What Happens When the Good Guys Become the Bad Guys?

I grew up when TV was first starting. My favorite shows were Lone Ranger, Gunsmoke, Hopalong Cassidy, Davy Crockett, Rifleman—all had good guys vs. bad guys. It was easy to figure out who the good guys were, and who the bad guys were. When I grew up, things like that got complicated and weren’t clear anymore. To show you what I mean, I’d like to tell you a story about the later medieval period. When who were the good guys and bad guys not only weren’t clear, but some of them changed from one to the other…

First, a definition: A good guy, for my purposes, is a person or group who stays true to Jesus’ commandments—he is saved, he is born again--and he does not hurt, even those he perceives as his enemies. Because Jesus commands it.  Matthew 5:44:

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

If a person doesn't abide by Christ's commands, we may question his salvation, whether he has been the "good guy" in the past.  Even in a violent time period in world history. if he was likewise violently brutal with his enemies, no way can he be a "good guy."  If he is a disciple of Christ, he must go counter to the culture.  We don't let him "opt out" of responsibility because he was in an impassioned period, where violence and lack of respect for human rights seemingly was the "rule." The idea is, you don't just fall into the world's culture. You obey His commands, so you resist the world's culture at critical decision points.  Then we know you're the good guy.

During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and the groups were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was in full swing, and there was the horrific torture and extermination of the Albigenses and the Waldenses. And the earlier Lollards and John Huss--and Bible translator John Wycliffe. The ones being persecuted and murdered were godly people. But they didn’t agree with all the Catholic doctrine, and paid with their lives. Feelings were strong. These events were 100-350 years before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered as ordered by Popes.  The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences most frequently were granted to reduce the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes also gave them away to the “right” people as well— such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.

On Halloween, 1517, Martin Luther tacked a list of 95 objections, mostly to indulgences, on the wall of a cathedral in Wittenberg, Germany. And thus the Reformation was actually born. Luther also translated the Bible into German, so for the first time, many people could read God’s Word. By 1540 all North Germany had become Lutheran. The Pope declared a Crusade on them, and after 9 years of bloody battle, a surprising event--a peace treaty won legal recognition of the Lutheran religion. Luther is definitely a good guy, right?

But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, but they were poor for life.  The indentured servant poor people worked the property, and their profits went to the princes. So when in 1525, 300,000 of the people rebelled against the princes and their feudal oppression-- you might be surprised to learn that Luther not only backed the rich guys against the poor guys (the opposite of what Jesus would do, given His negative view about the rich who oppressed the poor), but he wrote letters urging the princes on to a killing frenzy. The title of his main paper was: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, and his hatred against the poor included the following sentences: “Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as one might kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you.” This bloodthirstiness was unnecessary, since the peasants had few real weapons or military experience. The “princely” soldiers slaughtered 100,000 of them before the revolt was quashed.

This ungodly hatred possessed Luther again in 1543, when he targeted his hatred for the Jews, and wrote a 65,000-word treatise, The Jews and Their Lies, calling them “a base, whoring people…full of the devil’s feces…which they wallow in like swine.” The Jewish synagogue was “an incorrigible whore and an evil slut.” He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. These “poisonous, envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. This hatred reached a peak when he suggested murder, saying “we are at fault for not slaying them.”

But God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Luther’s letter was, 400 years later, an excellent motivator for Adolph Hitler, who fulfilled Luther’s insistent rant. Luther never repented from this horrible slander, writing yet more such poisoned letters just before his death. Thus, his evil works carried on long after his death, and he was quoted many times by Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s.

Did Martin Luther die an unsaved man? Ezekiel 18:24 is a good litmus test. Keep in mind the words “live" and “die” refer to heaven and hell:

“But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge:  At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the liberal Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand, but...as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action.

Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (a tax used to support the Catholic church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, stumbled upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jewish) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course, and based on St. Augustine's speculation that unbaptized infants were damned—but it was completely un-Scriptural.  It also was unchallenged by the Lutheran Reformers. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to permit them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. These "super-reformers" had decided that only the people who were old enough to follow Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this "radical" idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to investigate Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”

I want to assure you that they didn’t take up arms to defend themselves, an idea seldom-practiced at the time--but completely Scriptural. They had a simple desire for the freedom to worship as they saw the Scripture. They did have some beliefs considered strange at the time—not taking oaths (they felt that the first allegiance was only to Christ), not volunteering for military service (because they would have to kill people). But these were peaceful beliefs. So, these are good guys. And they remained good guys until the day they died—which, in many cases, was pretty soon. The magistrates reacted swiftly once they heard that they weren’t baptizing their babies and instead were baptizing adults. They were given one week to recant, or they would be thrown out of the community. If they tried to remain, they would be drowned. Either way they chose, they had to abandon their property--which the magistrates grabbed, and it was divided among the loyal Catholics who remained. So Anabaptists had to flee to other communities, where they were usually expelled--repeatedly. They were persecuted by Catholics and Lutheran Protestants alike for their ideas (thus, following Scripture was unacceptably radical). Men who attempted leadership of their groups got it harder--they were either drowned or tortured, and then burned at the stake. But even their enemies wrote what beautiful, godly, gentle people these were--but we still have to kill them, because they have the "wrong" doctrine, and they must be behaving badly in secret.

