JPAbecilla.com Is Back: Restoring My Original Blog Since 2013

Some websites become more than just websites. They become part of your history.

For me, JPAbecilla.com is one of them.

I started blogging in 2013 through Blogger at jpabecilla.blogspot.com. Back then, it was simply a place where I could write, share ideas, and document experiences. I did not yet know how far blogging would eventually take me.

A few years later, I moved to WordPress because I wanted more control over my website and a more professional platform for my writing.

In 2018, I bought my own domain:

JPAbecilla.com

That became the main home of my blog and, for a time, the online identity attached to much of my writing.

In 2019, JPAbecilla.com was recognised as Best Cebu Events Blog at the Best Cebu Blogs Awards. That remains one of the most memorable milestones of my early blogging years.

Losing the Original Site

Around 2021, I went through some difficulties and could no longer maintain the domain and website.

JPAbecilla.com eventually deleted.

When I was able to recover the domain later, I initially thought the old WordPress website and its articles would somehow return with it. I eventually learned that the domain was only the address. The actual website content had been hosted separately.

That meant many of my articles from around 2018 to 2021 were no longer immediately accessible.

Starting Again

In 2022, while JPAbecilla.com was still unavailable, I created JPAbecillaPH.com and rebuilt my website there.

That site has since become my current platform for newer articles, professional work, digital marketing services, and other projects.

But JPAbecilla.com always remained significant to me because it represented an earlier chapter of my writing journey.

Bringing JPAbecilla.com Back

After recovering the domain, I eventually realised that my original Blogger account from 2013 was still online.

The articles were still there.

So instead of letting JPAbecilla.com go unused or simply redirecting it to my newer website, I decided to reconnect the domain to the blog where my writing journey began.

Today, JPAbecilla.com is back!

This time, I am giving it a different purpose.

The Original Blog & Archives

JPAbecilla.com will now serve as my original blog and writing archive.

It will preserve:

• my early Blogger articles;
• selected writing from my earlier years;
• restored posts from the old WordPress version of JPAbecilla.com, whenever I can recover them; and
• pieces that document how my writing and blogging journey developed over time.

Some of the missing articles from 2018 to 2021 may still be recoverable through old backups, archived pages, social media links, or other sources. I hope to gradually restore as much of that history as possible.

Meanwhile, JPAbecillaPH.com will remain my current website for newer writing, professional projects, and digital marketing work.

The two sites now have different purposes:

JPAbecilla.com
The Original Blog & Archives — Est. 2013

JPAbecillaPH.com
My current website and professional platform

More than a decade after I started blogging, it feels good to finally give the original domain a proper home again.

Welcome back to JPAbecilla.com.

How I Started Blogging: From a College Passion to a Professional Platform

JP Abecilla

Originally published February 7, 2020

I started blogging on Blogger in August 2013, primarily to support The Ambassadors' Club, a student organization I founded in college.

My earliest articles were simple. I wrote about studying, preparing for exams, personal development, and values. Some of those early posts included “Preparing for a Test” and “Smart Test Strategy.”

At the time, I didn't even think much about the word blogging. I simply wanted to write useful content that could help fellow students improve academically and prepare themselves for life beyond university.

Blogging Started in College

Writing was only one of the many things keeping me busy during my college years at Cebu Normal University.

I became involved in different student organizations and activities, including the CNU Chorale, CNU Debate Society, CNU English Fellows, and the Supreme Student Government, where I served as a senator and chairman of the Committee on Grievance.

I also founded The Ambassadors' Club.

My background in Bible teaching and preaching naturally influenced some of my earliest writing. I often combined academic lessons, personal development, and biblical principles. That approach attracted both readers who agreed with me and people who strongly disagreed.

Because I was juggling so many activities, however, blogging was far from consistent. After my initial posts in 2013, I returned more actively in 2015, this time writing more openly about religion, politics, and social issues.

Moving From Blogger to WordPress

By 2017, my understanding of blogging had changed considerably.

