The Flaws in the "Once Saved Always Saved" Argument

The “once saved, always saved” doctrine says: Once you accept Christ, and put your faith in Him for salvation from sin, you’re saved—permanently. Nothing you can do will break that bond. The doctrine began with Augustine, a Catholic theologian, but really got propagated under John Calvin in his famous treatise, Institutes. He asserted that man is totally depraved, i.e., unable to reach for God. But God, not because of anyone’s merits, arbitrarily chose certain people to be saved (and others, not chosen, to be damned forever). His theology was opposed by Michael Servetus, another theologian, who believed that man has the ability and the free will to choose God or not choose God. He is not predestined to hell or heaven before he is even born, which is what Calvin was saying. When Servetus studied the Institutes, and returned the book to Calvin, he wrote marginal notes criticizing certain points. Calvin, with his own monumental ego and pride, determined that Servetus was now a dead man, since Calvin believed (and said so) that God moved him to write what he wrote. So as soon as Servetus naively arrived in Geneva, where Calvin ruled, Calvin gave the go-ahead to burn him at the stake. A horrible death. No trial. Today we would call that "conspiracy to murder." As far as we know, Calvin never repented of that despicable act. Do unrepentant murderers go to heaven? No, as Scripture clearly points out. So the “once saved, always saved” doctrine not only sets forth God as capricious, but the doctrine's founder became an unsaved murderer.

Now let’s talk about today. The raw edges of this doctrine are kept out of public view.  But Once saved always saved (OSAS) adherents and new converts are still reassured many times of their salvation once they make that leap of faith.  That leads to a big problem—complacency. It’s an unavoidable theory that many of them unconsciously gradually assume that sinning, even serious sinning, is not a thing to be worried a lot about. They may say, yes, I may lose fellowship with God, and I may lose some rewards in heaven—but I will still go to heaven, which is the big thing I get to keep--because God in His Word has promised, that once I was saved, I’m always saved. No sinning that I do will keep me from heaven. Doesn’t that seem like a definition of complacency to you?

But the whole doctrine of OSAS is wrong Scripturally as well. The Bible speaks clearly that you must abide in Christ and pursue righteous behavior, or you will lose your salvation. A lot of people would be less confident and more careful of their behavior (and less deceived about their eternal destiny) if they knew this. Of course, we can’t conclude a doctrine is wrong simply because some people are prone to complacency; that could be said about many religious doctrines. To prove a doctrine is wrong, you need Scripture. So let’s get to it.

Let’s go the hard way: we’ll cover some favorite OSAS verses, their “proof texts” that are numbered below—and explain how they don’t quite say what some people think. Then we’ll look at the other side of this argument, at other verses, which clearly say what a lot of people don’t want to hear.

1. Jude 24: Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling, And to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy

Because God is able to keep us from falling, does that mean we could never fall, as OSASers say this verse claims? Don’t make the phrase about how He is “able to keep you from falling” say more than it’s saying. Consider Isaiah 26:3, which says:

You (God) will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You.

Thus God is able to keep us in perfect peace. But are we always in perfect peace? No, because our behavior betrays us; sometimes we aren’t thinking about God, and we are less than peaceful. So God has the capability (“is able”) to “keep us” in perfect peace (or to keep us from falling); but His success is dependent on our behavior! The simple fact is, we can reject God, fail to think about God, and fall on our own. Along those lines, what does it say only 3 verses earlier, Jude 21:

Keep yourselves in God's love…to bring you to eternal life.

This “keeping” involves our activity.  Something for us to do—or fail to do. You cannot argue that directing people to “keep” in His will is all God’s responsibility.

Now on the other key word in Jude 24: falling.  Aren't there many ways that we might not actively keep God first, and might fall? Some people fall when trials come. Take a look at I Timothy 4:1:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

The Greek word for “depart from” is “apostasia” which means  leaving the faith. In Acts 21:21, the same Greek word is translated “forsake.” Now I maintain that it’s impossible to depart from or forsake something unless you were attached to it in the first place. And it is impossible to apostacize unless you were a believer in the first place. Then you did a bad choice; it might have taken time, little by little.  You fell away.  What does Hebrews 10:38-39 say to this?

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary says about the Greek for “draw back:” it’s “shrink back into unbelief.” Thus, from belief to unbelief is possible.  The result of that is “perdition,” from Greek “apoleia,” a spiritual ruin. Perdition is hell. Again, you don’t draw back from something unless you were with it at first.

Some people fall because they gain power and are not ready for it; they fill up with pride. Consider I Timothy 3:1,6:

If a man desires the position of a bishop…not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.

The Greek word for “novice” is a new convert, but I emphasize he is a convert, per Vine’s dictionary. So he was recently saved. But he could, with pride, fall into “the same condemnation as the devil.” The word “condemnation,” in Greek, is “verdict, resulting from an investigation.” It’s a final judgment. So he clearly has moved from being saved to being unsaved and bound for hell.

