What Happens To Us Right After We Die? Scripture Has a Surprising Answer

Perhaps the second most important question of all time is, What happens after we die?  Is there life after death?   This question has puzzled mankind since Adam, and there are many different theories suggested.  Here are a few below, mostly from groups Americans are familiar with: 

1)      

     Atheists:  Nothing happens after you die.  You don’t have a soul or spirit, so your body decays, and that’s all there is. 

2)      Buddhists and some other Eastern religions:  You are reincarnated into a different creature.   You simply go on living in a different form. 

3)      Jehovah’s Witnesses: You don’t have a soul or spirit, like the atheistic view.  However, you live on in the perfect memory of God.  In the resurrection, God will re-create you to be once again the exact person you were, character flaws and all.  Saved people will live forever on a paradise Earth, a re-created Garden of Eden.  A top crew of 144,000 Christians actually go to heaven.  While most say they are not in the 144,000, they’re satisfied about a paradise Earth awaiting them. 

Even among professed Christians, there still are different answers.

4)      Seventh-day Adventists:  You have a soul, and when you die, your soul sleeps, until the resurrection, when it’s awakened and then it joins your body and goes to heaven or hell 

5)      Roman Catholics:  If you’re classified as a saint, your soul goes directly to heaven.  If you’re a “regular” Catholic, you can expect to go to purgatory.  It is neither hell nor heaven, but it’s where somebody who will ultimately have salvation can be purged of their sins.  In medieval Catholicism, it was viewed as almost like hell, full of torture and suffering.  But supposedly after you spend a time there (whose length depends on what kind of person you were),  you can go on to heaven.  Modern Catholicism has taken much of the sting out of purgatory—now it is viewed as not pleasant, but the cleansing from sin can be done without the torture and suffering—for most people.  But someone who isn’t, by Catholic definition, a Christian, they go directly to hell. 

6)      Most Protestants:   whether liberal or evangelical, they believe that a saved Christian, once he dies, his soul goes straight to heaven.  His body goes to the grave, and will rejoin his soul at the resurrection.  Unsaved souls go to hell.  Liberal protestants believe that most people will be saved, while evangelicals have leaned toward a fewer number, though less assertive about that lately. 

As you can see, views differ even among those who claim to be Christian.  Now you may argue that that’s what it should be, since no scientific evidence can be obtained to prove one or the other.  You may even believe the current cultural icon statement:  “Whatever you believe is true for you.”   But the hard reality is, if you claim to be Christian, you’re covenanted to the Bible as God’s infallible Word on the subject.  And God is rather clear in the Bible on this subject, as He would be, since Scripture claims in various places that He loves His children—so He would tell us “where we’re moving to.”  

By the way, the reason this is the “second” biggest question is, what everyone really wants to know is:    How we can we be certain we go to heaven?—many of my blogs deal with that, since Scripture is again clear on that point as well.

So, let’s study what the Word says on the “moving” issue.  Let’s promise ourselves that what the Scripture says is more important than what our church says.  That’s because, unfortunately, NONE of the six theories above is correct—not even the mainline Christian ones.  That’s because the doctrine of the intermediate state has either been warped or lost.  But it’s definitely in Scripture.  Studying that is the ultimate focus of this blog.

In a nutshell, here is the overall spoiler summary, before I narrow the focus:  When we die, our bodies go to dust, but our souls live on.  Those souls don’t immediately go to heaven or hell.  They all go to an intermediate state called hades (you must throw out prior meanings, and accept its definition as, simply, a waiting place, the temporary realm of the dead.  It’s not hell.  Hell is a different Greek word).  Hades is divided into two parts.  The lower region, where the unsaved souls go, is a dark and gloomy place, where they are either in the presence of, or are keenly aware of, the lake of fire—which is where they eventually will be cast (that’s hell).  Their temporary time in hades is a time of great sorrow and inner turmoil.  It is not as bad as hell—but it is a painful and anxious place.

In hades also there is a region of the saved, the righteous, who are escorted there by angels.  This is called “paradise” and “Abraham’s bosom”—it is a heavenly place, but it’s not the ultimate heaven.  The righteous can fellowship with other saved souls (the same cannot be asserted for the unsaved).  They are in some way in the presence of Christ—yet they are not in heaven, where He is.  (He is omnipresent, able to be in more than one place, after all).  

No one can cross from one region of hades to the other—the unsaved may recognize somebody in the saved group, but can’t “switch sides” no matter what.  There is no opportunity for salvation beyond death.   THIS life decides your fate for eternity, my friend.

Hades, may I remind you, is temporary--until the resurrection of everyone for the Judgment.   At Christ’s return, hades is emptied.  All will be judged.  In Judgment the body is miraculously put back together and joins the soul.  Then God sends His obedient children to heaven, and the rest to hell—for eternity.  Thus, hades is temporary; heaven and hell are for eternity. 

So no one goes straight to the final destination when they die—they go to a “waiting place,” they go to one of the two sectors of hades.  Scripture is clear—hades is not for the purpose of changing final destination.  Your final destination is fixed during this life.  We are now “probies,” as it were.  Our life on earth’s main reason is a testing period for where we spend eternity.   

Let’s get to Scripture to back up this summary.  I will focus on the intermediate state, hades.  The most detailed explanation of life just beyond the grave is found in Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus.  See Luke 16:22-31, where Jesus says: 

²² So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. ²⁴ “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’  ²⁷ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, ²⁸ for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ ²⁹ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ ³⁰ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ ³¹ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

What do we see? 

1)      They can see one another and talk to one another— the rich man in the lower region of hades can see how nice the previously poor man has it—and Abraham talks to him. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude they’re both in the same place.