I moved to WordPress.com and began creating more motivational and personal-development content. At the same time, I was already working professionally as a website content writer, which exposed me to SEO, website management, online publishing, and digital marketing.

Blogging was no longer simply an extracurricular activity.

It was slowly becoming part of my professional identity.

I eventually upgraded my WordPress website and, in 2018, acquired JPAbecilla.com as my own domain.

That was an important milestone. What began as a free Blogger site during college had developed into a more serious personal platform.

Why I Never Chose Just One Niche

One thing has remained consistent throughout my blogging journey: I have always found it difficult to confine myself to a single topic.

I write about blogging, writing, motivation, careers, business, social media, politics, religion, society, and personal experiences.

Traditional blogging advice often tells writers to choose one niche and stay within it. But that never completely reflected who I was as a writer.

Eventually, that mix of interests helped shape the identity JP Abecilla – The Millennial Writer.

I am a millennial who grew up alongside enormous changes in technology, communication, work, media, and society. Writing became my way of observing, understanding, and participating in those changes.

From Passion to Profession

Looking back, I never imagined that those simple Blogger posts in 2013 would eventually lead me deeper into professional writing, content creation, SEO, social media, and digital marketing.

What started as a college passion became part of my career.

And after several years of blogging, I still believe there is much more to learn.

The platforms will change. Technology will change. The way people consume information will continue to change.

But the reason I started remains surprisingly familiar:

I wanted to write something useful, share what I was learning, and hopefully help someone along the way.

— JP Abecilla, February 2020

Never Again? A 2015 Reflection on Marcos, Martial Law, and Historical Memory

Originally published October 31, 2015

Archive note: This article was originally written in 2015, during the period when Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. was seeking the vice presidency. It is preserved here as part of my early blogging history. Some of my views, arguments, and understanding of Philippine history have developed since this was first published.

This is a response to the Inquirer.net article “‘Never Again’ Is Not Just About Marcos.”

I do not claim to be an expert on Philippine history or politics. I write simply as a Filipino citizen who believes that political issues should be examined critically rather than accepted according to one political narrative alone.

Should Filipinos Forget Martial Law?

The article argued that Bongbong Marcos wanted Filipinos to forget—or even deny—the abuses committed during his father's rule.

I disagreed with presenting his position that simply.

Remembering history is important. A country that forgets its past risks repeating its mistakes. But remembering should also involve reading, questioning, comparing sources, and understanding the larger context rather than merely repeating slogans from either political camp.

“Moving on” should never mean erasing history.

At the same time, remembering the past should not prevent people from independently evaluating present-day political candidates.

The challenge is to do both: remember history and judge today's leaders according to evidence.

A Son Is Not Automatically His Father

One point in the Inquirer article with which I agreed was that children should not automatically be held responsible for the crimes of their parents.

Bongbong Marcos was not Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

That distinction mattered to me in 2015, and it remains a reasonable principle when evaluating any political family. A candidate should be examined according to his own actions, statements, record, policies, and character.

That does not mean family history becomes irrelevant.

If a candidate publicly defends, minimizes, or misrepresents actions associated with his family's political history, those statements can legitimately become part of the public's evaluation of him.

But criticism should still focus on evidence rather than guilt merely by association.

“Never Again” Should Be Bigger Than One Family

The strongest point of the phrase “Never Again” is not that a particular surname should forever be prohibited from holding public office.

Its deeper lesson should be that Filipinos must remain vigilant against the concentration and abuse of political power.

That principle should apply regardless of surname, political party, region, ideology, or family.

If we condemn authoritarianism only when it comes from politicians we dislike but tolerate abuses committed by politicians we support, then we have misunderstood the lesson.

“Never Again” should mean never again to dictatorship.

Never again to abuse of power.

Never again to violations of people's rights.

Never again to political institutions becoming tools of one person or one family.

And never again to citizens surrendering their responsibility to question those who govern them.