The story for the Anabaptists ends well, in a way: they were not all killed--and some are still around. We snigger at them for the women’s headcovering (which happens to agree with I Corinthians 11:5-6) and modest clothing (I Timothy 2:9) and their radical “third world” standard of farming and living. Hey, they learned to live without Smartphones.  Keep in mind, though: many thousands of them were murdered in those days just because they were different--even in London, when the Puritans ruled. Well, the Puritans were another story of twisting Jesus’ commands.

Well, wait, what happened to Zwingli, you might ask? Not surprisingly, he was opposed to his disciples making this radical move of baptism. (I suspect his reputation was more important to him). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning, and testified against them more than once.  What a way to treat your former students. A cowardly act of a compromising man. I can think of one Scripture that he didn’t have the heart to believe in, Matthew 5:11-12:

“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach radical ideas is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts. In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47--but this fight was on other issues. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements to the end.  Good guy or bad guy? A mixed bag. But, when you think about it, a mixed bag is what what most of us are--except Jesus. Let us seek to be more courageous and like Him .

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, “Anabaptists” CD 

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

People tend to scoff at this Biblical record of the star of Bethlehem, saying

“this star is doing things a star cannot do.” They’re  questioning 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 a surprising answer to that question. Of course,if we can "prove" it, they would ask “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 I'm summarizing is Professor Larson--a lawyer, not a reputed scientist. But he has been a lifelong fan of astronomy—movements of stars and planets and constellations. (Not the same as astrology, which is often abused as predictive, telling you how to run your life). 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 note 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 to see what He might announce or tell us. Prof. Larson found Biblical proof that will surprise you (see also his website, bethlehemstar.net)  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?  The fact is: To the world, their basic “truths” are anti-God. Hey, If those who have the media, those in 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 on any date, past or future, since all movements of everything in the sky are 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, 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. The star has to indicate birth (2:2)
b. It has to indicate Kingship ( 2:2)
c. Has to point to Jewish Scripture (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 (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).  This is the strange one.

So here is what Larson concluded:  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 comet omens 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 wouldn’t ask “when,” because his scientific advisors (also astronomers, though I suspect not as smart as the magi) would’ve told him—along with their “interpretation.” Also, there were no novas for 3-2BC,the estimated time of Jesus' birth.

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. Larson decided, why not look at Jupiter, the King Planet (as it is so-called—and, 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 excited enough to pack up their camels and travel to see what's happening. Nor is it a big enough deal for Herod to hear from his scientific advisors.  But later, as we shall see, that is the date of the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit into Mary.

A scientific note here: planets sometimes reverse (“retrograde”) motion (like passing a car slowly 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 a 3rd 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 will get us toward the answer: Gen 49:9 says, in summary, (1) out of tribe of Judah would come a King of all kings. (2) Judah is compared to a lion. Well, why not look and see if anything is happening in the constellation Leo the Lion? (By the way, good astronomers in those days knew many faiths' Scriptures.)  

Now let's talk about Jesus' birth.  Is it also confirmed by the stars?  Begin with Revelation 12:1-5, a prophecy of Jesus' birth.  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 “to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” She is threatened by a dragon wanting to kill her child. This has long been interpreted to be about Jesus and the Virgin Mary—and opposed by a dragon--Satan working through Herod. Compare these verses with how the stars told us all about it:  It So Happens that as Jupiter begins to crown Regulus, an interesting event happens in the constellation Leo—and behind Leo is—guess what—the constellation Virgo (Virgin). 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! Note the Scriptures above.  An amazing prophecy come true in many "coincidental" points! You must see the DVD to appreciate this amazing point!

As it turns out, the stars tie together the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and the Birth. How do we know? Because 9 months after the event in the last paragraph, 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 bright combo practically screamed out, “Mount Up!”

The bright planet conjunction happened in June, 2 BC.  Thus, Jesus was born in June, 2 BC.Yes, it "should" have been 0 BC/AD. Medieval dating experts were good, but not that good.

And the magi began planning a trip.

The next several months after June 2 BC 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 of those days. 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 is in the sky south of them from Jerusalem-- thus it continues leading them toward Bethlehem.

This means 8 of 9 requirements above are fulfilled:
a.The first conjunction signified birth by its association with Virgo “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). There is a simple explanation for the scoffers.  As it so happens, 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, say the egg is standing up—as you draw the edge of the egg 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 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.

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).
FOLLOW MY BLOG AT EASTER: THE EXACT DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST—FROM THE STARS.

Most Americans are Not Saved

Most Americans are not saved. Most Americans are going to hell, barring a revolutionary event or revival. That includes many evangelicals. How can I say such terrible things? It’s what the watchman does.  God made prophet Ezekiel a 'watchman,' whose purpose was to speak the negative word to warn the people, and thus avoid the blood on his hands when God comes by in judgment (Ezek 33:6ff). I know how unacceptable this paper is going to be; I’ve spoken parts of it to people, and they went elsewhere for light conversation. But there is, after all, a message of hope, if you get to the end of this paper. 