2)      The previously poor man is in “Abraham’s bosom.”  (It is not called “paradise” here).  He is “comforted.”  The rich man is “afar off”—a “great gulf fixed”-- in another region.  Yet they’re in the same place.  The rich man in the lower region then becomes the focus.  He is clearly in suffering, “in torments.”  He “cries out” in agony.  Thirst is a serious problem, since a flame is nearby.

3)      He is well aware of his previous life, since he remembered his brothers and wanted to see them saved.  This adds to his mental anxiety while there.

4)      As vv 27-31 show, there is no way that someone in the lower region can warn those still alive.  Thus, seances would be meaningless, today as well as then. 

5)      Jesus is tough on the man who is eventually to be cast to hell:   

a.       He is willing to let him suffer, acknowledging as He does, simply, “you are tormented” --without relieving him.   

b.      When the man complains of his suffering, Jesus even taunts him, reminding him of the reversal of roles for the two of them—and telling him, too bad, he can’t change his fate.

c.        Abraham, too, has no sympathy to do anything for his five brothers .

A couple words of caution here:  This is not a parable (since it has named Lazarus, and parables don’t do naming).  This is God’s truth for the intermediate state, what happens right after we die.  Other things He says in Scripture are consistent with this doctrine, as we’ll see below.  Second, this is not a polemic on “we love the poor, we hate the rich,” since other Scripture clearly records rich people that get saved—but that just happens to a lesser proportion, since there is a natural tendency to be deceived by riches and it’s easier to love and trust the world rather than Christ.

Other supporting Scriptures:

1.       Luke 23:43 records Jesus’ words on the Cross to the dying and just-saved thief alongside: 

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

So, if the saved poor man’s first stopover after death, from Luke 16, is “Abraham’s bosom,” as we saw above, and if the first stopover for the just-saved thief is in “paradise,” we have to conclude that paradise is another name for Abraham’s bosom.  Since Abraham’s bosom is also in hades (Luke 16:23), we have to conclude that paradise is too.  Neither person goes directly to heaven.  They both go to hades, the intermediate state.  Jesus was in hades too.  Remember, that’s not hell.

2.       Matthew 12:40 and parts of Acts 2:22-27: 

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ²⁴ whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning Him:  Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.²⁷ For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

As we also proved above, Jesus did not die and go straight to heaven; nor did He go to hell, or “gehenna” in Greek, the lake of fire, a different Greek word.  As it clearly says here, His death would be followed by time “in the heart of the earth,” in “hades.”  Thus hades is located deep in earth.   His soul did not remain in hades long—three days and nights.

There is a third place often mistranslated “hell” in English.  The Greek is “tartarus.”  That’s where the fallen angels went, “pits (or chains) of darkness,” awaiting judgment for their special sin (see next week’s blog).  This is found in II Peter 2:4.  

These truths were so universally believed by the earliest Christians that it became part of the Apostles’ Creed:  I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ…was crucified, dead and buried.  He descended to hades (the Greek word); on the third day rose from the dead…

3.       John 14:1-3: 

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. ² In My Father’s house are many mansions;  if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

Note the underlined phrase.  This proves that when the righteous die, they do not go immediately to heaven.  Jesus has to “come again” (i.e., to earth, since He came to earth as a baby first) and pick us up, and then we go to heaven.  If we were already in heaven, He would not have to “come again” to get us.  No, we are in the heart of the earth, in hades, waiting for “pick up.” The pick up will be better than zip lining, better than being an Amazon drone, I’ll bet. 

4.        John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice ²⁹ and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Thus, ALL will “come forth” to the Judgment at the same time—so hades will be emptied all at once.  If we’re already in heaven, as often taught, the resurrection would be no big deal.  But it IS a big deal.  It gets us from hades to heaven, not from heaven to heaven. 

Hopefully these many Scriptures will be convincing.  But, you ask, if the six groups and theories I named at the beginning are wrong, are there any groups who still believe this Scriptural way? Well, many Mennonites, some Brethren, some Amish, some in the Restoration movement, some Anglicans still teach it right.  It’s possible that this “Intermediate State” doctrine got corrupted by the Catholics’ teaching on purgatory.  Purgatory teaches that (a) the Intermediate State can cleanse your sins and (b) it can change final status. Double False.  Scripture shows that hades (the real Intermediate State) does not change final status, as we saw in Luke.  The sincere pleadings of the rich man were greeted coldly.  The rich man encountered Jesus not as merciful, but as Judge.  Remember, few are saved (Matthew 7:14).  We cannot imagine how deep is God’s hatred about sin.  If you’re unsaved when you go into hades, you’re unsaved when you go out.  Period.  There is no Scriptural basis for “cleansing from sin” in that state either.  The idea that you can purge your own sin is completely false and anti-Biblical, as I point out in many blogs. Jesus has done that cleansing from sin for us. The “works vs faith” argument was what kick-started the Reformation—a just movement in its beginning.

Next, Catholicism teaches that there is a special status for those classified as “saints”—they get to go straight to heaven.  Everybody else has to go to purgatory to “work off” their sins.  False.  Scripture is clear that everyone saved is a saint.  There are no “status” Christians.  Philippians 1:1 says:   

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops  and deacons.

 If saints are only the “status” Christians, why is Paul calling every Christian a “saint,” and, oh yes, let’s not forget the bishops and deacons.  How do you explain that? 

John Calvin, who formulated many Protestant doctrines (not my favorite person, as I have a blog on him), dropped the intermediate state doctrine (probably to get away from Catholicism as much as possible).  So both Catholics and Protestants have it wrong.  You’ve got to read Scripture for yourselves, folks.

If you want to know more about what Scripture really says on How Do You Get Saved, so you can graduate from earth to heaven during this “probie” status, you need to know that Catholics and Protestants have that wrong too.   I have a blog just titled salvation, and another on initial and final salvation.  Smarter, though, would be to read the Gospels over and over, noting what Jesus says on that very subject.  He is quite clear.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Life After Death.” Scroll publishing.