Social Media and the New Political Generation

Another issue I raised in 2015 was the growing role of social media.

Many younger Filipinos were already receiving political information through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other online platforms rather than traditional history books and newspapers.

That created both an opportunity and a danger.

Digital platforms can make history more accessible. They can introduce younger people to political debates they might otherwise ignore.

But they can also spread misleading information much faster.

This means that political participation online should involve more than sharing memes, slogans, edited videos, or partisan posts.

Read beyond the headline.

Check the source.

Compare opposing claims.

Study history beyond Facebook.

And question politicians—even the ones you support.

History Is More Complicated Than Political Loyalty

When I originally wrote this article, I strongly resisted what I perceived as the assumption that anyone willing to support Bongbong Marcos must be ignorant of history.

I still believe political disagreement should not automatically become an accusation of stupidity or ignorance.

Filipinos can study the same period and reach different political conclusions.

But disagreement also does not make every historical claim equally valid.

There are facts that can be investigated through documents, court decisions, government records, testimonies, scholarly research, and other evidence.

Critical thinking therefore requires something more difficult than simply choosing between “pro-Marcos” and “anti-Marcos.”

It requires being willing to challenge information even when it supports our own political preference.

What Should “Never Again” Mean?

The phrase should not belong exclusively to one political group.

It should serve as a warning to every generation.

Never again should Filipinos blindly surrender power to political leaders.

Never again should loyalty to a politician become more important than loyalty to truth.

Never again should history be reduced to propaganda—from either side.

And never again should political disagreement prevent Filipinos from examining evidence for themselves.

We cannot change what happened in the past.

But we can decide how carefully we study it, what lessons we learn from it, and how those lessons influence the leaders we choose in the future.

Remember the past. Question the present. Think for yourself.

— JP Abecilla, October 2015

The Graffiti of Moral Degeneration: Faith, Reason, and the Meaning of Freedom

The day when the people celebrates on the U.S. Supreme Court's rule on same-sex marriage. 

Photo from The Atlantic.

Originally published July 11, 2015

A society can become more technologically advanced while becoming less certain about the moral principles that should guide it.

We live in a culture increasingly shaped by entertainment, personal fulfillment, emotion, and individual freedom. None of these things is necessarily wrong. The problem begins when pleasure becomes the measure of what is good, personal desire becomes the measure of what is right, and moral truth is reduced to whatever society is willing to accept at a particular moment.

For Christians, this raises an important question:

Should Christian faith be set aside whenever society discusses morality, equality, freedom, law, and culture?

I do not believe so.

Is Faith Still Relevant to Moral Reasoning?

Christianity should not be treated as though faith automatically means the absence of reason.

Christian belief has historically made claims about truth, human nature, morality, justice, dignity, responsibility, and the purpose of life. Christians therefore have every right to bring those convictions into public discussion, just as people with secular, philosophical, political, or cultural worldviews bring their own assumptions into the same discussion.

That does not mean the Bible should simply be imposed upon everyone in a pluralistic society.

It does mean that Christians should not be expected to abandon their convictions merely because those convictions are religious.

A society committed to genuine intellectual freedom should be capable of hearing religious arguments, secular arguments, and philosophical arguments—and examining each according to its reasoning and evidence.

Faith and Reason Are Not Enemies

A graffito along Escario Road going to Ayala Cebu 

- Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines.

Photo by J.P. Abecilla

I believe faith and reason belong together.

Christian faith should never become an excuse for ignorance, intellectual laziness, or hostility toward questions. At the same time, reason should not be defined so narrowly that anything involving God, Scripture, or religious belief is automatically dismissed as irrational.

The Christian Scriptures themselves encourage believers to think carefully about what they believe.

First Peter 3:15 says:

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”

Notice that Christians are instructed not merely to believe, but to be prepared to give a reason for that belief.

Just as importantly, the verse requires that this be done with meekness and respect.

That matters.

A Christian argument becomes weaker when conviction turns into contempt. There are religious people who behave arrogantly and secular people who behave arrogantly. Neither group should be judged entirely by its worst representatives.