2. I Corinthians 5:1-5: It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

OSAS adherents love to cite “that his spirit may be saved” in verse 5 to prove that this man has in the past been eternally saved, and even his adultery will not unsave him. My response is, don’t make the word “may” say more than it does in verse 5. How do you think this man is saved now when verse 13 says: “Expel the wicked man from among you.” The same Greek word for “wicked” is used in Jesus’ quote in Matthew 13:49-50:

This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The word “wicked” is clearly an adjective for an unsaved person, which is what this adulterer is now, and needs to be expelled.  Why expelled?--another blog.  Basically, it's to keep the Church pure--we must remove those who are known unsaved and in gross sin.  When Paul says, “..deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” he is saying, “Don’t pat one another on the back for your toleration; don’t be nice in the name of forgiving love.  Just expel him. I know, without even being there, that he is unsaved—just based on the fact that he is an unrepentant adulterer.” Thus Paul is implying, flat out, Saved people don’t commit adultery. (I will have more to say on this later). And what about the phrase, “may be saved?” It doesn’t say “will remain saved,” does it—which would back OSASers claim. It’s really “maybe he’ll get saved once he sees how Satan, the god of his flesh, treats him.” He could be like the prodigal son (Luke 15), who saw the misery of his life under Satan’s control; he had a final choice, and made the right move. He turned around, and then got saved. So perhaps, in I Corinthians, allowing Satan to have his way with him for awhile (as with the prodigal) may wake him up (or it may not)—he might turn around and get saved before he dies (or he might not). At least he won’t have any well-meaning Christians around him, deceiving him by “assuring” him and not speaking clearly about his unsaved behavior!

3. John 10:27-29:My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

Clearly “my sheep” are the beneficiary of this gracious treatment. But what are the characteristics to be one of His sheep? Belief? Getting born again? No, that’s not what Jesus said. What He did say about the characteristics of His sheep:  you have to hear His voice, and you have to follow Him. And those verbs (hear, follow) are expressed in present, continuous tense—which means, an ongoing hearing and following. If you’re not in the habit of hearing Him and not purposely following Him in your daily walk, then you can’t say you’ll “never perish.” That’s what the verses said. They are conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.

4. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Here again, the word “believes” is in present, continuous tense. You must continue believing to have everlasting life. It’s not just a “one time I went forward, so I’m saved forever” deal. And the word “believes” is more than just “yes, I believe in my head that Jesus died for me and that’s all I have to show of our relationship.” Vine’s, an excellent expository dictionary of Greek words, says about the word believe, “to trust…reliance upon, not mere credence.” The words “reliance upon” suggests action. If it’s real belief, our hearts will be moved to action. Do we really contemplate the hell that our sins truly deserve; and then, in gratitude for deliverance, repeatedly ask Him what He wants us to do as His servants, how to keep from sinning, and to build treasures in heaven? Do we regularly seek a real relationship with Him?  Maybe some of us, after that initial emotion, say "no" to these requirements.

I John really delves a lot into the real meaning of “believe.” Here’s just one example, I John 3:23-24a:

And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him.

So belief involves wanting to obey His commandments, and "abiding" in Him. First, have you sincerely tried to obey all the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount?  That’s how we abide in Him. But what happens to those who don’t abide in Him? John 15:6 has the answer:

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

You would have to go through a lot of mental gyrations to “prove” that that verse isn’t speaking of hell. It is, folks. By reading carefully these verses, you should conclude that the commandment to love one another, and to abide in Him are necessary and wrapped up with the word “believe.” Since loving Him and abiding in Him are not automatic, and require effort, real belief is thus conditional on our behavior, not unconditional.

5. Hebrews 13:5: Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

This verse is actually a quote from Deuteronomy 31:6 (part of Moses’ final words to the children of Israel):

….do not fear nor be afraid of them; for the LORD your God… will not leave you nor forsake you.

But then for context you need to peek 11 verses ahead. In Deut 31:16-17a, God gives His last words to Moses, warning him of Israel’s apostasy. It’s a hard word for Moses, and with much warning for us:

And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land…. and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured.

Read that again: God forsook them! Because they forsook Him. Evidently the word "never" in the Greek (Hebrews 13:5) doesn't have the unconditional meaning we think it has. (It has more of a "til' the unforeseen future").   Now you can try to wriggle out of the clear meaning of these words by citing “dispensationalism:” “Well, He was a God of Law in the Old Testament; thank God for His dispensation of grace now.” But I argue back that God is not a God of change. As James 1:17 says,

Every good gift and every perfect gift …comes down from the Father… with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

We do not have two Gods in the Bible. The Old Testament is part of Scripture, and all Scripture is profitable for reproof, for correction in righteousness (II Tim 3:16); and we can learn a lot about Him in the Old Testament—and won’t have to unlearn them when we study the New! The point is this: The God who forsook His people in those days because they forsook Him, will do the same again now. The truth is: He will never leave you nor forsake you—IF you abide in Him. God help us to do so—but we have free will, and can forsake Him.

Further in the Word along this line is II Chronicles 15:2:

Now the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded… and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.

Seems clear, does it not?

Now another thing you might cite about God never leaving us is to use, as our model, “the great promises to Israel,” whereby God will do miraculous things for Israel in the End times, and those people will be redeemed, so God “never forsook them”—so evidently you think God didn’t mean what he said in Deuteronomy or II Chronicles. But the national promise to Israel is different than the promise to individuals. In the End times, perhaps many Jews will see Jesus as God, accept Him and are redeemed. But in Exodus those OTHER Jews who rejected the spies’ good report rejected God’s promise, and died unbelieving in the desert. The point is, God didn’t change; different Jewish responses did.