Exact Month of Jesus' Birth Predicted by the Stars and Scripture--and What Happened on December 25?

People tend to scoff at this Biblical record of the star of Bethlehem, saying “this star is doing things a star cannot do.” We mean Matthew 2:9: 

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

“How does a star “stand over,”or stop,” people say. So they assume this story is a fable. Well, science has the answer to that question. Of course, even if we can "prove" it, they would ask another question: “Why do you think you can introduce some new facts now, when we haven’t heard anything convincing in all of history?” Science has a reason for that too.

A little background: The author of the CD this is taken from is Professor Larson. He follows astronomy—movements of stars and planets and constellations. (Not the same as astrology, which claims to be predictive, often telling you how to run your life). On the one hand, Scripture praises astronomy: it insists the stars tell us things from God. But Scripture condemns astrology. Note Job 9:9:

He (God) made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south.

And Psalm 19:1-2:

The heavens declare the glory of God…2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.

Thus, the stars communicate. God wants us to study the heavens; on occasion they have something important to tell us. Prof. Larson found some proof of the Bible (see also his website, bethlehemstar.net), and God blessed his impact so that he is now requested to speak even overseas on this subject. Now you’ll surely ask, “Why isn’t he supported by reputable scientists?” Well, why do most of our scientific minds believe in evolution instead of creationism? And what happens to scientists who believe in creationism? They often don’t get promoted, and they have no world-class media outlet (which are owned by non-Christian money). The fact is: The world’s idea of “truths” are often anti-God. If those in worldly power are rational, why did they kill Jesus?

Final background: Johannes Kepler in 1619 discovered the math behind the movements of the solar system. With hundreds of hours of effort, he could map how the sky appeared, where every important star was, on any date, past or future, since all movements of everything in the sky are totally patterned--and predictable. But the effort required was ponderous for math and science geniuses of his generation. Now we have the advent of computers; so these movements have been incorporated into software programs. How the sky will appear from any location on the planet for any given date can now be found in seconds—in fact, the computer can even animate their movements through a period of time. So we are only now able to answer the big question: “Which of them is the star of Bethlehem—if any?” There are, it is estimated, 100 billion galaxies, and 100 billion stars in each—how can you find the Bethlehem star in such a crowd?

Here is the relevant Bible passage, Matthew 2:1-9, from which we will draw necessary characteristics for the Bethlehem star:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’” 7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.” 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

From these verses, the Star of Bethlehem has to fulfill 9 qualifications:
a. Has to indicate birth (2:2)
b. Has to indicate Kingship ( 2:2)
c. Has to be Jewish (2:1)
d. Rising in east (2:2)
e. Appears at an exact time
f. Herod didn’t know when it appeared ( 2:3)
g. Endured over a considerable period of time while the magi were with Herod (2:2, 9)
h. Went ahead of magi as they traveled south to Bethlehem ( 2:9)
i. The star has to Stop! Over Bethlehem ( 2:9)

It couldn’t be a meteor, which doesn’t rise in the east, and it isn’t long-lasting. It couldn’t be a comet because omens they give off are perceived as foretelling doom. But Jesus’ birth is good news. Also, there were no comets in 3-2 BC (those were the conception/birthdate, see below). It couldn’t be a nova—a spectacular exploding star--Herod would have heard about it—his scientific advisors (who may also have been astrologers) would’ve already told him—along with their “interpretation.” Also, there were no novas for 3-2BC.

Based on what we just excluded, and from (f) above, the “right star” wasn’t spectacular—but it must have been moderately bright. It so happens, a conjunction of planets, or planet/star, would fulfill that. Why not look at the King Planet, as Jupiter is called—after all, it is the largest in the planet system. If Jupiter is involved, it would help us meet requirement (b) above as well. As it so happens, Jupiter, the King planet, was conjoined to Regulus (the King Star, how “coincidental”) in September of 3 BC. Since a magus had likely seen this 2-3 times before (this conjunction happens every 12 years), that by itself is not a big enough deal to get the Magi to pack up their camels and travel. Nor is it a big enough deal for Herod to hear from his scientific advisors.  But it is moderately bright.

A scientific note here: planets sometimes reverse (“retrograde”) motion (like passing a car on the freeway, it seems to move backward, so when earth swings past a planet, that planet seems to move backward). It so happens, Jupiter is in retrograde in 3-2BC in a very peculiar path—it passes Regulus, then reverses course, passes again, then reverses course, passes in retrograde a third time! This would have been exciting by itself, but additionally, if you draw this movement, it forms a halo above Regulus! Thus we have a triple-proof coronation of a king! (King planet, king star, and halo). Item “b” above is definitely solved, and we have a base star for further study.

Now, what about Jewishness--(c) above? A little Scriptural background: Gen 49:9 says, in summary, (1) out of tribe of Judah would come a King of all kings. (2) God compares Judah to a lion. Well, why not look and see if anything is happening in the constellation Leo the Lion? Further, look at Revelation 12:1-5, an important bit of prophecy imagery: a “great sign appeared in heaven;” a woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet,” who was pregnant and due to bear a child, who was “to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” She is threatened by a dragon wanting to kill her child. This is, of course, about Jesus and the Virgin Mary—and opposed by a dragon--Satan working through Herod. It So Happens that as Jupiter begins to crown Regulus, this event happens in the constellation Leo—and behind Leo is—guess what—the constellation Virgo (Virgin). And Virgo is rising, clothed in the sun. The moon at the time (within September, 3 BC, see below) is new, so it was under her (Virgo’s) feet! An amazing prophecy come true in many "coincidental" points! You must see the DVD to appreciate this amazing point!

As it turns out, this was the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. How do we know? Because 9 months later, in June of 2 BC, Jupiter is finished crowning Regulus; and has moved to conjoin with Venus, making the brightest conjunction in the world (planetariums love to show this conjunction). This was the only time in those magi’s lifetime for this conjunction. If the magi were thinking about all the activity just noted from September, this combo practically screamed out, “Mount Up!”

