explorer now, I also use Bible Analyzer a lot, and after almost a year of not opening it or using it, I’m back to using E-Sword a lot.

The strengths of Bible Explorer? it’s a free program also (use this link to download it) and it uses all the available Wordsearch library.



Update 8/3/13!

Bible Explorer has been replaced by Wordsearch Basic. I got that… and promptly bought the full Wordsearch for $30. I haven’t used theWord in almost a year. It’s not even on my new laptop. I still have E-Sword on there, but only to use modules I have on Esword that I don’t have on Wordsearch.

Update 2016

Now using Logos. That’s pretty much it.

The Neglected Apologetics Approach

  • Scientific approach (Hovind)
  • Natural Observation (Bahnsen, Craig, Comfort)
  • Evidentiary (McDowell)

The most common approach today is the Natural Observation approach. I’m telling you, that approach leaves me cold. And it’s going to leave a lot of Atheists cold.

Back before I was saved(!) I used to use an approach that used to overwhelm and stump the most dedicated opponent – a combination of Scientific and Evidentiary.

Look, anyone who’s ever looked at Israel is aware that Jerusalem is crowded, especially with Muslim monuments and buildings. It’s SOP for Muslims to build a monument, mosque, or any other Muslim structure over any conquered territory. Thar’s why they were so crazy to build a Mosque on Ground Zero. It shows our ignorance that we allowed it.

There’s something in Jerusalem that defies logic. An empty tomb. It’s in prime real estate, and it’s right by a hill shaped like a skull. You’d think that in over 2,000 years, somebody would have said, “hey, free tomb! Let’s bury Grandpa in that!”

Now, Jews… we tend to be logical, and a little bit superstitious. If we bury someone, and they rise from the dead… let’s not use that tomb again. We had problems with it last time.

It transfers the credit from Jesus to the Tomb, but it does tend to follow Jewish thinking. And it explains why it sat there for 2,000 years with nobody, absolutely nobody being buried in it.

countering argument… (…)

There isn’t one. You’re left with suppositions and theorizing. And no explanations of the facts.

Evidence for Jesus outside of the New Testament? Try the Talmud. He’s in there, written about by hostile Pharisees who, if He didn’t exist, would not have bothered. They had NO REASON to write scathing comments and outright mistruths about Jesus – if He never existed!

Another place of evidence? Suetonius. There’s enough documentary evidence of not only the existence of the Lord Jesus, but also of the Crucifixion, and also of the Resurrection. If you look, that is. Too many Atheists end up just assuming there is none, and try making the confident assertion “there is no proof…” simply because they assumed. It costs them debates every time they make the claim.

Here’s a strong argument…

All of the apostles died martyr’s deaths. Nobody dies willingly for something they know is a lie. One of them would have recanted. The Sanhedrin would have paid good money to get rid of that troublesome Nazarene sect! I guarantee that. It was leading people away from offering sin offerings (sacrifices). That was a cash cow for the Sadducees who depended upon the Temple (most Levites and Kohenim were Sadducee in those days). It literally was costing them a fortune. They’d GLADLY have paid someone a handsome sum to get them to recant.

How many of the 500 to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection, died martyr’s deaths? Probably most of them. It’s hard to think of ALL of them dying, and nobody saying, “hey, we made it up…” And the Romans had some brutal ways to kill.

Suetonius and other Romans mention Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus. He’s historically provable.

This is an example of Evidentiary Approach. It’s impossible to counter, except by red herrings, straw man arguments and circular reasoning, both of which are easily identified and answered.

The other approach is Scientific Approach, which is reciting facts, figures, such as “the river in the Grand Canyon would have had to run uphill for billions of years to have carved the grand canyon.” Such as ” if man is the current top of the evolutionary scale, why does the Crayfish have more chromosomes?”

I love the scientific approach, because it’s acceptable to Evolutionists. A quick warning to give them is always, “be careful attempting to refute these arguments – history has shown that every piece of evidence for evolution has a nasty habit of eventually proving against. For instance, a few years back, DNA chains were being cited as evidence for Evolution. now, DNA is giving researchers sleepless nights, as they’re learning more about it… and it’s showing unmistakable evidence of being designed.”

In 2004, there was some research suggesting that there was an external viral source that created beneficial mutations, and that information was passed down to succeeding generations. it was touted in a debate as being proof of beneficial mutation.

There’s been nothing more on that. I’ll suggest it’s self refuting because it’s a). external in source and b). you moved too soon… “recent laboratory studies” have a nasty habit of being found to prove exactly the opposite of first conclusions within 10 years. See you in three years. Although I’ll point out that Scientists are fond of claiming “sickle cell anemia is a beneficial mutation – because you can’t get certain diseases if you have it.” Yes, and you can’t get athlete’s foot if your legs are amputated. That’s not beneficial at all.