Other “nation vs individual” verses that are abused are Romans 11:28-29:

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

OSASers love to select the words “election,” “gift” and “irrevocable,” giving themselves complacent assurance, but failing to place them in context. The fact is, the whole of Romans chapter 11 is about how God will gift the nation of Israel in His plan for the future.

Speaking of taking words out of context, yet another abused Scripture is Hebrews 10:12,14:

But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,… 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

This says nothing about perfect assurance for the believer; "those who are being sanctified" doesn't carry that level of guarantee.  Also, this Word is for the Hebrews, about how Jesus is our High Priest, comparing His offering His body as a sacrifice once for sin being sufficient for atonement, vs. priests in the Old Testament offering sacrifices annually that don’t take away sin. And please don’t assume that “those who are being sanctified” is all up to God.  Don't forget:  Sanctification depends on our behavior; and as anyone will tell you, we are not robotically forced into making perfect choices. Thus it is conditional. See an item on this next week.

6. Colossians 2:13: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses

OSAS adherents cite this verse that God makes us alive and forgives us of all sins, past and future, when we accept Jesus. It's wonderfully true that upon the point of salvation, God makes us alive, in part by giving us the Holy Spirit.  But don't forget the Sower in Matthew 13:  Some seed came alive, but under shallow soil died.  Another point about forgiveness of sin: the verse does not specifically refer to initial salvation guaranteeing us forgiveness for future trespasses; Paul is, after all, focusing about a past event (“has made alive”), at initial salvation. It could be, that's all he meant.  For additional light, take a look at II Pet 1:9:

But if anyone does not have them (speaking of fruits), he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins

I think if Peter knew that he could include future sins in this statement, he would’ve mentioned them—but he doesn’t. Another enlightening verse is I John 1:9:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John is writing this to people who are believers already, so it doesn’t make sense that we need to keep on confessing our sins to obtain forgiveness—if we’re already guaranteed forgiveness from future sins.
It would be safe to conclude that John evidently believes we’re not initially saved from future sins, so we need to continue confessing them to continue being forgiven. Introspecting on today's sins at the end of the day in prayer would be a good part of abiding in Christ.  It is an important part of Communion, right?  So I conclude the “all trespasses” in Col 2:13 is more likely referring to all trespasses up to the point of initial salvation—which was, after all, the time period of Paul’s subject matter. Not future sins.

7. I Pet. 1:3-4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who… has begotten us again…, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you

OSAS adherents will cite our inheritance, as a child of the King, that will never fade away. But this great passage of Scripture doesn’t say that we cannot annul the inheritance by disbelief or unrepentant gross sin. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 10:33:

But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Definitely wrapped up in the word “disown” is losing one’s inheritance. So it is possible.

While I’m on this subject, I need to bring up another verse that’s misinterpreted by OSAS folks. It’s II Timothy 2:13:

If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

This is quoted often by OSAS teachers; their interpretation of God being “faithful” here is that He will accept our faithlessness and save us anyway. Their problem in making this assumption is not taking context into account. Take a look at the previous verse, II Timothy 2:12:

If we deny Him, He also will deny us.

Whoa, that says the opposite of what OSASers think 2:13 says. So, to resolve the apparent contradiction, let’s do what you seldom see teachers do—reconcile 2:12b and 2:13. First, you have to see how awful a sin being “faithless” is; it is not coincidentally connected to 2:12’s “denying” Christ. God many times calls faithlessness spiritual adultery. The Jews strayed into idol-worship, took their faith and worship away from God, and were called adulterers. Now before you say, “we don’t do idols in modern society,” you need to expand the meaning of “idol.” It’s anything that we think about as #1 to us except God. Say, we spend all that time at work and not think about bringing God into that experience (such as making sure Jesus’ related commands are maintained); then spend a lot of time collecting, cooking, and eating food without seriously giving thanks; then socializing with friends without raising His name (or thinking about how to do so); or raising our kids without teaching them constantly about God—then I conclude that work, eating, friends, and kids all become idols because God is not #1. We’ve simply substituted modern idols for the ancient wood and stone. God should be a part of our life, like breathing—and it’s faithless to only worship Him on Sundays, then leaving Him out for the rest of the week. We’re just as guilty of substituting God out of our life as the Jews did. Where’s the insistence that we should “abide in Christ” in modern society? Have we watered down the meaning of “abiding?”

The second thing you do to reconcile these two verses in II Timothy is: Expand the definition of God’s being “faithful.” We assume that faithfulness is always positive. Not so. Check out Deuteronomy 7:9,10:

Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.

God's curse on His enemies is included, is it not, in His being faithful.  He is faithful in fulfilling ALL promises.  So, that means He is faithful by carrying out His promised curses on the unsaved, as well as loving the saved. If that’s hard to accept, it’s probably because we haven’t thought much about hell. We’re talking about fiery torment, continual pain, continual thirst, no contact with others (read Luke 16:19ff on these). And forever and ever…for eternity. Why not just for 50 years, or 100 years? Why not probation? Why not a second chance, or purgatory? Answer: God HATES sin more than we can imagine—and ultimately His hate will be faithful to His promise and carried out on the unrepentant sinner. Look at the evidence of His anger in the Deuteronomy verse above: God will repay him “to his face.” Now that’s a God with a grudge. A whole new meaning on II Timothy 2:13, is it not? If we are faithless to God, He will be faithful to carry out His promise--i.e., the curse of our sin remains on us.  The opposite of what OSASers think.