Thus, Jesus was born in June, 2 BC.Yes, it "should have been" 0 BC/AD. Medieval scientists who tried to set the calendar into BC and AD, and tried to guess when Jesus was born were good, but not that good.  They didn't compute the date right.

So from June, the magi began planning a trip.

The next several months are speculative, as opposed to the Keplerian rock-hard scientific facts above. Let’s assume the magi were, within a few months, starting their trip. We’re assuming the magi, from the East, were located at Babylon, a home base for the best astronomers. After a couple more months, they would arrive at Jerusalem asking “where?” They tell Herod the details about September, 3 BC and June, 2 BC, then get sent south to Bethlehem—only 5 miles away, please note that.

It So Happens that in December of 2 BC (thus allowing 6 months from Christ’s birth to their arrival at Jerusalem), Jupiter, it so happens, is in the sky south of them from Jerusalem-- thus it continues leading them now toward Bethlehem.

This means 8 of 9 requirements above are fulfilled:
a.The September conjunction signified birth by its appearance in Virgo, the Virgin, “birthing” the new moon at her feet (in the tradition of the day, a woman typically gave birth downward).
b.The Planet of King’s halo-coronation of the Star of Kings signified kingship.
c.The triple conjunction began with the Jewish New Year and took place within Leo the Lion, showing a connection with the Jewish tribe of Judah (and prophecies of the Jewish Messiah).
d.Jupiter rises in the east.
e.The conjunctions appeared at precise, identifiable times.
f.Herod was unaware of these things; they were astronomical events which had significance only when explained by experts.
g.The planet/star events took place over a span of time sufficient for the Magi to see them both from the East and upon their arrival in Jerusalem.
h.Jupiter was ahead of the Magi as they traveled south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem

But Jupiter somehow stopped, since it stayed over Bethlehem for the time they traveled there. (This is what brings the scoffers out). As we'd be pleased to remind you, when a planet (or star) goes to the end of an arc and begins to retrograde, it has to “stop” briefly. (Picture an elliptical arc, say the outline of the end of an egg, and the egg is standing up—as you draw this in your mind, from the left, the arc, or egg outline, is moving down. At the right, it moves upward. But for a brief period, at the bottom, it isn’t moving up or moving down—so it seems to stop). It So Happens that Jupiter was “at the bottom”—just before retrograde, it “stopped”—and that day, praise God for His accuracy, was December 25, BC 2! That must’ve been the date of their arrival to the toddler Jesus, in the house. That’s a Significant date—not for the birth (by which we mistakenly celebrate it), but for the celebration of worship and presenting gifts to Our Lord.  (Would that we would actually do that at Christmas).

Thank You, God, that your planets, stars, and constellations speak of Your great Immanuel! With perfect prediction. Jews knew the night sky well (they had no light pollution, no real air pollution, they slept on their roofs a lot—knew the constellations).
AT EASTER: WE GIVE YOU THE EXACT DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST—FROM THE STARS. (Same CD and author's online notes).

Scripture Says Baptism Is a Necessary Part of Salvation

In this CD, Mr. Bercot takes a clarifying look at what Scripture has to say about water baptism. I should add that when he sees doctrinal controversy between denominations (such as on this topic), he resolves it by looking at Scripture, and what the early church (pre-325 AD) believed about it. Their beliefs were more likely backed by Scripture, since that church was closer to the apostles--and they were a church that the Lord made powerful--so it’s likely He didn't see any deviant doctrine there.

The early church believed, from Scripture, that in baptism, the following things happened: (1) all of a person’s prior sins are washed away; (2) a person is born again through baptism of water and the Holy Spirit; 3) through baptism, a person becomes a member of Christ’s church Because of the importance of these, we must conclude that they believed that the salvation process is not complete without baptism.

What does Scripture say? Let’s start with John 3:5:

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Does this not say, clearly, that “born of water” is water baptism? Even in the Greek, the word translated "water" simply is physical water. Does it not clearly say that water baptism is essential in being born again?—and that without it, you cannot enter the kingdom of God?

Mark 16:16 says:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This clearly requires baptism to "be saved," or to be in heaven and escape Judgment.

Acts 2:36-38:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

In verses 37-38, Peter has the ultimate evangelistic opportunity. Does he say what all of us evangelical Protestants have been taught, to pray to let Jesus into their heart? No; after they’ve been shown who Jesus is in earlier verses, what they need to do to be saved…is…(1)repentance and (2) baptism. (He emphasizes the importance of baptism, saying “every one of you” needs to do it). These additional two steps will give them remission of sins.

Acts 22:16 was when Saul was saved, becoming Paul, and was told:

…And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Baptism washes away our sins. That’s very important, is it not? Without it, with the guilt of sins on us, how can you get to heaven? (Allowance is made elsewhere for those who cannot be baptized.) Note the urgent tones that they should be baptized right away.
The early church fathers felt that baptism is important enough that they still insisted that a man who was saved, immediately imprisoned, then martyred had a baptism—a baptism of blood.

Galatians 3:27:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

“Baptized into Christ” is clearly water baptism, as Romans 6:2-4 points out:

How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

As you can see, in immersion water baptism you are experiencing a type of the death and resurrection of our Lord.
And what of the phrase “put on Christ?” When you read Romans 13:14, it means wrapping yourself in godly thoughts and not thinking about sinful ones. But it’s also “clothe yourself with Christ,” associated with Genesis 3 when God clothed Adam with skins of an animal being sacrificed after he sinned. That blood being shed to provide the skin was the beginning of God’s plan for His Son, the Lamb, whose blood was shed once for all. The animal sacrifice meant protection from the dire effects of sin. Baptism—and faith in what Christ did--are the means to these desirable and necessary goals in the New Covenant. So necessary that without them, we’re not saved.