So, you want to know, what proof do I have for the first paragraph? Well, it’s what you call a numbers game.  It starts with Matthew 7:13-14:

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

Well, how many is “few,” the ones to be saved? I welcome you to take a survey like I did to see if you agree to my results. Invite someone to close their eyes. Tell them to imagine viewing from overhead, 100 people milling together on a person’s extended lawn or on a golf course. Then say, “OK, picture in your mind that a few of those people cross over a bridge to a gazebo.” Then you ask, “How many people, to your best knowledge, did you imagine doing that?” I did ask people that, and the answers were 3 to 7. Let’s be generous and say the average is 6. By that measure, Jesus is saying 6% of the people are going to heaven—so 94% are going to hell. There is no third alternative. I also think 94% fulfills the word “most” in the title of this paper. 

Now, you might argue that Americans are “different” than these depressing numbers would suggest, that we’re “better than just a few” for heaven. Well, quite the opposite may be true. Consider this well-known fact: America is the richest large society in the world, and has been for several decades now. Our middle class is huge, and our middle class—including you and me, most likely—is “rich,” measured by any standard in world history. Now here’s my point: Jesus warns rich people (and that includes you and me) several times in Scripture. When Jesus said, the chances of a rich person going to heaven are worse than the chances of a camel going through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24), that suggests to me that even less than the “few,” the 6%, are saved in our country. So America’s saved folk wouldn’t be greater—we might even suggest that it is less than 6%! What do Bible-believing Americans do when they read that their chances of being saved are like “the camel going through the eye of the needle”? Do they experience a fear of God? No; they either say “I’m not rich” (which I've already proven false in the vantage point of the world and of history, as I’ve pointed out above), or they call Jesus' camel phrase hyperbole—and then completely dismiss it. Can you be so cavalier, to dismiss statements about eternity as "well, He doesn't mean it."  But folks, Jesus’ point when He does hyperbole is, it contains mostly truth. And you never dismiss what Jesus says. 

Well, let's play along, you say, so go ahead and speak.  I'm saying that people in America may ask in pride, what is our great evil here, that makes Jesus pick on us, that makes it extremely hard for us (Matt 19:23) to be saved? It’s this: If you have wealth assets (we’re talking larger houses than 1400 square feet, a retirement or 401k, or your own stocks or decent savings)--and lots of Americans have that wealth, not just the upper class—you probably got it by ignoring your suffering brothers in the world. I know, that's an extreme statement, but please read on, please. The Scriptural fact is, we are supposed to use money on ourselves to fulfill basic needs only—and give the rest away, to the desperately poor and needy of the world. If we make the mistake of accumulating wealth, Luke 12:33 tells us what to do: Sell what you have and give to those in need. This will fatten your spiritual rewards in heaven! And the purses of heaven have no rips or holes in them. Your treasures there will never disappear; no thief can steal them; no moth can destroy them.  See my recent "radical" blogs, which nail down proof on this point. 

So I'm saying, you should only own what you "need." Scripture makes it clear what defines “need”: Food, basic clothing and basic shelter. Every dollar you make above the ability to meet your needs, you have a choice: Do I give this to a brother or sister in the world who is starving, even to death, who is repeatedly terribly sick because he is drinking contaminated water, who doesn’t have a decent or safe place to live—or do I just keep it, buy another toy, or throw it on my pile of savings to make my future easier? The fact is, most middle- and upper-class Americans choose the latter—without a single pang of conscience. But we must learn to know and think like God; He loves every person, and hates to see people suffering--of any religious faith (as long as they are alive, they still may have an opportunity to be saved). His saved children (you and me) are supposed to make a difference in the world for the poor and the oppressed. As Jesus did. But we are complacently ignorant, consuming our extra money selfishly on ourselves. God will judge us for this—perhaps more than we know, because our pastors have been on a kick, far too long, of teaching us that God is a grandfatherly fellow, not a Judge. We assume we got the extra wealth because we’re smart, or God gave us this wealth because He loves us; or because our country is great, and we're proud of that. But the reality is, He gave us this extra money for us to share it with His suffering children, thereby bearing fruit. But we spend it on ourselves, and thus do not bear fruit. Not bearing fruit means no heaven (John 15:1-6).

So what have you done with your extra dollars in the past? We’re talking about the difference between eternal life or eternal death. Surely you’re aware of the parable of the man who used his extra earnings to build better storehouses (Luke 12:18ff). Well, that's a “godly” savings plan, if you ask people objectively, without referring to the Bible. But it drew God’s judgment—He took his life away. His sin? Clearly stated in Scripture (Luke 12:21)—he was adding to his wealth. Hey, that’s an American goal, “everybody” does it—well, “everybody” is on the broad path (Matthew 7:13-14); that's a hellish path. And what about the story of that rich man, who passed by the beggar Lazarus every day (Luke 16:19ff)? What was his sin? He didn’t oppress him, like rich people often do to poor people; he just ignored him. What did God do to him, evidently because he ignored the poor? Sent him to hell (Luke 16:23). And that’s also what most of us better-off in America do. We are rich, but we buy, buy, buy things. We gorge our lusts so much that our plenteous income isn't enough; we even get into debt, so we are trapped with huge payments and then we can never help the poor. Meanwhile, our desperate international  brothers often die in our complacency. 