The failures of some preachers do not invalidate Christianity, just as the failures of some secular thinkers do not invalidate every secular argument.

The Authorized King James Version. 

Mr. Abecilla's personal Bible.

Photo by J.P. Abecilla

What Do We Mean by Freedom?

One of the central questions of modern society concerns freedom.

Freedom is valuable. But freedom itself does not automatically tell us what is good.

A person may be free to make a decision while the decision itself can still be wise or foolish, moral or immoral, beneficial or destructive.

Christianity therefore understands freedom as something more than the ability to do whatever one desires.

From a Christian perspective, genuine freedom is connected to truth and moral responsibility.

Jesus said:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
— John 8:32

That is very different from saying that whatever makes us happy must therefore be right.

Desire alone cannot establish morality.

Emotion alone cannot establish truth.

Popularity alone cannot establish goodness.

And neither religious nor secular people should assume that an idea becomes correct simply because society has become comfortable with it.

Truth Is Not Determined by Popularity

Perhaps the deeper disagreement between traditional Christianity and much of modern secular culture concerns the nature of truth itself.

Is moral truth something we discover, or something we create?

Christianity teaches that truth ultimately exists independently of individual preference. Human beings may understand it imperfectly, disagree about it, or even reject it, but we do not make something true merely by approving it.

That conviction inevitably places Christianity in tension with some modern ideas.

But disagreement should not automatically be described as hatred, ignorance, or intolerance.

Christians should be willing to examine their beliefs carefully, defend them reasonably, admit when they have argued badly, and treat people who disagree with them with dignity.

Likewise, a genuinely liberal society should be willing to tolerate Christian convictions even when those convictions challenge contemporary cultural assumptions.

Holding Conviction Without Losing Humanity

I remain committed to the major teachings of the traditional Christian faith.

That commitment does not require hostility toward people who think differently from me. Nor does respect for others require me to pretend that every moral position is equally true.

There should be room for both conviction and civility.

Faith without thoughtful examination can become shallow.

Reason without humility can become arrogant.

And freedom without any moral framework can eventually become little more than the pursuit of personal desire.

The challenge for Christians is therefore not merely to condemn what they believe is wrong.

It is to demonstrate, through reason, Scripture, character, and compassion, why they believe something is true—and to do so without forgetting the humanity of the person standing on the other side of the argument.

Truth does not require cruelty to defend it.

And respect does not require the abandonment of conviction.

— J.P. Abecilla

The Rise of Modern Sodom? Biblical Morality, Sexual Ethics, and the Question of Judgment

Originally written in the aftermath of the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Archive note: This essay reflects my traditional Christian understanding of marriage, sexuality, Scripture, and moral authority. Some of the arguments and language in the original version have been revised for greater biblical accuracy, fairness, and clarity.

In 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples possess a constitutional right to marry.

For many supporters, the decision represented equality, dignity, and freedom.

For many traditional Christians, however, it raised another question:

Can civil law redefine something that Christians believe God has already defined?

That question remains worth discussing.

But before Christians invoke Sodom, judgment, or biblical morality, we should be careful that we are representing Scripture accurately rather than merely using biblical language to strengthen something we already want to say.

The One Lawgiver

James 4:12 says:

“There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”

This establishes an important distinction.

Human courts possess legitimate authority over civil law. Governments determine legal rights, contracts, benefits, and public policy within their jurisdictions.

But a court ruling does not determine Christian theology.

Likewise, a church does not determine constitutional law merely by quoting Scripture.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision answered a constitutional question under American law. It did not claim authority to determine what Christians must believe about marriage before God.

Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion expressly acknowledged that many people oppose same-sex marriage because of “decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.”

Christians therefore do not have to pretend that a civil ruling settles a theological question.

At the same time, disagreement with that ruling does not give Christians permission to despise the people whose marriages the law recognizes.

There is a difference between moral conviction and personal contempt.