8. II Timothy 1:12: … Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.

OSAS adherents claim that Jesus will do the work in guarding our salvation, so we are safe. But then why does Paul urge Timothy, two verses later, “Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” The deposit is our treasure in heaven.  It's the same thing as "what I have entrusted to Him."  Guarding it is our job. Our behavior is involved. Another verse on this is Hebrews 10:23:

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

Doesn’t that suggest that our righteous behavior ("holding fast") is what’s needed to obtain God’s fulfillment of His faithful promise to bring us to heaven? I think so. A job for us to do. That’s what the verse says.

9. Matthew 7:21-23: Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

First, to understand this, the word "know" and its derivatives mean salvation.  Jesus seems to be saying, with the words "I never knew you," that the unsaved were in that condition permanently.

The OSAS adherent is trying to make the verses prove that you can't be "known" (saved) and then "not known" (become unsaved).  So the OSASer says, about Matthew 7 above, “This is the way it is with all unbelievers; Jesus never knew them; it wasn’t that He knew them, then didn’t know them. 

My response is, first of all, look at the virgins in Matthew 25:11. Some had no oil (oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit). In this salvation metaphor, Jesus has the bridegroom telling the virgins, "I do not know you.”  Now, it's gotta be, since  all ten virgins were invited, the bridegroom must have known them. So what does he really mean by the statement "I do not know you?"
I have to conclude that the phrase is an idiom—He’s really saying,” you are now so far removed from me in spirit (not having any oil), it’s like I never knew you.” I believe, furthermore, this is what Jesus is really saying in Matthew 7 above:  When He says "I never knew you," He is saying, "your thoughts and actions became so far removed from me, it's like I never knew you." Thus, these verses are saying, our thoughts and actions need to be in His Spirit, so He will claim us in that day of judgement. Thus, they do not back the OSAS claim of how it's impossible to lose salvation.

Secondly, study Luke 15:11ff, the prodigal son: He was a son of his loving father to begin with, right? Then he became prodigal, walked away, and didn’t abide with his father any more. Then he sees the light, returns to his father, confesses his sin, and returns to the family and in his good graces. You see where I’m going? Now look at verse 24 of the prodigal story, the words of the happy father:

for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

So think…he was his son before, then he was dead (that’s the word Scripture uses), then he was alive again. He was home at first, then became lost, then was found. Seems pretty clear here, to make the parable relevant to us, as all parables tend to do—he lost his salvation, then regained it.

What additional valuable things do we learn in this prodigal parable, by the way? (1) We assume the father protected the son while he was under his care (as illustrated in John 10:28), but the son had the free will to depart of his own volition. (2) The father’s great love for his son (enough to forgive him freely after his wild life, when he repented) did not prevent the son from becoming lost. Note also that the father did not chase after the son.  What Jesus is clearly saying is, God the Father allows free will on this, even to the point of loss of life.

Finally, look again at Matthew 7:21, where those who are heaven-bound must first “do the will of My Father.” That too says continuing salvation is contingent on behavior, which the prodigal didn’t do for awhile—and was lost, or dead--i.e., unsaved for awhile.

NEXT WEEK: MORE ON THIS INFLUENTIAL DOCTRINE

Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security

Our Nation's Shame

This article appeared in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.  This blog is short but not sweet.

“Gosnell” is a difficult film to watch, not because of what appears on the screen—it’s rated PG-13—but because of what is left to the viewer’s imagination. This might explain why the theater where I caught the film Friday was mostly empty. But other explanations are worth considering.

Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murder following a two-month trial in 2013, is currently serving a life sentence in prison with no possibility of parole. He was an abortion doctor based in Philadelphia, where state law prohibits the procedure beginning at 24 weeks gestational age. By his own admission, Dr. Gosnell regularly performed illegal late-term abortions, mostly on low-income minority women. In some cases he would induce labor, deliver live babies, and then kill them by snipping the backs of their necks with scissors.

Nick Searcy directed the film, based on a book of the same title by a married couple of investigative journalists from Ireland, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. In an essay last month, Mr. Searcy explained why he was drawn to the subject. “It is nearly impossible to find an adult person who does not have an opinion on the issue of abortion,” he wrote in National Review, “and yet how little we all know about it—how it is done, what the laws are surrounding it, how it is regulated, legislated, and practiced. I wanted to share that knowledge.”

Dr. Gosnell’s story may not change a single mind about abortion, yet the movie and book make an important contribution to a debate that continues to rage 45 years after Roe v. Wade. They offer a better understanding of what “abortion rights” mean in practice and a renewed appreciation of the tragic consequences that can result when politicians, public-health officials and the media put blind ideology ahead of basic human decency.

Dr. Gosnell had been performing illegal abortions for decades before law-enforcement officials stumbled upon him, and when they did, it was for reasons that had nothing to do with his abortion practice. In 2009 a detective investigating prescription-drug dealing in Philadelphia received a tip about Dr. Gosnell from an informant. It turned out he was selling prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet and Xanax to anyone who could afford his $150 fee. On a typical night, Dr. Gosnell would write some 200 prescriptions. After law-enforcement officials raided his clinic in 2010, however, busting up one of Pennsylvania’s largest pill mills was no longer the most pressing concern.