Titus 3:5: …but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

The washing speaks of baptism. Baptism results in regeneration, becoming a new creation. And, as Jesus put it (John 3:3), that’s essential go to heaven. And it clearly says, “He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (through the baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

Hebrews 10:22:

let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

“Pure water” is baptism. Baptism helps gives us a full assurance of faith and enables us to draw near to Him.

I Peter 3:21 uses the term “antitype.” That’s a New Testament fulfillment from an Old Testament prefigure (called a type):

There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

This bluntly points out that baptism, and Christ’s resurrection, save us. Of course, in context, and thinking of my “Paul v James” blogs, to be saved at the end, you need baptism combined with true faith, repentance, and obedience. Baptism gives you a “good conscience toward God.” The Old Testament prefigure here is Noah (see I Peter 3:20), whose ark in the water protected against the judgment and saved eight souls.

There is something I need to point out that is in Mr. Bercot's notes later, but it’s worthwhile mentioning here: EVERY ONE OF THESE VERSES IS DIRECTED TO AN ADULT WHO IS MAKING A CHOICE TO BE BAPTIZED. There are no baptisms of babies in Scripture that we know of.

There are other "types" in the Old Testament. Consider I Corinthians 10:1-2's comments on the Jews passing through the Red Sea:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Was crossing the water of the Red Sea (a type of baptism) merely a “symbol” of their salvation from the Egyptians? No, crossing the water DID save them! Then why do most evangelistic churches use the weak word “symbol” when they explain baptism? Using the Red Sea type, baptism completes our salvation. I use the word “complete” because other things of faith were involved too, all of which together ensured their salvation. They had already stepped out in faith to follow God’s leader Moses. In faith they believed the ten plagues were a message from God. In faith they obediently protected themselves from death at Passover, when they obeyed the instruction to put lamb’s blood on the doorposts. And when they packed their belongings and marched out into the desert—that was a great step of faith, since a sensible man would never expect to stay alive--the desert couldn’t possibly support three million people. All of these things, faith plus obedience, ensured their salvation, but the baptism of passing through the Red Sea completed the job—but all this was still only at the beginning of their journey. They still had to place faith in God throughout the journey.

Another Old Testament figure of baptism—mentioned several times by early Christians—was Naaman, the leper. In II Kings 5, Naaman was purified of leprosy when he was baptized in the Jordan. This was a symbol of what baptism can do for us regarding the leprosy of sin. We are cleansed through it.

If you’re thinking, “surely there was some group who didn’t hold to this view of baptism, who thought it was just symbolic,” you’re right—the Gnostics felt that way. Of course, you also need to know what else they believed--that the creation of the earth and mankind was done by an inferior god, a second god, so his creation was flawed and beyond redemption, so they concluded the flesh cannot be saved. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body—you can’t get a perfect result from an imperfect body. Jesus couldn’t have come in the flesh, since He wasn’t imperfect, as all flesh is. Thus, there was no God Incarnate. No one can be “reborn” through physical substances (since all such are evil)—like water. So baptism has no power to save, it’s just a symbol of what’s happened in the spirit.
Are these corrupt, or what?

Isn’t it terrible that so many of us Protestants agree with them about baptism, that it's just a "symbol?" So our historical support is this deviant bunch. If you agree with the Gnostics, you're also saying all the church fathers, as holy a group as you ever want to meet in heaven, men who were taught by the apostles, were dead wrong. Which group do you want to follow—the Gnostics or the church fathers? Here again, though, let’s get back to Scripture: Can we argue against all the above Scriptural passages? Not without doing twisty reasoning, instead of simple, literal reasoning.

How did the church move away from this doctrine, if it’s correct? Why either baptize babies or, the opposite, say that's it's unimportant except as a "symbol?" I think partly because the church reacted to people’s desire for convenience—people wanted to feel assurance of salvation, wanted a simple “formula.” So eventually they got it—they came up with: do the sacraments, or ordinances, and you shall be saved. Infant baptism came about because of the high infant mortality rates; people wanted assurance that their baby was saved when he died. Also, when an entire nation was defeated by a “Christian” nation, it was required that the entire nation’s children would be baptized. None of these changes were Scripturally based--they are mechanical devices, not a choice being made. This “mechanical” religion requires no relationship with Christ and no day-to-day holiness, as Scripture demands (see the “Paul vs James” blogs). Expanding “the kingdom of God,” as they called it, by sword, by expansion, by alliances with pagans, came naturally to them as well. Scripture explaining the truth of baptism became hidden, in an impossible language (Latin, which most people of that day couldn't understand), so darkness reigned.

When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis on the conversion experience. They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” In their countries’ state churches, everyone had already been baptized—as babies--but many grew up dead spiritually. Rather than preach on the negative topic, “why baptism as a baby wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see as many people saved as possible. They saw the idea of requiring baptism a second time, as an adult instead of a baby, as confusing. Confusion would slow the number of people’s spiritual awakening down, mixing a difficult intellectual topic with their wonderful emotion. Was a second, and real, baptism important enough to trump that? They decided No.

Now I again warn you: Keep in mind this extremely important caution (read the “Paul v James” blogs): Don’t assume you can get baptized, and you’re saved and done. These Scriptural benefits of baptism were not “automatic” at baptism, as I’ve stressed several times in this paper. A saving relationship with Christ, following His commands (and baptism was one of them) are necessary. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential as well, not just “outward” baptism. When you want to submit to the Lord Jesus AND when you are dunked in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. If you do the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing? You’re still spiritually dead—you’ll just look nicer in hell.

Acknowledgements:  Dave Bercot CD, "Baptism"

Can a Murderer Have the Correct Christian Theology (followed by Millions)?