What Was the Sin of Sodom?

This is where my original article was too absolute.

I wrote that the sin for which God destroyed Sodom was homosexuality.

The biblical record is more complicated.

Genesis 13:13 already describes the people of Sodom as “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” In Genesis 18, God speaks of the city's grievous sin before the events involving Lot's visitors even occur.

Then Genesis 19 describes a mob surrounding Lot's house and demanding access to his male guests.

The demand is clearly sexual. Lot's response confirms that something profoundly wicked is intended.

But it is also an attempted act of collective sexual violence.

That matters.

The story is not describing two consenting adults seeking a lifelong relationship. It portrays a violent mob attempting to sexually abuse strangers.

Other biblical passages broaden the indictment even further.

Ezekiel 16:49–50 condemns Sodom for pride, abundance, idleness, failure to help the poor and needy, and committing abominations before God.

Jude 7 emphasizes sexual immorality and the pursuit of “strange flesh.”

Second Peter 2 presents Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of ungodliness and lawlessness.

Taken together, Scripture portrays Sodom not as a city guilty of only one particular sin, but as a society characterized by deep corruption—sexual violence, injustice, pride, moral lawlessness, neglect of others, and rebellion against God.

That actually makes the biblical warning stronger.

Sodom should not become merely a weapon Christians use whenever homosexuality is discussed.

Its warning reaches much further.

Does That Mean the Bible Has Nothing to Say About Same-Sex Sexual Relationships?

No.

Rejecting an oversimplified interpretation of Sodom does not require abandoning traditional Christian sexual ethics.

The Christian argument concerning marriage does not depend upon Genesis 19 alone.

Genesis 2:24 presents marriage through the union of man and woman:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Jesus Himself returns to this creation account in Matthew 19:4–6 when discussing marriage.

Traditional Christian teaching has therefore understood marriage as a covenantal sexual union between a man and a woman.

Romans 1:26–27 is also among the passages traditionally understood as rejecting same-sex sexual relations.

Christians disagree today about the interpretation and application of these passages. Some churches have adopted affirming interpretations of same-sex relationships, while Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and many other Christian traditions continue to maintain the historic male-female understanding of marriage.

I remain within the latter position.

But that conviction needs to be stated accurately:

I am making a theological claim about sexual conduct and marriage—not declaring that LGBT people possess less human dignity than anyone else.

Those are entirely different statements.

“Judge Not”

One of the most common responses to Christian moral teaching is Jesus' statement:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Christians themselves sometimes misuse the verse in the opposite direction.

Jesus was not teaching that human beings must abandon every distinction between right and wrong. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are repeatedly called to discern good from evil.

But Jesus strongly condemns hypocritical judgment.

That should restrain Christians considerably.

A Christian may believe an action is sinful without claiming God's authority to determine another person's eternal destiny.

We are not the final Judge.

That is precisely why James says there is one Lawgiver.

And Romans 3:23 reminds Christians:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Biblical morality therefore gives Christians no basis for self-righteousness.

If homosexuality is discussed endlessly while adultery, fornication, pornography, lust, exploitation, greed, dishonesty, pride, cruelty, and corruption are tolerated among Christians, then something has gone seriously wrong with our moral witness.

The Gospel does not divide humanity into respectable heterosexual sinners and uniquely condemned homosexual sinners.

It places all humanity in need of grace.

Freedom Is Not the Same as Moral Approval

Modern discussions of sexuality frequently revolve around freedom, equality, happiness, and personal autonomy.

Those are serious human concerns.

Christianity, however, asks an additional question:

Is everything we freely desire therefore morally good?

The biblical answer is no.

That principle applies far beyond sexuality.

A married man may sincerely desire another woman. Desire does not make adultery right.

A person may desire wealth intensely. Desire does not justify dishonesty.

Someone may find revenge emotionally satisfying. Satisfaction does not turn vengeance into virtue.

Christian morality therefore refuses to make personal desire the final authority.