Jesus says in Matthew 6:19, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth...” That is a crystal-clear command not to accumulate wealth. Frankly, I’ve never heard a single pastor—and I’ve heard many—teach this simple truth.  What did Jesus say?? Let's quote Him: DO NOT accumulate wealth. And He says why in verse 21: Because the desires of your heart will be thinking about wealth, rather than on what God wants you to do for His kingdom. Also think about the Sower sowing seed into the thorns: “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful” (Matthew 13:22). Guess where the unfruitful go? Hell (see John 15:5,6). What is the “deceitfulness” of riches? Maybe it’s this: Wealthy people assume they’re rich because God loves them—so they conclude they are assured of heaven. In America, even the large middle class is rich by world (and history) standards—so lots and lots of people feel assured of God’s love, assured they’re going to heaven. They want to believe this—so they ignore what Jesus says about rich people in Scripture. Surveys back up this assurance about the confidence people feel, indicating that 70% of Americans say they’re going to heaven (Gallup poll). But try to say that Scripture indicates a more accurate number to be 6%, as we’ve said--or even fewer, considering our richer people—so that means the other 63% are deceived, probably by their riches in most cases. So if 70% of Americans say they’re heaven-bound, but the real number is 6%, there’s a whole lot of people deceiving themselves. And a whole lot of surprises at the Judgement seat. Another way of putting this data is, of every 12 people who think they’re saved, 11 of those are going to hell. Only one is going to heaven. Only one is truly saved. 

Think of the odds against you, my friend. I'm hoping the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 9:10), might actually enter your heart. The question to ask is: have you been deceived? Scripture points out (Matthew 24) the rampant deception in the Last Days. Could this be you or me? Out of the 12, are you in the 11? Statistically, more than likely. Or are you the one? Prove you're the lucky one by the standards I've enumerated above. If you assert that you are the one, what did you do to show you're the one? The odds place you in the 11. Are you one of those, in judgment day, pleading like in Matt 25:44ff:

‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Will you be one of those hearing these sad words-- 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

Could hell be your destination, and you don’t even know it? What would you do to avoid that horrible possibility? Let’s assume you believed in Christ as Savior, you felt assured of heaven; but this paper is an eye-opener, and you wonder what to do. To get motivated to do this, to revive the Spirit within you, you might first ask if you've had that initial salvation.  Did you sincerely repent of your sin?  Did you sincerely place trust in Jesus as the substitute who paid for your sin? Then, read your Gospels intensively, to secure that you are in obedience to His commands, that He is truly Lord of your life.  It would help if you make a list of Jesus’ commands—to be forgiving, to help the oppressed, to turn the other cheek, to love your enemies—and ask the Spirit, in prayer, to show you where you have violated each one. Develop a fear of God’s judgment on the unfruitful, ask in deep sincerity for forgiveness for each sin. God may discipline you, but He will forgive (I John 1:8,9). But you must repent. You can’t keep falling back, out of weakness or pride.  Don't just trust your feelings, saying "I feel God's got me."  God has patience, but it’s limited patience. Believing in Jesus as God, Who died on the cross to save us, Who rose again from the dead, will give you the Holy Spirit and is a good start. But we must endure to the end to be saved (II Tim 2:3,12). As the book of James says (especially 2:14), you must show your intellectual faith is real by bowing to His Lordship, by being His servant, ready to read His commands in Scripture and repeatedly work on them. If you are gifted with income above what you need (please prayerfully consider what the word “need” entails), would you change your lifestyle? Would you move into a smaller, less costly house? Would you sell the second car? Yes, there would be inconvenience, but the money you save and can give is huge; you could save many lives. Your reward is in heaven, your reward is eternal—that’s a much longer time than your “reward” (convenience) for keeping the second car on earth. God has promised to return our investing in heaven’s treasures 30, 60, 100 times (Matt 13:23)!  And you’re fighting for a 4% return on your investments here, which keep you “happy” for a vapor in time, comparatively.

Why fight for scraps on the floor, when if you look to the table of 100 times investment above, a feast awaits you! If you’re married, would you make it a dedicated goal to see your spouse change his/her mind, so you can do this effectively, together? Would you carry out a tight budget for a long time, and thus eliminate debts, and then go on to help the Lord? It would take a lot of “no we won’t comfort ourselves by buying that.” Would you go  online to get websites of relief organizations that are run efficiently (those that spend little money advertising or trying to manipulate people)? Try googling “charity review sites” and get a long list. Please, please consider international organizations, not just your local church. I doubt God approves of all the money we spend on making our buildings comfortable and beautiful when there are people who cannot meet publicly in safety, who cannot even get enough Bibles to go around. Will you help these people? Yes, obeying some of Jesus’ commands is tough. Lifestyle changes are tough. I know how you want to dismiss His clear command to give away assets, thinking that Jesus doesn’t want us to be so “imprudent,” giving away savings. You have a million excuses to keep piling up savings: for your retirement (but does the Scripture talk about retirement?--no), for your kids’ college (in most cases, where they will learn how to nullify morality and turn away from God). But we must discipline ourselves, turn away from self, and sacrifice. Because Scripture says if we don’t obey His commands, we’re not saved (I John 2:4). It’s being obedient on a difficult command like this that we really learn the real meaning of faith. If we begin obeying here, then if we lose our job and have no savings because we gave it away to a needy brother, you can bet on this--God will help you find another job. It will be far better than what you could get on your own. None of His children beg for food, He promises (Psalm 37:25). I pray your answer is Yes to Jesus and No to the world.