In their book, Ms. McElhinney and Mr. McAleer write that the Gosnell raid unveiled “a house of horrors.” The toilets were clogged with fetal remains.  Cupboards contained jars with the severed feet of infants inside. In refrigerators and freezers, detectives found more discarded fetuses stored in milk cartons, water jugs, cat-food containers and Minute Maid juice boxes with the tops cut off to make the openings larger. Later, authorities would discover that Dr. Gosnell employed “assistants”—who had no medical training and were paid under the table—to sedate patients, conduct ultrasounds and administer labor-inducing drugs.

Dr. Gosnell’s story becomes even more upsetting when you realize how much sooner he should have been caught. State inspectors visited the clinic three times between 1989 and 1993. Each time they discovered that no registered nurses were on staff, as the law requires, yet permitted him to continue providing abortions. After Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1994, the state Department of Health stopped all routine inspections of abortion clinics.

Even when state officials received complaints about Dr. Gosnell, they were reluctant to follow up. A woman who received an abortion at his clinic in 1999 later became ill and was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Gosnell had mistakenly left the baby’s arm and leg inside the mother. State Health Department officials decided that no investigation was warranted. When Dr. Gosnell botched another abortion in a similar fashion years later, state officials again looked the other way.

Once Dr. Gosnell’s trial began in 2013, it was the national media’s turn to ignore him. Fox News gave the trial significant attention, but few other major outlets did the same. The liberal press knew the story would cast a negative light on abortion, and that concerned them much more than bringing to justice a doctor who committed infanticide and routinely risked the health of women.

Ultimately, social media shamed the press into covering the trial, and you won’t be shocked to find out that interest in the story hasn’t lasted. Some outlets have refused to run ads for the film, and almost all major publications have declined to review it. Which also helps explain why I had so little company on Friday.

Article by Jason L. Riley, October 16, 2018

Differences in Our Doctrine vs. the Early Church (Part 2 of 2)

In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s lifestyle—and the power God gave them that enabled many souls to saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher lifestyles:

First apostolic doctrine we differ from them is: They believed that obedience to Jesus' commands is essential to be called “saved.”

Why was the early church so serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments? Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:

Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.

Many today would say, if you believe this, you are not understanding “God's unconditional grace.” But all the early church fathers said the same thing as Justin Martyr. So who is right? Look at I John 2:4 for Biblical proof:

He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live following the commandments of Christ. Thus they were fixed on the clear relationship between love and obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:

Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and if we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity....

"Wait," you say. "Are we supposed to “strive” as Christians? I thought grace means we don't have to worry about the Law.  Is strict obedience that necessary?"  If you are thinking that...maybe that’s why thousands of people come to “Emerging” churches that won’t talk about sin. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:24?

“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Is that verse really covered in sermons? Not in most churches. Many of them assume that with the Holy Spirit, your making righteous decisions will just kind of grow on you, without thought.  This wayward view means, the gospel that will truly save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division that affects many life decisions. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience.  We get divorces, we have sex outside of marriage, without even thinking about God, just for two examples.

Second apostolic doctrine we differ: They believed on stressing, and giving,  real kindness to the poor; related to that, they believed that riches are a trap.

Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate and gave them away when he got saved:

The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing (from their faith) when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says "..sell all thou hath and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me."  If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.

Did you note that riches are called "a domestic enemy and an assailant?"  (An assailant of our eternal souls).  It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be rich thinking like that." Well, that's the point--that's not his goal.  Riches got in the way of his calling for Christ..  Cyprian's thoughts are not weird; they are rational, actually.  For proof, what does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?

And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The merest desire to be rich is called a "temptation and a snare."  When was the last time you thought about wealth like that?  Only because the world trained us not to.  The earliest church took Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures..and obeyed what they said. Do we see riches as a blessing? Or an eternal danger? If it is a danger, as these verses suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” He also said, Riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: "Judgement is on you, poor guys; most of you are going to hell." What did He say about rich people and heaven?  It was almost impossible for the wealthy to get to heaven. 

If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, we will give more away to the poor, and many lives of the givers could be saved instead of dying and waking up surprised on the wrong side of eternity.

Many churches today even have as a doctrine that your abundance of material possessions means that you have more faith in God. If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s a lack of faith. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith? False doctrine often flips totally upside down--you have to know what Jesus says to see it as false. But we "like" false doctrine; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.

Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at: Women were noted for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD:

How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers..to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed., in another). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.

You assume Tertullian is blaming women for exciting lust in men.  In today's #MeToo, this idea is heresy.  Well, set the culture aside--is it not sometimes true?  Actually, few women can plead ignorance when they show off every curve in their body.  They want to appear sexy, to make the men pleased with them--sexually.  Please, I'm not recommending burqas for every woman.  I'm simply saying, if she repeatedly starts a fire, she can expect to at some point be burned.  Another thing worth mentioning:  her dressing that way stirs up lust, and she needs to realize that it's as bad for the man to do that as the adultery itself. That's his sin, but she was, shall we say, conspiratorial.  I should definitely mention:  Men are also guilty of dressing to appeal to sex.  Observe what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Just in case you were thinking that the man's lust should not be equated to adultery, I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to show His seriousness about this matter.  In any event, we, today, don't seem to be worried about this problem (like our lack of concern about porn), but the early church was extreme in their striving to attain God’s Word, and to call attention to the problem.  Lest you think that Tertullian was a male sexist Neanderthal, consider how right on the money he has it with Scripture, (the real measure of morals), in I Timothy 2:9, 10:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety (propriety and moderation, NKJV); not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Yes, He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wants modesty, ladies AND MEN--let’s do modesty--with gusto. I didn't say, your color scheme has to be all grays and whites.  The early church knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, for Him and for each other, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men were (mostly) pure. Wouldn’t it be an act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? And how about if our goal, ladies, is NOT wanting to appear “sexy?” It would be nice in today’s society to realize that’s a horrible (and dangerous) goal to achieve in your dressing up for work or school.