It is roughly analogous to saying “the common cold proves evolution, because you develop a resistance to it.” If that’s the best you got, hang it up. How can an external source support the Warm Little Pond? You’re still ignoring evidence that the Warm Little Pond is untenable at best, and downright impossible. Extending it to a Warm Big Ocean (the 70’s change in the theory) still results in the same problem. Life cannot have appeared all at once without a designer. And life by itself results in a starved amoeba, looking vainly for something to eat. And oh by the way, if the Amoeba didn’t evolve the ability to process the missing food, it would have starved. And it needed the ability to reproduce. Or it would have lived and died one fat, happy amoeba… and no life.

this is an example of the Scientific method. Together, both approaches (Scientific and Evidentiary) are unbeatable. Forcing the opponent to concede points as you raise them leaves them beaten.

But on that note, read my thoughts on public forum debates.


“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

This is the most maddening thing about debates. We have people like Comfort, McDowell, Hovind & Craig who engage with “educated” atheists, thinking it will do some good. I see on a list on the internet that William Craig has debated Edwards twice, and Luderman twice.

I would think once you’ve debated someone like Craig, who Atheists themselves rate as the best debater, you’d back off… and never attempt such an embarrassing situation again.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it does little good to do open forum debates. It took Flew years of debates to transcend from Atheist to theist… but he’s still not saved. We’ve seen recently Dawkins go from Atheist to Agnostic… but he’s still not saved. And I see from first hand observation at Hovind v. Berkely NOBODY in the audience was convinced nor converted. Read my thoughts on that here and also here.

Christians keep winning debates, many times completely dismantling Atheist arguments. We expose the arguments as illogical, unfounded, circular reasoning… and yet the defeated Atheist and the watching audience who was expecting a quick victory walk off thinking, “next time, I’ll…”

Back up the bus, boo-boo!

Didn’t it occur to you that a Christian just proved your worldview is incorrect? Whether through scientific argument (Hovind), observation of nature (Comfort, Bahnsen) or Evidentiary (McDowell… whose approach most Atheists are completely unable to grasp, counter and combat!) – you were BEATEN.

Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it. (Psalms 10:13)

Someone just proved to you that your worldview is incorrect.

Integrity 2. The entire, unimpaired state of any thing, particularly of the mind; moral soundness or purity; incorruptness; uprightness; honesty. Integrity comprehends the whole moral character, but has a special reference to uprightness in mutual dealings, transfers of property,and agencies for others. (Webster’s 1828)

If you are honest and have integrity… you will now have to say you are an Agnostic… because it was proved to you that there is a case for the existence of God. I realize that any Atheist has to operate without integrity by definition, as nature itself shows ample evidence for the existence of God every moment. Yet still atheists and scientists operate a willing suspension of disbelief every time they examine evidence showing an Intelligent Design for the Universe.

When a Christian, whom you regard as stupid simply because they believe in a God, totally defeats you – you need to STOP, examine the evidence honestly, and decide for yourself – instead of just “business as usual, we’ll get them next time…”

Before it’s too late. Please. You could die tomorrow. If you’re right, that’s it – you stop. Sad, huh? No more you.

Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Isaiah 3:11)

But if I’m right… it’s bad. You will awake suddenly, in flames. The pain will be agonizing. You’ll feel every nerve as it burns. But the burning doesn’t stop. You’re not consumed. The sounds of the screaming, begging, pleading around you will be horrific… and you’ll be doing it too. If anyone is close to you, the flailing around will cause an agonizing crash as flaming bone hits flaming bone. And the dawning awareness that you’re not burning up… you’re going to continue to burn and suffer, FOREVER. It will not end.

And now you know at last, that stupid Christian was doing everything in his power to help you. You laughed at him, mocked him, and belittled him.

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Psalms 9:17)

There are two common sayings about Hell –

  1. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here
  2. The sign over Hell reads, “too late.”

I doubt there’s a sign over Hell, myself. Please, I’m begging you. Look at the evidence with honesty and integrity. Ask yourself, “Have I been deluding myself? Is there something to this God stuff?”

Then get a Bible. You’ve probably already got one, a King James because so many people have claimed you can find contradictions in it. Open it up. Start with the Book of John. READ IT CAREFULLY. Approach it with, “What if this is true?” If you’re not swayed, read Romans. Then Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I saved Luke for last, because it was quite the fad for Atheists to attempt to disprove Luke in the 19th century. Every one of them that attempted to research it and disprove it… ended up Christians.

And if that does not work… read Revelation last. Because we’re so close to that time I want you to understand what you’re about to live through. Pay close attention, because odds are you won’t survive it. And after that…

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:12-15)

This is the end of Revelation for the unsaved. Anyone who has rejected Jesus Christ.

That’s not the ending I want for you. This one is.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:2-4)