An Apparent Contradiction Solved by Placing "Works" in Context

What do you do with this?  On the one hand, here are some verses, Romans 4:2-5:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.  ⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

The verses seem to say, works has no place in salvation (his believing was “accounted to him for righteousness”).

 On the other hand, you have these verses, James 2:21-24:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? ²² Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Whoa, these verses (using the same Gen. 15:6 base, even) seem to say, Abraham was saved (“justified”) by faith PLUS WORKS.  James says faith is “made perfect” by works.

Are these saying there are two methods of salvation, to obtain heaven?  God wouldn’t do that to us.  If you really believe in inspiration of Scripture, there has to be an explanation for this.  In addition, Scripture has backup for each of these seemingly conflicting views, too. 

Added Scriptures that seem to say, “Works Has No Place” in Salvation”

Ephesians 2:8-9a:  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not that of yourselves. It is a gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.

II Timothy 1:9:  Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:5:  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Now, how about the other view? Here are more that seem to say,

 “Salvation is Faith Plus Works”

Matthew 7:24-27:  “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.”

Hebrews 10:26-27:  For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 

I John 2:3-5:  Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ⁵ But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

What do we do when we have two parts of a document, in this case two parts of the New Testament, that seem to say the exact opposite thing?  Let’s first look at how Martin Luther resolved this dilemma. His solution was to say, and I quote, “Some New Testament books have precedent over other books. They’re not all on the same level.” That would be a surprise to people today who say they believe every word of Scripture is important—see II Tim. 3:16, “ALL Scripture is inspired.” When he translated the Bible into German so the common people could read it, he included prefaces to each book and a New Testament preface.  In those prefaces, he indicated his favorite books—books that agree with his Reformation theology.  That way the reader would be passionate about those Scriptures that he was passionate about.  Here’s a few things he said in those prefaces, translated.   “John’s Gospel and Saint Paul’s Epistles, especially that to the Romans, and Saint Peter’s first Epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They ought rightly be the first books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most.” But this instruction was un-Scriptural.  It gets worse, “John’s Gospel is the one understandable, true, chief gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of Saint Paul and Saint Peter far surpass the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.”  Rather bold, downgrading three Gospels.  But folks, these three Gospels are where you read more of the words of Jesus Christ, the greatest Teacher in the whole planet! Matthew contains more words of Jesus than any other book of the Bible. He continues, “Saint James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”  What nerve!  “Throw away James; it’s not gospel.”  So, shall we make up our own “Bible?”

In the introductions to Hebrews and Revelation, he disparaged them as well, and said that they were not apostolic.  Well, we suspect that’s because these books again didn’t agree with his salvation theology. Hebrews has those nasty verses that say that if we sin willfully, that then we have insulted the spirit of grace and we will be punished (see above). And in Revelation, in the seven letters to the churches, what does Jesus say first each time? “I know your works.”

Now, did you know that the oldest Bible we have, the oldest complete Bible that is bound as a book, the order of the books is different than in our Bibles? Right now, when you get through with Acts, you actually go right to Romans.  But in the oldest Bible we have, when you get through with Acts, guess which book you’ll go to – the book of James. The change in order to Romans is because of Luther.

So we conclude that Luther’s solution to the “contradictions” is to avoid books, and verses that are contrary.  Pick and choose.  This is called “proof-texting,” and not an honest way of making theology.

Courts have the honest approach here.  If they are studying a document to resolve a dispute, they don’t focus on just part of a document and ignore the rest; they examine the whole of it so as to construe it as a whole without reference to any one part more than another. Another step courts take is to see if a word is being used in a particular sense in one paragraph but in a different sense in another one, because the same word can have different meanings.  For instance, look at this sentence: “Tom ran fast to reach Tim who is stuck fast in the ice.” Same word “fast,” but two entirely different meanings. The first part it means to run quickly. The second part it means unable to move. Or try this:  “Bob left for town. This left only Jim at home.” Bob went somewhere, Jim stayed at home but we still used the same word, “left.” Words have different meanings—so, how do we know which meaning?  Look at their context.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if Paul said Abraham was not saved by works, and James says he was saved with the help of works, the two men are using the word “works” in two different senses.  So, if the document doesn’t give a direct definition of the word, we should look at the context.

What’s the context of James? When he uses the term “works”, what is James talking about? Or I should say, what is the Holy Spirit talking about there? We can look it up. “What does it profit my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace. Be warmed and filled,' but do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” With the word “works,” James is talking about acts of love, acts of faith, acts of obedience. In fact, it dovetails with Matthew 25, when Jesus tests who are saved--are you helping the hungry, visiting the sick, etc. He calls those things “works” and he says without them we will not be justified.

What about Paul? What’s the context of his letters? The background of all of them can be discerned.  Acts 15 reveals the big issue that surrounded much of Paul’s ministry. “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom of Moses, you could not be saved.”  Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, the Gentiles and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.' ” That was a big issue. You have these Gentiles coming in, and yet for 1500 years in Jewish history the way to God was to the Law of Moses, so naturally they want to include that.  Galatians, I won’t read it all, read chapter 2 sometime. It is so clear that the issue is, Paul has preached to these Galatians, they understand that they can come into the church so they can be saved without being circumcised, without keeping the law. But what happens? Some men came from Jerusalem and next thing you know, they’re telling them, “You guys have got to keep the law. You must be circumcised.” This isn’t a little thing when you’re talking to adult converts. Shall we put Moses’ Law on them?  This was putting a pretty heavy burden on them, a very heavy burden.