We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and strike another to save their life, even if such a weapon were offered to them. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public. And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” In the earliest churches, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…

Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones (my source for this blog), and particularly David Bercot (source for many of my blogs), believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed for the more likely correct answer between the two. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our sincere reading.  The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:

1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.

2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:

How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.

Thus, when two opposite doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, the Early church fathers, since truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that our doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim he is correct when he has done it 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully explained by the early church fathers—especially bold when there are significant differences between him and them. And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or you, 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about changing and following the early church fathers, if you would be on a different path than most of today’s society? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, on earth, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”

3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and had the answer. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.

Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you have seen my writings (I was raised a Baptist), that your beliefs will change. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain.
May God we with you in this quest.

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998

Differences in Our Doctrine vs. the Early Christians (Part I of 2)

The Church is fragmented into thousands of different sects and groups, so much so as to say, “There sure is an awful lot of interpretation of this Book out there.” Can any of these groups say for sure that “We don’t have the ability to be deceived, or come to a wrong doctrinal conclusion”? We should be humble enough to bow and pray, and say, “God, show me Your truth!” If we really do that, we would gradually unify, which is what Jesus wants.  Unfortunately, we naturally think our view of theology is right, and everybody should think like us.

If people are really looking for the real Christian church, and its theology, they should look again at the lifestyles and words of the new Christians in the book of Acts. The Kingdom of God was so irresistible, so radical, that the church left people with only two choices when it confronted them:   Either join us, or persecute us. There was no neutral ground.  Just like Jesus said, You’re either my friend, or you’re my enemy. There’s no “gray area” with Christ. The Church, in Acts—it will make your heart pound when you read it. When you read it, don’t you have a longing in your heart to see church today like that? When you look at the radical nature of what God is doing through them, does it ever make your heart burn? Let’s examine their actions in the Word.

Acts 2:41-47: Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:29-35: Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

Acts 5:12-16: And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Acts 8:35-39: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Acts 9:32-35: Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda. 33 There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years and was paralyzed.34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed.” Then he arose immediately. 35 So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

Acts 13:2-3: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

Acts 14:8-10: And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked.

Acts 16:25-31: But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 20:7-11: Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.

What keeps such an "on fire" church from happening in America now? Jesus might answer by saying, Do we really want to meet Him on His terms? Our lifestyle is quite different than that church. We don’t have their dedication. Are we hungry enough to get together and pray for ten days straight, as they did? If anyone in the church is lacking, would we give up our food, would we all fast to feed them? Would we give up all of our material possessions to the group to meet those in need—do we have a heart to give like that?

Also, could it be that the reason for this difference between us and them is that our interpretation of doctrine is different than theirs? After all, doctrine and lifestyle should go hand in hand. Doctrine is useless unless it transforms your life. You can think you believe something, but let's ask: Do you believe that the majority of people are on their way to hell? (It's true, Matt. 7:13-14).  Do you believe that there are many people deceived to think that they are on their way to heaven--but they are not (the rest of Matthew 7)?  To the extent that you actually believe that, you will intercede for the lost, your heart will break when you see people that don’t know the Lord, you’ll plead with people, or write a letter to a beloved, distant aunt that doesn’t know Him. You’ll be down on your knees often.

To the extent that you truly believe in something, it changes your life.

Did you ever ask:  What was it that the apostles believed that made their lives so radical? Let’s spend some time reading the writings of the early church fathers, whose lifestyles were the closest to the apostles.Remember, they were simple men.  And remember, they consulted no commentary.  They didn’t have to fool with interpreting Greek—they spoke it, they knew it intimately.

Here is an example of their lifestyle, as described by witnesses.  This is 125 AD, 

First, from a new believer about his local congregation:  They do not bear false witness; nor do they covet what is not theirs. They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends.

Their women are pure as virgins and their daughters are modest; their men keep themselves from all unlawful unions and uncleanness. They go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. They love one another. They deliver their widows and orphans from those who would treat them harshly. He who has, gives to him who has not. They fast two or three days to supply the necessary food for the needy.  They follow the commands of their Christ justly and seriously. Every morning and every hour they give thanks to God for His lovingkindness to them. If any righteous man passes from this world, they rejoice and give thanks to God.

Now from a non-believer; his sarcasm means the local church is a good witness:

They despise the temples, as dead houses; they reject the gods. Half-naked themselves, they despise honors and purple robes. Oh, wondrous folly…They despise present torments, although they fear those which are future. They fear to die after death, but they do not fear to die for the present. The larger portion are in want, are cold, are laboring in hard work or hunger. And God allows it. You do not visit exhibitions; you reject public banquets and abhor sacred contests…you assume you will rise again but refuse to live in the meanwhile. Cease from prying into the destinies of the sky. What is wrong with you?