John Calvin was born in 1509.  He had tremendous influence on the founding and growth of America, yet he never set foot here. In fact he was a Frenchman, living in Switzerland, and died 43 years before the founding of Jamestown, the first colony established here.  He is considered to be a great theologian, but he went to university to be a lawyer.  He never studied religion beyond the basics at the university. 

While there, he was fascinated with the Greco-Roman philosophy of Stoicism.  Stoicism was the dominant belief system of educated Romans at the peak of their empire.  It’s not a “religion,” per se, but it does teach anti-Christian values, and our earliest Church fathers debated against it frequently.  It teaches that everything in the universe is predestined, and each of us has been given a role to play by fate.    We had no choice in that determination.   According to them, our goal in life is:  don’t complain--just play our role well.  Regarding adversities, we should rise above excessive emotion, and accept with resignation what fate has assigned to us.  In 1532 Calvin put together a commentary on Seneca, the leading Stoic in Rome.  But his commentary had a twist—he tied together (?) the philosophy of Stoicism and the teachings of Christ.  In 1534 he became a Reformer, at the peak of Luther’s popularity in Germany.  Calvin fled to Geneva, Switzerland, which became ruled by Protestants.   The leaders of Geneva were impressed with Calvin’s religion and energy, and made him the leader of the Reformation there. 

He believed that he was selected by God to bring God’s church back to the “correct” doctrine. His greatest attribute was a singular confidence—and a massive ego.  To quote him:  He “knows, beyond doubt, that what (he says) is coming from God.”  He was determined not to equivocate, or change, his doctrine as he had seen Luther do over the years.  We’ll see, later on, where that takes him.

Let’s discuss Calvin’s doctrine.   In 1536 he wrote the first edition of The Institutes of Christian Religion.  He expanded it in later editions—but didn’t change what it taught.  Its most-publicized aspect was its teaching on predestination.  According to Calvin, before God ever created the earth, He determined that Adam would fall, and all of his descendants would inherit his sin and guilt.  But in God’s “mercy,” He placed all Adam’s descendants in two categories:  He chose a very small portion of mankind to be the elect, to be given eternal life in heaven.  And thereby He chose everyone else to be tormented forever in hell.  This doctrine is also known as “double predestination,” since automatically those who aren’t selected in one group fall into the other.  Now keep in mind two things:  (1) nobody can change these two elections (thus you can see the Stoic influence);  these were pre-ordained before you were born.  (2) God’s selection was completely arbitrary—done without regard to any works, good or bad, or how we live our lives.  That’s because we’re all totally depraved (so he says), and completely unable to come to God without His help.   Any faith in God that you have is only because He randomly gave it to you.  A person’s lack of faith would be simply because God didn’t select that person for it—he was thus predestined for hell. 

Does this doctrine sound anti-God to you? 

You would think that few people would accept this philosophy, because it doesn’t line up with God’s personality in the Bible.  But people grabbed onto the nice collateral idea that the elect can know beyond doubt that they are the elect, and you cannot possibly lose your salvation—thus sayeth Calvin.   He got a huge following—from “the elect.” Not so much from the non-elect. 

Another aspect of his theology was, he didn’t see the difference between Christ’s moral teachings and the Old Testament Law.  Thus, he felt that communities should be theocratic, like Israel.   That means everyone, whether elect or not, needed to be brought into this covenant with God.  Thus state-wide infant baptism was mandatory.  The Anabaptists, who believed in believer’s baptism only (as does Scripture), were thus heretical.  His approach to them?  Torture them, get them to recant.  They need to accept the truth.  (Luther had the same attitude in Germany, but less passionate).  In Calvin’s Institutes, it further spells out that every nation should be governed only by the elect.  The job of civic government was to protect the true faith, and regulate the lives of its citizens so they follow God’s law.  Even the non-elect had to “toe the line.”  If the nation does what was right, God would prosper it.  If the nation was experiencing military or economic decline, or natural disaster, it must be that God was punishing that nation for something they’re doing wrong.  The state mandates church attendance for all, and the city elders’ job includes observing carefully the private lives of all its attendees to make sure they’re living in bounds with God’s Law.  The church could excommunicate those who strayed, and then the state also would punish them—such as kicking them out of the community. 

Membership on the church rolls was limited to the elect.   To keep non-elects out of membership, anyone who claimed they were the elect had to give a detailed testimony to the church demonstrating that they believed all of Calvin’s teaching, and that they had a conversion period in their lives—it might have taken many years for that conversion to reach salvation levels.  Keep in mind, the New Testament procedure was, you had a conversion, it might be instantaneous upon preaching, and you repented—and you got baptized.  The baptism was the public announcement of your salvation—not a public auricular confession as Calvin demanded.   

Further, God has assigned you a vocation in life.  Your job is to excel in it, since you were serving God.  (This idea is one of the foundations of a very successful Capitalism.)  Wealth and prosperity were signs of God’s approval of your efforts.  Poverty is an indication of God’s judgment.  (How do you line this up with Jesus’ statement, “Blessed are the poor”?  And what about His scathing rebukes of the rich?) 

Geneva under Calvin was a dream come true for his followers—but a reign of terror for everybody else.  In one year after taking charge, he drew up a Genevan catechism, the accepted doctrine—and every city resident had to appear at the main church to hear its reading.  They had to promise to receive it as the one, the only true doctrine.  Anyone who failed to do so was banished from the city.  If that happened, the city’s fathers took over the homes that they were forced to leave behind.  Very profitable for them.  Thus, overall, they had a religious police-state.  Anybody guilty of even the smallest infraction would be reported.  Officers questioned people about the conduct of their neighbors—and they even interrogated children about their parents.  Calvin made many enemies, but smashed every instance of dissent.  He was so confident in his correctedness, that he didn’t believe in showing any mercy to “heretics”—defined as those who had a different religious belief than his.  People were regularly tortured, imprisoned or exiled who dared to differ.  There were many executions.  In 1546, Jacques Gruet, not a threat to Calvin, who simply criticized him, was hideously tortured until he “confessed”—and then he was beheaded!    When it appeared, later, that Calvin had more opposition, he requested the city council to declare that only his Institutes were “the pure doctrine of the gospel” and “could not be criticized by any citizen.”     