People don’t care enough about context; they like to go straight to Romans 4 (above). It amazes me, how can you just skip chapters 2 and 3 which lay out the context?   Paul is writing the Romans, but in chapter 3 he’s talking to the Jews.  He says, “Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law,” the Mosaic Law, “And make your boast in God and know his will and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness.” The Jews were feeling superior to the Gentiles, saying, “We’ll tell you the way to do things because we know the law and you don’t.” But Paul admonishes that thinking: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded by what law, of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Thus the context to Romans 4. When it says, “We conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law,” the “works of the law” means the dead works of the Mosaic law—they didn’t have to follow those works. 

But this is my point:  The meaning of "works" has changed. This is clearly not the kind of works that James is talking about.

For more on Paul’s “works,” you go to Ephesians, it’s the same thing. In fact, it affects his whole ministry because he has the same issue every town he goes to--the Jews want the Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses. The church fathers figured this out, there’s nothing complicated.  Everyone understood that for 1500 years, but Luther takes it and says, “No. He’s saying that God doesn’t want you to try to be good, just have the faith of Jesus and his righteousness imputed to you.”  No, he took it too far, in effect wiping out works completely.  This was wrong.

So you see, different meanings for “works” solves our “contrary” verses at the very beginning of our discussion.  Paul’s “works” are Moses’ Law.  Since we are interested in salvation, not in running through debates with wrong-headed Jewish/Christians, we should settle on the “works” that is right for us:  James’ works of faith, love, and obedience.  The second group of verses. 

And we come to the resolution of our problem:  Salvation is faith, but faith has a commitment tied in.  Works of love and obedience will follow, if you are truly saved, as the second quartet of verses points out. 

Now this paragraph is important.  You cannot begin the process of going to heaven (it is a process) with works.  Any effort you make to reform yourself, by yourself, to get “brownie points” with God, will fail.  Without Christ in you, such an effort only results in newer sins, like judgmentalism and pride. No, you begin the process by faith--understanding from Scripture how Christ died to relieve you from the grip of sin and Satan, and made you continually acceptable to God IF you walk in Him.  You believe Scripture,that tells you that God loves you and knows what’s best for your life decisions.  You must accept Christ as Lord of your life, more than as Savior.  By His death for you, He owns you.  You obey Him, the Lord.  Then, reading His Word, you see His great love, that He has the best intentions for you as you walk through life, making decisions over and over again that involve sacrifice, patience, etc—you build fruits of the Spirit. This is much easier than the failures before you knew Christ, because the Spirit and your brothers and sisters will help you. Then you’re saved at the end.  I have a blog that straightens out “contrary” verses on the timing of salvation, by the way.

If you died right after exercising faith, you would go to heaven.  But assuming you continue living, you must lead a righteous life to maintain salvation.  If you don’t break from the world, you could lose salvation.  Then hopefully, with proper repentance and resolve, you could regain it. That reminds me:  a word for those “once saved, always saved” folks: you leave the mistaken impression on proselytes that faith is the main thing, or even that faith is enough.  Do not assume that everyone’s appreciation of God is so strong from the get-go that they will “naturally, out of love” do good works. The Holy Spirit will see to it, you say.  But life is free choices, and we still have the sin-nature.  We’re supposed to suppress it, but we may choose not to.  I’ve seen too many people who managed to distort what a “work” actually is, or they never think five minutes about what their Lord wants them to do, who still think they’re saved.  This theology not only is wrong because of verses above, but it was never followed by our church fathers (see below).  It has too often a bad result:  People get complacent, they often minimize sin (“Well, I haven’t lied, haven’t insulted mom, went to church, haven’t murdered—I’m OK.”)  Well, they’re not OK because they haven’t really followed what Jesus bluntly said in the Gospels about salvation (such as Matthew 25).  Jesus repeatedly says, we must have mercy, we must forgive, we must help the poor, and then there are the fruits. It goes far beyond the Ten Commandments.  He also says many people will be shocked when they aren’t allowed in heaven.  A very concerning Scripture. Our capacity for self-deception is so great that maybe we should see if our beliefs and actions truly line up with Scripture.  God can be stricter than we realize. And, yes, we will have uncertainty.  Well, even Paul had uncertainty. 

For a final proof, wouldn’t you agree that the church fathers, who were closest to the Apostles, who knew every nuance in the Greek, who knew their local culture, who gave their lives unstintingly for Christ, whose small groups engaged in miracles and saw the saving of thousands, whose writings showed an intense understanding of the New Testament, would have figured these “contrary” verses out?  Well, they have.  Let’s show some of their words (a warning here:  don’t start thinking that these guys sound Catholic.  This was when the church was truly one, as Christ envisioned it, long before the Church merged with the state and distorted its theology):

  “We’re justified by our works and not our words.” That wasn’t just some strange person saying that. That was Clement of Rome. He was one of the elders in Rome that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Clement was one of his fellow workers whose name is in the Book of Life. Clement had no problem saying that.