Could the church of America be accused of having such a witness statement? No, frankly. The church today, in fact, is too often accused hypocrisy or worldliness. And, mostly, of lukewarmness. The early church had a Holy Spirit-touched lifestyle. They won souls, they turned the world upside down. The secret was in their doctrine. It was different than ours.

NEXT WEEK: So What are the Three Doctrines the Early Church Had That Have Been Radically Changed in Today’s Church That Made Us Weaker?

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, “A New Kind of Christian?” CD, Scroll Publishing

Why Will Jesus Reject Some "Christians" for Heaven? The Answers May Surprise You

Jesus spoke many parables. A parable is defined as a story, the object of which is to learn a spiritual lesson. This narrative is of a physical story, but the hearer is to make the analogy to the spiritual lesson. Jesus used it often in a crafty way; He wanted to point out the deficiencies of the Jewish spiritual leaders without pointing His finger directly at them. In their guilt, they knew He was talking of them, but they needed real proof to take His life.   I think parables added some time He was allowed to speak freely; He was “lucky” (but there is no such thing as luck to God's plan, right?) to have lasted over 3 years before they had Him silenced --but only for a little while, right?

One group of parables is called Kingdom parables. When you read them over, you see three basic themes dominate them. We can learn much, and they have to do with how to get to heaven—so let’s study on.

Theme #1: God’s Kingdom People Would Start Out Tiny, then Grow in Number Around the World

Demonstrated In: Mustard Seed, Matthew 13:31-32
                             Leaven, Matthew 13:33

Example: Matthew 13:31-32: Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

A mustard seed is really tiny. Yet it becomes a tree. God's church, His Kingdom, will start out tiny, but grow huge. This parable, when delivered, is a prophecy, and that prophecy has come to glorious truth. There are believers all over the globe (as I have found from my readers!).

A possible argument that our opposition could make about this parable: How do you reconcile the huge number of believers this is speaking of, with Jesus’ comments in Matthew 7:13:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

So, the argument goes--well, which is it? A huge number, or few that are in His church? Well, it could be both. It has been agreed upon by several scientists who should know that 100 billion people have ever lived. As my earlier blog (Most Americans Are Not Saved) points out, “few” might be 6-7%. But 7% of 100 billion is 7 billion. Seven billion in heaven!  That’s “few” of everybody—but a lot of people, too.

Theme #2: Many Who Start Out As Believers Get Rejected in Final Judgment

Since Jesus has no less than 8 parables on this subject, it is obviously important. In these parables listed below, Jesus makes it crystal clear why the “believers” get rejected. They were NOT rejected because “they were not saved to begin with,” or “they trusted in their own righteousness instead of God’s imputed righteousness.” For our future eternity’s sake, let’s seek the real reason why they were rejected, so we can avoid such tragedy.

Demonstrated in:Vine, John 15:1-10
Sower, Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23
Wedding feast, Matthew 22:1-14
Five foolish and five wise virgins, Matthew 25:1-13
The faithful and wise servant, Matthew 24:45-51
Talents, Matthew 25:14-28
Separating the Sheep and the Goats, Matthew 25:31-46
Houses built on the Rock and Sand, Matthew 7:21-27

I picked three of the above:

Example #1, the Vine: John 15:1-10: “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

These are some of the best Words from Jesus in the New Testament, aside from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is the Vine; some of us are the branches.We derive (eternal) life by staying attached to Him, and getting our nourishment from Him.  True, these verses don’t say how to get on the Vine in the first place, the initial salvation (it takes repentance and faith, explained elsewhere in Scripture), but they do a wonderful job of explaining the second part--how do I live the rest of my life?  That part is the much-ignored path to final salvation. You need both (initial and final) to get to heaven. As these verses clearly show, to finally get to heaven, and not be tossed out, we must abide in Christ to bear fruit--important, since we must bear fruit for final salvation. If we don’t abide in Christ, we are “cast out,” we are “withered,” we are thrown into the fire, and we burn. An obvious reference to hell. The word “abide,” in the Greek, is defined as “continue, remain, tarry.” It suggests a relationship of bonding which we seek with our Savior.  Since He gave us heaven instead of hell for eternity, we owe all to Him. He also saved us from sin in the present life, which few people pay enough of. If we want to stay in an abiding relationship, we build, by voluntary acts, a great desire to find out and obey His commandments, His commandments of love, because we know they are the best path for our life. Beside the requirement to obey His commandments, we must produce fruit. The word “fruit” might be best explained by Galatians 5:22-24:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

This theological concept of initial and final salvation seems revolutionary, since it's seldom preached on, but it's in Scripture, where it is set forth plainly (see my blog, “Initial and Final Salvation.”) Protestant Reformers like Luther didn’t get it; he spent most of his time trying to be the opposite of the Catholics. If they said “works are big,” he had to say “no works, grace.” I don’t deny grace. It is all grace for God to pay any attention to us sinful creatures. Catholics distorted their idea of works (they say a relationship with Christ is not necessary; just say your rosary, attend Mass, Confession, etc). And Protestant Reformers distorted grace (they say a relationship with Christ is not necessary; just accept Him, and you are saved forever, through His unconditional grace, whether you sin little or a lot). Both these theologies are lies, and put you in danger of hell.  The real truth is, a relationship with Christ IS NECESSARY to be saved, as Scripture clearly points out. That relationship will start out weak, of course, but then it bears a little fruit, gets pruned, starts to grow more each year. We gradually learn to obey Him and love the world less, and Him more.