From a Christian perspective, freedom does not mean merely possessing the ability to choose. Freedom also involves becoming rightly ordered toward truth and goodness.

That is why Jesus says:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

What About “Modern Sodom”?

I would use that phrase much more carefully today.

Calling modern society “Sodom” merely because same-sex marriage exists reduces a much larger biblical indictment to one issue.

If we seriously want to ask whether our generation resembles Sodom, we must also ask:

What about societies overflowing with wealth while people remain desperately poor?

What about corruption?

What about sexual exploitation?

What about violence?

What about pornography and adultery?

What about human trafficking?

What about indifference toward people in need?

What about pride, injustice, abuse of power, and the normalization of cruelty?

Ezekiel's description of Sodom should make any society uncomfortable—not merely LGBT people.

The warning points toward human rebellion as a whole.

A Sign of Coming Judgment?

Jesus Himself referred to Sodom when speaking about judgment:

“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded… Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”
— Luke 17:28–30

Notice what Jesus emphasizes.

People were carrying on with ordinary life—eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building—without recognizing the seriousness of the moment.

The warning is therefore much bigger than sexual morality.

It concerns humanity living as though God will never call anyone to account.

That is the biblical issue Christians should emphasize.

Judgment is not something we should gleefully pronounce upon groups we dislike.

It is a warning that should first produce humility and repentance in ourselves.

In Defense of Biblical Morality

I continue to believe in objective moral truth.

I continue to believe that Scripture has authority over Christian faith and conduct.

And I continue to hold the traditional Christian understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

But defending those convictions does not require exaggerating Scripture, insulting unbelievers, ridiculing LGBT people, or reducing an entire group of human beings to a political or theological issue.

First Peter 3:15 instructs Christians to defend their hope with meekness.

Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors.

And the Gospel reminds us that the Christian standing before God is himself a recipient of grace.

So yes, Christians should be willing to disagree with their culture.

We should question moral assumptions rather than accept them merely because they have become popular, legal, or socially celebrated.

But we should also question ourselves.

Are we interpreting Scripture carefully?

Are we applying morality consistently?

Are we speaking truthfully?

Are we defending conviction without hatred?

And does our conduct give anyone a reason to believe the Gospel we claim to defend?

Biblical morality needs neither cruelty nor distortion to survive.

Truth should be defended truthfully. Conviction should be expressed with humility. And judgment ultimately belongs to God.

— J.P. Abecilla

Believe and Be Saved: What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus Christ?

Originally published January 21, 2015

Archive note: This article reflects my evangelical Christian understanding of salvation and the authority of Scripture. The original version has been edited for clarity, theological precision, and a more respectful treatment of Christians who interpret some passages differently.

“…what must I do to be saved?”
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”
— Acts 16:30–31

Few questions are more important to Christianity than this:

What must a person do to be saved?

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas that question, their answer was remarkably direct:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:9 likewise says:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

For me, these passages point to the heart of the Gospel: salvation is found in Jesus Christ and received through faith in Him.

But What Does It Mean to “Believe”?

The word believe should not be reduced to simply acknowledging that Jesus existed.

James 2:19 reminds us that even the devils “believe” that there is one God.

Saving faith is therefore more than agreeing with a religious fact.

To believe in Christ is to trust Him; to place our confidence in who He is and what He has done rather than in our own righteousness.

The Gospel proclaimed by the apostles centered on the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul summarized it in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again.

Christian faith rests upon that Gospel.

Salvation Is of the Lord

Long before the New Testament, Jonah declared:

“Salvation is of the LORD.”
— Jonah 2:9

That truth remains fundamental.

A church cannot take the place of the Savior.

A pastor cannot take the place of the Savior.

A priest, minister, denomination, religious tradition, or Christian organization cannot take the place of the Savior.

The church has an important place in Christian life. Christians are called to worship, fellowship, learn, serve, and grow together.

But the church does not become Christ.