“The way of light then is as follows; if anyone desires to travel to the appointed place,” that’s heaven by the way, “he must be zealous in his works.” It’s from the letter of Barnabas; in the book of Acts, he was an early partner with Paul.

Justin Martyr, writing about 150 A.D.: “If men by their works show themselves worthy of his design, they are deemed worthy of reigning in company with him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. This is what we have received.” He’s not trying to preach this to Christians and change their view, he’s explaining to the Romans, “This is what we believe. This is what’s been handed down to us, if men by their works show themselves worthy.” That wasn’t a strange thing to say. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. People read the Bible. They saw no issue with works until Martin Luther.

I could go on all day, quoting these great men.  Now I assure you that these men knew the concept of grace, that we don’t earn salvation. But they also understood, once you have been saved from this world, once you have been rescued, you have to walk obediently with Jesus Christ. Everybody understood that. They knew John 15:1-6.  The error of the medieval Roman Catholics, wasn’t that they taught this, it’s that they didn’t believe this. They thought there were all of these little shortcuts you could take instead of being somebody who really loves God and who therefore obeys his commandments. “Hey, you can take these pilgrimages to Jerusalem and all that. You can add up these brownie points and be an ungodly person but God will take you because you’ve created all of these artificial means of getting to heaven.” That was their sin. It wasn’t because they believed in walking obediently with God. Many of them did; there were some outstanding Roman Catholics. But far too many were looking to all these little shortcuts, and Luther gave them a giant shortcut.  Forget works; don't read James--saying little things like that.

If you assert that Luther’s understanding of Christianity is true, look at the big picture: say this 2000 years is a clock dial. You’d have to say that the whole church was in darkness until around 1519 when Luther first taught salvation by faith alone. Now, does that make sense to you? Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you all the days until the end of time,” yet for 1500 years no one knows the real gospel, suddenly Martin Luther discovers it? A guy who never knew the apostles, who wasn’t a particularly godly man, who had blood on his hands (see my blog on him), but this is a guy who discovers the real gospel that nobody before him saw? That makes no sense to me. But nevertheless, for 500 years since, Luther’s view of salvation has been propagated through millions of sermons, books, commentaries, study bibles, pamphlets, tracts, hymns, and so many of the Christian songs we sing. It’s even reflected in all Protestant Bible translations, which we use. 

I know this is radical stuff, but it has a following by many who do their own reading and thinking.  I have many more blogs that look at this important doctrine of salvation from other angles.  I pray you’ll read them.  Obviously look at Scripture.  Try this idea:  In the Gospels, when Jesus says something salvific, ask yourself, “Did Jesus really mean everything He said?”  If you have an open mind, you’ll be surprised at the conclusions you draw.  Start with John 15:1-6.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, “Why Anabaptists are Not Welcome in Most “Anabaptist” Churches.  AIC meeting, March 2015, Indiana

Radical Truth #3: Ignoring These Leads to Covetousness

America has been, considering the wealth of the median-income person, the richest nation on earth—so it is our unique responsibility to obey our Lord’s Words regarding the use of money. The first two radical commands to do that I previously outlined in Parts I and II: stop storing up excess assets; and, for those you have now, sell them and give to the world’s truly poor. There are two steps: (1) Sell all our excess possessions and give the cash raised to the world's poor; and (2) live frugally enough (buying only necessities), so that income exceeds expenses—then give the difference for that, too, regularly to the truly poor.

Let’s clarify one thing: When Jesus was quoted in Luke 12:33, “Sell your possessions and give to the poor” this order was not directed to the "rich young ruler," as some assume.  Read it: it was to  ALL of us that have wealth and income in excess of necessities.

Was He wildly suggesting that we sell all our possessions, thus making ourselves poor? No; read Luke 3:11:

He (John the Baptist) answered and said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”

Thus, we are to keep the necessary item for use, and give away the extra item--or items--i.e, the “excess beyond need.” We should do this with our savings funds, too, not thinking about “only having only a small account means I don’t have a backup if something goes wrong.” God sees you; He will find a way to take care of you if something disastrous happens. (I'm not against a normal insurance, by the way.) So, resolve yourself to sell your past accumulation of cash and property that isn’t truly necessary, as Jesus commanded.

Men, do you really need two complete sets of tools, if you're not in that profession? Sell one. Give away the proceeds.  And keep the remainder of your tools that remain, organized, so you can live on one set. Ladies, is it essential that you have even one set of chinaware—if you only use it once or twice a year, for the real purpose of impressing others, why not sell even the one? Are you worried about using average utensils at Thanksgiving?  Make your impression to relatives all year round by your godly character (Gal. 5:22-23), not by showing off luxury items.  Men, do you need that boat—after all, don't you take it out many Sundays so your family doesn’t even attend church regularly during the summer? Do you need six sweaters, five heavy coats, twenty shirts, ten pairs of pants? Ladies, does God really care if you show up in church wearing the same outfit twice? Will people talk?  Who cares? By giving to people in need, you have given glory to God--that's what counts.  Should we care that much for people, if their only measure of us is how classy and conformist we look?  Shouldn't we care more about God being more offended by our extravagance? And who is more important here—your friends of influence, or Him?  Your eternal Judge, of course--please Him. Here’s a big issue for married couples in the U.S.: Do you need two cars? Can’t one spouse drive the other to work, or can’t one of you use public transit? Or carshare to work? Or even Uber?  Is your evening schedule, or the kids' schedule so hectic, that you need both cars to meet everyone's appointments?  Well, maybe you should slow it down by cutting some things out--are you the type who can't say "no" to every suggestion of assisting someone?  Be at home, have Scriptural time.  Family life could be improved if the kids are at home doing homework and everyone is there for dinner and getting to know your family's inner lives through discussion at dinner.