 His huge ego reached its most grotesque result in the Michael Servetus case.  Servetus doubted  the Trinity—a difficult notion to get anyone’s head around, as many early church councils wrestled with this.  In the U.S. today, there are 11 Pentecostal  “Oneness” denominations having 24 million followers.  I have attended one of their meetings.  Though I disagree with their non-trinitarianism, I do not have an urge to kill any of them.  They seemed to have an otherwise normal church service.  Calvin did Servetus a favor, he felt, by sending him a copy of the Institutes.  Servetus had the audacity to annotate his own comments, and sent it back.  This began a flurry of arrogant letter-writings back and forth.  Finally Calvin said in a letter to another friend, “If I consent, he (Servetus) will come here.  But I will not give such word.  For if he comes here, and my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.”  There never was a doubt about Calvin’s authority—no imprisonment, no exile, no torture or beheading went without his consent.  He was called “the pope of Geneva.”  Servetus made the mistake of naively wandering in (he originally lived in Spain).  He was arrested.  Calvin himself prepared the 38 counts against Servetus, at least one of which was “insulting Calvin’s authority.”  Servetus did not have the right to an attorney, since as Calvin said, he could “lie without one.”  At trial he was not allowed to explain or defend any of his points.  He was sentenced to be burned at the stake alive.  He was chained to a stake.  The authorities then piled wood around him, half of which were green (which takes longer to burn, prolonging the agony of suffering).   The crowd watched in fascination.  Keep in mind: Calvin, by his position and by consenting, was guilty, in our courts, of conspiracy to murder.  This was similar to David’s crime (II Samuel 11:14-17)—yet it was just as bad as murder--the Bible flat-out calls it murder (II Samuel 12:9). 

Unlike David, though, Calvin  was unrepentant.  Several months later he opined that he was “indifferent” to the hand-wringers who would want him to be apologetic.   Those who got weak when it comes to justice for blasphemers were guilty themselves, he wrote. 

In 1556 many in opposition had a demonstration against him. “Riots” were frowned upon.  They were arrested and sentenced to death.  This death sentence was the grisliest to date—they were drawn and quartered.  This was the epitome of the cruelest punishment possible.  Most countries of the time reserved it for the greatest crimes, like treason.  But to the Genevans, the worst crime was disagreeing with Calvin’s “words from God.”  They were first hung in such a way that their neck would not be broken.  They just hung there, strangling.  They were barely alive when they would be cut down, then cut open at the waist and all their entrails pulled out and burned in front of their eyes.  Then they were finally beheaded.      

So, was the murderer Calvin (based strictly on the Gruet and Servetus cases above) a believer in Christ?  Based on Scripture, as I point out in other blogs, that means did he follow Christ’s commandments and abide in Him (I John 3:24)?  Unless he repented, I think not; I believe he ended up unsaved.  No one could consent to these unimaginable things and claim they “love the brethren” and love God, which believers must do (I John 4:8).   Are you a follower of Calvin’s theology?  Then you agree that people are predestined to hell by God, by random selection, not based on any works or faith? 

But, here’s the big question--can the theology of clearly an unsaved man be accurate?   Can a theology of an unsaved man get you to heaven?  Think about that.

Acknowledgements:  David Bercot, CD, “Geneva.” 

Does Paul Agree With Jesus on What It Takes to Escape Hell? (Part 3 of "Paul vs James" CDs)

Please read Parts I and II, summaries of Charles Bercot’s Discs of “Paul vs. James” before reading this. 

Now we finally get to man that Martin Luther used the most to get all his “gospel” started. But let’s find the truth of what God said through Paul:

Paul was not a “faith-only” guy. Despite what you hear from some, he, like Jesus and like Peter, James and John, also taught that you maintain salvation by an obedient, love-faith relationship with Christ. Because of time limitations, we only again get a “taste” of him—but it’s an expansive taste. if you want ALL the verses that teach the whole gospel of the New Testament, buy “Paul v James” Disc 3 (from scrollpublishing .com), put it in your computer and read it—or print it for further study or to mark up your Bible. Folks, the right gospel—from Scripture—is critical to our eternal life. Let us never deceive ourselves so as to be one of the “believers” in Matthew 25 who go to hell.

Luther insisted that obedience has nothing to do with salvation. But read Paul in Romans 2:3-11: 

And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

He is clearly saying, doing ungodly works and not repenting, will not escape God’s judgment, no matter what your “faith” is in; eternal life are for those who continue to do good. God “will render to each one according to his deeds.” 

Romans 8:1-6: 

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 

You need to be “in Christ Jesus” enough so that you “do not walk according to the flesh.” Thus there are twin conditions to those seeking “no condemnation,” not just faith only.

Romans 11:20-23: 

Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 

Yes, God is good—but also severe, and worthy of fear. We must endure against sin, we must continue in His goodness.

I Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Some sins are more serious, and by themselves will throw you off the Vine (John 15) and on the way to hell—unless you repent (repentance is not here, but it’s covered in other verses). There are no restrictions on this clearly-named fact: you lose salvation by participating in these acts. Do everything you can to avoid these sins.

I Corinthians 7:19: 

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 

Paul is saying, we’re not bound to Mosaic law on circumcision. We’re bound to Jesus’ commands. Study those. 

II Corinthians 5:15&6:1:

…and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. 6 We, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 

How do you “receive the grace..in vain”? By losing the grace you got--losing salvation. The inspiration of His death? To live for Him, not for self. That necessarily involves obedience to Him. 


II Corinthians 13:5: 

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified. 