Example #2,Sheep and Goats: Matthew 25:31-46: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

So the issue for final salvation is not a theological debate about grace, but simply, “What did you do with your life? Did you love your fellow man? Did you care for the poor and the sick?” Caring for the poor, and loving, being merciful and forgiving, are commandments Jesus gave frequently. But broken frequently by "Christians" without a thought of its danger.  Scripture speaks clearly that God hates divorce, and Scripture shows that it brings on sexual sin.  But "Christians" divorce, or accept it in others, without a thought of their God's offense or anger.  I suppose it's possible to have a theology that encourages you to feel "secure" after you had your moment with Christ.  Since you "accepted HIm," church members merely encourage you to go to church, commit few "bad" sins, and so you can assume you're Christian and saved--yet in eternity, some are shocked as Jesus rejects them, and they go to hell. Just like in the parable, designed to show who is saved and who isn't, Jesus will ask:  Did you give money to feed the poor, when you had monumental savings and plenty of income? Giving to your church might not satisfy that requirement, because less than 10% of what you give to church goes to poor.  So, your sin would be a sin of omission (vs. sins of commission such as stealing, murder, etc).  Few people even think about sins of omission. Lots of "Christians" might assume poor people are just lazy, and they don't think twice about what Jesus is saying above about the goats.  Are they assured of heaven?  These verses say no; they're the goats that go to eternal fire.

Example #3, Rock or Sand: Matthew 7:21-27: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. 26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

As anyone can read, hearing His commandments and DOING them is building a foundation of rock, and keeps our spiritual house together; hearing and NOT DOING, no matter how much “service” you do to impress people, you are headed for spiritual collapse. We must “do the will” of our Father. For instance, we like to have a large savings account, so we can control our lives, not God--and so we can covet material things of the world.  Such an immature approach means we have no clue how His Spirit moves us; so when a huge decision is to be made, we go by our feelings, and tell everyone that the Spirit is leading us.  It’s the same theme: Having been saved, then consciously doing His commandments gets you on God’s “good side” in judgment. Saying a prayer and accepting Him, no matter how sincere, might get you initial salvation; but follow through is necessary. It will mean nothing if you don’t persevere in a relationship with Him as well. Living your life as you wish and ignoring God’s desire for relationship and His will for you puts you back on the road to hell.

For a little more proof, I cite John 5:28-29:

28 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.

This is what Jesus preached; since you can lose initial salvation through no fruit, no obedience when the chips are down, final decision is made on faith and follow up, doing His will, versus who has ignored His commandments through commission or omission.

Maybe this idea is different from what you hear at church: But are you willing to ignore this blog, well-proven through Scripture?  Are you going to possibly twist the obvious meaning of this verse? Or are you going to say, "It looks too dense for me.  Pastor will explain."  But pastor won't save you.  It looks clear: “Doing good” gets you final salvation: the resurrection of life. (PS: Don’t forget initial salvation—you won’t produce fruit without His Spirit’s guidance; abiding in Him). If this seems to disagree with what Paul seems to say about ignoring the law (especially in Romans and Galatians), you need to keep context in view.  The apostles had to deal with Judaizers—new Jewish Christians who wanted us to keep all their man-made laws to be saved. “Let’s get all the male believers circumcised, too,” they said. “They have to follow the law of Moses to be saved.” That’s what Paul couldn’t stomach. He didn’t want us to just follow laws; he wanted us to have a relationship with Jesus. (I have other blogs on “Paul vs. James” on this subject--fact is, they really don't disagree with one another).

Theme #3: God’s Kingdom People Would Have Non-Believers Among Them; Let God Weed Them Out at Final Judgment

Demonstrated in: Wheat and Weeds (tares), Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43
                             Dragnet, Matthew 13:47-50

In the interest of space, we only comment on one.

Example: Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43: Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”…(ed, now speaking only to disciples) “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

In His kingdom, largely expressed through the church, there will be wheat and weeds together--saved and unsaved people. Suppose we take my above words to heart, and we want to find out if Others are doing the kinds of things that show they're saved?  Then we want to remove the tares (supposed Christians who show no fruit) from the assembly.  But can we tell who is a genuine Christian? Many Scriptures says we can't.  Since church is supposed to be for saved people, does that give us the right to watch every move people make, every word they say?  Having a "case" against someone, shall we remove anyone that seems to be unsaved? 
Jesus said, in these verses, Don't worry about all that; the angels will pull out “those who practice lawlessness.” Elsewhere He says to focus on our sins, "pull out the plank" in our eye, vs. focusing on others.  Things like Spanish Inquisitions or Salem witch trials usually come out of that. Thus, it's clear that we are to let everyone attend.  In other Scriptures, Jesus counsels against judging others. The word is: Let's let Him do the deciding, in the last days. Let’s love the foot-draggers among us and encourage them to do better; and let us build His church missions accordingly. It may go slower, but it’s a good test of love. I’m not saying, forget church discipline. If these people are stirring up division or in active gross sin, we should remove them.

Well, think awhile on these important parables. Don’t twist them to meet your previous theology. Don’t ignore them, thinking them too hard to understand with their couched language. As you can see above, Jesus’ language is really quite clear. We often just don’t like what He’s saying.

Acknowledgement: David Bercot CD, “Kingdom Parables,” Scroll Publishing