Peter declared:

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
— Acts 4:12

And Jesus said:

“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
— John 14:6

The Christian claim is therefore ultimately personal: salvation is in Christ.

Saved by Grace, Not Earned by Merit

This is also why salvation cannot be treated as something we accumulate through enough good deeds.

Ephesians 2:8–9 says:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Grace means that salvation begins with God, not with our ability to make ourselves worthy of Him.

Titus 3:5 expresses the same principle:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us…”

This does not mean good works are unimportant.

The very next verse after Ephesians 2:8–9 says that believers are created in Christ Jesus “unto good works.”

That distinction is crucial:

Good works are not the price we pay to purchase salvation; they should become part of the life produced by genuine faith.

James similarly warns that faith without works is dead.

So the biblical message is not:

Live however you want because you once said you believed.

Nor is it:

Become good enough and perhaps God will save you.

It is:

Trust Christ, receive God's grace, and let that faith begin transforming the way you live.

Faith, Repentance, Confession, and Baptism

Christians have long debated the precise relationship between faith, repentance, confession, baptism, the sacraments, and perseverance.

Those differences should be acknowledged rather than pretending they do not exist.

But Scripture repeatedly places faith in Christ at the center of salvation.

When Romans 10 speaks of believing in the heart and confessing Christ, it describes faith that is openly identified with Jesus.

When the apostles call people to repentance, they are calling them to turn toward God.

When believers are baptized in the New Testament, baptism publicly identifies them with Christ and His people.

From my evangelical understanding, none of these should be treated as human achievements that force God to grant salvation.

They belong to a person's response to the Gospel.

Examine What You Believe

My original article spoke harshly about Christians who relied on church traditions rather than reading Scripture for themselves.

I would put the challenge differently today.

Tradition is not automatically wrong simply because it is tradition. Every Christian community, including evangelical and Baptist churches, develops traditions of its own.

The better question is:

Can what we believe withstand examination in the light of Scripture?

Christians should read the Bible.

We should study its context.

We should examine what our pastors, priests, teachers, churches, and denominations teach.

And we should be willing to examine our own assumptions as carefully as we examine everyone else's.

Faith should not fear serious study.

Why Jesus?

Matthew 1:21 says of Jesus:

“Thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Jesus is not merely presented in Christianity as a moral teacher.

He is presented as Savior.

John 3:16 declares:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

And Isaiah 45:22 says:

“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.”

This is ultimately why the message “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” matters.

Christian salvation is not confidence in ourselves.

It is not confidence in our religious achievements.

It is confidence in Christ.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ

Christians should therefore continue preaching the Gospel of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

But we should do it with humility.

We cannot force anyone to believe.

We cannot insult someone into faith.

We cannot substitute religious arrogance for the Gospel.

We can proclaim Christ, explain why we believe, answer questions as faithfully as we can, and invite others to consider Him.

And after all the theological debates, denominational disagreements, traditions, arguments, and interpretations, I continue to return to that remarkably simple exchange in Acts:

“What must I do to be saved?”

And the answer:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

Salvation is of the Lord.

Grace comes from Him.

And faith ultimately points away from ourselves and toward Jesus Christ, the Savior.

— J.P. Abecilla

Freedom to Live, Freedom to Believe, and Freedom to Express

Originally published January 17, 2015

“And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.”
— Acts 22:28

Freedom is one of the most valued ideas in human society.

We want the freedom to live, to think, to believe, to speak, and to express ourselves without unnecessary interference from others or from the state.

But freedom has never meant that every action is without consequence.

A society that values freedom must therefore wrestle with an equally important question:

Where should one person's freedom end when it begins to harm the freedom, dignity, safety, or rights of another?

Freedom Is Not Absolute

In 2015, debates about freedom of expression and religious belief became particularly intense.

After the deadly attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the world was forced to confront difficult questions about religious offense, violence, satire, and freedom of speech. Twelve people were killed in the January 7 attack on the magazine's Paris office, prompting an international debate that continued long after the tragedy.