The eternal security person doesn’t have to examine himself—they preach that he must feel certain that “you have it all made.” But isn’t that self-righteous, or at least, complacent, thinking? But in this verse, he should examine himself for sin that threatens to take him out of the faith. Doesn’t sound like much eternal security in this verse. So that means that there are some sins that can disqualify us. Disqualify is hell-bound. Also this: Disqualify is not the same as unqualify. “Unqualify” means you never got saved in the first place. Disqualify means you got it, then did something that got yourself turned out. Thus you can lose salvation. A big difference in a little prefix, wouldn’t you say?

Galatians 6:7-9:

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap IF we do not lose heart. 

God places conditions on ultimate salvation by including the word “if.” “Losing heart,” or giving up faith, or righteous deeds, will put us on a slippery mindset headed for trouble. (I have a blog on the importance of the word “if” in Biblical gospel.) 

II Thessalonians 2:11-12: 

And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

These verses are on the Last Days. The idea that God would “send” strong delusion is outside the realm of this paper. But I ask: What is “the lie?” Is it explained in verse 12? Is the Lie the self-deception into believing that you can live for the flesh, and still gain heaven? Is God’s severity in judgment part of “the truth?” 

I Timothy 5:8: 

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 

“Denying the faith,” a terrible sin, isn’t restricted to verbally denying Christ; it seems to have a broader, dangerous meaning that includes doing, or in this case, not doing, certain works. Also note: This person was once a believer, since he is contrasted to an unbeliever. And note that an act of unrighteousness made him lose his salvation (implied because he became “worse” than an unbeliever.”) 

II Timothy 2:12-13: 

If we endure, we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. 

We would like to correctly interpret the meaning of “if we are faithless, He remains faithful.” Most people think it means ‘He is faithful to save us, no matter what we do.’ But it doesn’t say that. How could He have meant that and in the same paragraph said He “will…deny us?” Here is the answer, a troublesome truth, the only one possible: Look to the phrase “He cannot deny Himself.” It’s speaking of Him remaining faithful to His own words and to His perfect holiness. As we learn in context, “He remains faithful” simply means He will fulfill His promises to the letter. And if He said elsewhere that living for the flesh, thus denying Him will mean hell, then that’s it; He will stick to His Word and send us there, even though He loved and pursued us. He did of course also say elsewhere that real repentance (change of behavior, not just sorrow) will bring grace. Note the conditional “IF we endure, we shall reign with Him.” Denying Christ obviously means we didn’t endure. So you’ve lost your salvation by doing that.

Thus, Paul and James really agree: We maintain salvation through faith and an obedient relationship with our Savior. And it is possible to lose salvation. That’s what Mr. Bercot points out so clearly in this part of Disc 2. If you accuse Mr. Bercot of “proof texting” Paul, ignoring the verses that emphasize faith, and you prefer to believe Luther’s gospel, Mr. Bercot asks you to look at all the verses in these two discs—versus what Luther says. If he is correct, you get a messed-up gospel. Keep another important fact in mind: When Paul disparages works, he is arguing against the Judaist believers who wanted the Gentile new believers to be circumcised and forced to follow Mosaic law—those works are what he disparages. So he’s saying that Moses’ laws are not essential to Christianity. 

So to prove that proof texting is not going on, let’s look at these Faith verses below, some of Luther’s favorites. Let’s start with Romans 3:20-31: 

Therefore by the deeds of the (Mosaic) law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of (Moses’) works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the (Mosaic) law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law 

Note how the meaning changes when you understand this term “law” means “Moses’ law.” Now consider Romans 4:1-17, how Paul disparages the work of circumcision (a big item in Moses’ law), how Abraham was not saved by circumcision, but by faith. His circumcision came later, after God declared him righteous. So now, with this thinking, we have no problem reconciling these “work-disparaging” verses into our gospel, Jesus’ gospel. Paul was talking about a different meaning of “works” than James. (Please note, however, how Abraham’s faith was followed by real works—leaving his home to follow God’s instructions, at great personal sacrifice).

Romans 10:3,5: 

For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God… For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the (Mosaic) law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” 

Verses 3 and 5 are NOT about disdaining people trying to establish works and getting holy. It’s about disdaining the Jews continuing Jewish practices to obtain salvation—which is not of God. 

Romans 11: 5,6: 

Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. 

Again, by disparaging “works,” he is not talking about ignoring obedience to Christ. He’s talking about Jews who have been saved did not get there by the works of the Mosaic Law. 

Galatians 2:3-5 is about circumcision. In Galatians 3:2, the works of the law is referring to the Law of Moses. Ephesians 2:8-17 has a couple of our favorite verses disparaging works, but Paul is AGAIN disparaging the Mosaic Law, note the reference to circumcision in verses 11 and 15. Philippians 3:2-5 disparages “confidence in the flesh” but he’s talking about circumcision, the Mosaic Law. Colossians 2:11-17 same story. 

As you can see, this “ammunition” used by some to disparage as “legalism” our obedience to Christ are clearly out of context. In those cases, he is talking about how wrong it is to try to live the Law of Moses as the basis for salvation. 

Mr. Bercot also talks about the other corrupt methodologies of twisting the real context of Scripture as we have seen here. He has some interesting remarks about the “updating” of King James in 1769 (striking large “L” and making it small in Romans 3, above, for instance, helps produce confusion—the Mosaic Law, or another law?) He also talks about how the words “grace” and “justification” have lost their original simpler meaning. They were given a theological meaning that supports a false gospel. 

In summary: getting on the Vine requires belief, repentance, washing the water of regeneration. Abiding on the Vine requires obedience, a regular relationship with our Lord. You can lose your salvation by living by the flesh. Examine yourselves, readers! Read all Jesus’ words on what it takes to escape hell. Determining what it takes to spend eternity in heaven is a worthwhile occupation!