Pope Francis made an important distinction at the time: violence committed in the name of God cannot be justified, but freedom of expression also carries responsibilities.

That distinction is worth considering.

No person should be murdered, threatened, or physically harmed because of something he writes, draws, says, or believes.

At the same time, possessing the legal freedom to say something does not automatically make what we say wise, truthful, respectful, or morally good.

A right protects our ability to speak. It does not guarantee that everything we say is right.

Freedom to Believe

Religious freedom is particularly important because belief reaches into a person's conscience.

A Christian should be free to believe in Jesus Christ.

A Muslim should be free to practice Islam.

A person should likewise be free to reject religion altogether.

The Philippine understanding of religious liberty makes a useful distinction: the freedom to believe is protected within the realm of conscience, while actions arising from those beliefs may still be regulated when they affect public welfare or the rights of others. The Philippine Supreme Court has described religious liberty in essentially these terms.

This distinction protects everyone.

Christians should not want a government powerful enough to dictate another person's faith, because the same government could someday dictate ours.

Faith imposed through coercion is not genuine faith.

Freedom to Express

Freedom of expression is equally necessary in a healthy society.

People must be able to criticize governments, religious institutions, politicians, cultural traditions, and even ideas considered sacred by others.

Without that freedom, societies become intellectually stagnant and political power becomes much harder to challenge.

But freedom of expression also requires maturity.

We should be able to distinguish between:

criticism and defamation,

disagreement and hatred,

satire and deliberate cruelty,

evangelism and coercion,

and conviction and contempt.

Religious people should not demand protection from every criticism or offense.

Likewise, secular society should not treat religious convictions as automatically irrational, hateful, or unworthy of public discussion.

True freedom requires space for disagreement.

Freedom to Live

Freedom is perhaps most visible in the way we live.

We choose our careers, relationships, beliefs, lifestyles, political opinions, and personal priorities.

But every choice exists within a network of consequences.

My freedom cannot legitimately require another person's imprisonment merely for disagreeing with me.

My religious freedom cannot justify violence against someone who rejects my religion.

My freedom of expression cannot exempt me from criticism.

And my personal freedom does not mean that society must declare every decision I make wise or morally good.

Freedom and responsibility must therefore coexist.

Without freedom, responsibility becomes coercion.

Without responsibility, freedom can become recklessness.

Faith and Freedom

As a Christian, my understanding of freedom goes beyond political liberty.

The New Testament presents another kind of freedom—the freedom that comes from truth.

Jesus said:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
— John 8:32

This does not mean Christians possess political authority to force everyone else to accept our understanding of truth.

Christianity itself teaches that faith involves a personal response.

People may accept Christ.

People may reject Him.

Christians may preach, persuade, teach, write, and defend what we believe.

But genuine belief cannot be produced by force.

That should make Christians among the strongest defenders of freedom of conscience.

Truth Does Not Need Coercion

There is also an important lesson for religious people.

Defending truth does not require silencing everyone who disagrees with us.

If Christianity is true, Christians should be willing to expose our beliefs to serious questions.

We should be capable of explaining our faith rather than merely demanding that others respect it.

First Peter 3:15 instructs Christians to be prepared to give a reason for their hope—and to do so with meekness.

This means Christian expression should combine conviction with humility.

We can disagree.

We can challenge ideas.

We can defend Scripture.

But we should not confuse insulting people with defending the faith.

Let Freedom Ring

Freedom to live.

Freedom to believe.

Freedom to speak.

Freedom to question.

Freedom to disagree.

These freedoms should not belong only to people who think like us.

A genuinely free society protects them even when people arrive at completely different conclusions.

But freedom also asks something of us.

It asks us to think before we speak.

To consider the consequences of our actions.

To respect the humanity of those with whom we disagree.

And, from my Christian perspective, to remember that freedom reaches its highest purpose not merely when we can do whatever we want, but when we are free to pursue what is true and good.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

— J.P. Abecilla, January 2015