And for those whose expenses always manage to exceed income, so nothing goes to God, or even debt collectors: Have you set financial budgets, or goals in life--other than thinking about your next worldly purchase? Is your only concern when buying, how low is the down payment?  Have you searched determinedly for ways to be more frugal? There are plenty of helps online for you. Another argument people raise against giving to the Lord is telling Him if we give away our frills, we will deprive our children of some enjoyment. But what if you obey His will, give your frills away first, and tell your kids why they need to give things away--then what do your children see in you? Sacrifice. Then the lesson they learn is Love. Instead of Materialism. They learn that true love includes sacrifice. And we Christians are nothing without God's definition of Love (I Cor. 13: 1-8). The problem with America is, many families have enough money to satisfy each person in the family to do their own thing, without anyone sacrificing for another. The problem with that is, with no sacrificing, there is no sharing, no real love being learned. And with everyone doing their own thing, there is no bonding, no teamwork, and the children learn nothing about the importance of another’s feelings or likes—which makes them far less prepared for marriage, and close relationships. So yes, discard that second car. One of you stay at home.  Get rid of that second house, too—that one in upstate Michigan or down in Florida. And stop the cruises. How can we go to God on judgment day, when I can imagine He will show a split screen video—us on one side, living it up, and on the other side, people in impoverished nations that we ignored, scratching for subsistence? How then are we different than the rich man ignoring the poor Lazarus in Luke 16 (see my Radical 2 blog)? Will our final destination be any different than his? Are you absolutely sure that your salvation won’t be affected by our uncaring frivolity, since God sees all.  There are many Scriptures indicating beneficence to the poor and people who need help is essential to show that you truly are saved.  Just by not having a second car, your family can save over $6,000 a year, even if your second car is an older one (this dollar figure also realistically considers depreciation’s hidden cost as well as gas and maintenance and insurance). Do you realize the difference you could make by giving that kind of money to the worldwide poor instead of making your life a little more indulgent, or a little more convenient?

Let’s talk about America’s appetites to buy more, our continual grasping to raise our standard of living. Did you know that this is covetousness? Most people define that word as “wanting what belongs to another.” But as Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words points out, the Greek word translated "covetousness" is “pleonexia.” But the word simply means "a desire to have more… always in a bad sense" (e.g., wanting more possessions or power).

Let's discuss an unfortunate byproduct of the American economy: In truth, the growth of our economy is founded upon advertising and consumption. That means our government blesses spending, and loves it when we are covetous. They even makes it our patriotic duty to be bathed in materialism. We talk about the latest trinkets, smartphones, and trucks with our friends constantly, so these things are on our mind constantly. What is real love?  What we think the most of all.  We live in materialism, we breathe it.  We want more--we covet.

But covetousness is a serious sin. Let’s look at Ephesians 5:5:

For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Read that definition of covetousness again: It is idolatry, loving something more than our God. (What we think about, what we talk about, wanting it to satisfy our desires--these are the true meaning of "love.") Is that you? And where is the eternal destination for this idolatry? NOT in the kingdom of God.  That means hell. That radical idea is confirmed in Colossians 3:5-6:

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience.

As the superb commentary Precept Austin puts it, “covetousness is synonymous with idolatry because it places selfish desire above obedience to God…it is basically people doing what they desire, rather than what God desires. This in turn amounts to worship of self rather than worship of God, and this is the very essence of idolatry.” Note the verses above; covetousness invites the wrath of God.  Because America is so deeply ingrained in this sin, I would like to suggest that many (perhaps most) Americans are idolaters, as defined, and bound for hell, without sincere repentance. There are a LOT of people in this country who think they’re saved because they “believe in Jesus”—but they don’t obey Jesus, because they accumulate superficial assets, spend frivolously, and ignore their poor brothers and sisters in the world who are dying unnecessarily. Remember, again, my Radical Part 2: the fact that the rich man was blissfully unaware in Luke 16 was no excuse for him. He still was judged for hell.

Here's another thought:  What else does Jesus say on this subject?

“Woe unto you that are rich!” (Luke 6:24).

(“Woe” is a word of denunciation, used for the unsaved, such as Luke 11:43-47). In Matthew 19:23ff, Jesus says, in part:

“it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven….It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

I remind you, we cannot argue that “I’m not rich.” God isn’t comparing you to Americans—He’s looking at the entire train of world history, in which most Americans would have to qualify as “rich.” (I have a different blog that discusses that subject). Let’s not deny our responsibility. Look at the threatening words again for being rich and getting heaven: “It is hard.” What does that really mean? We Americans, richness has taken us away from God.  To overcome the disadvantages our wealth has given us, (how it makes us idolaters, selfish, and independent of God), to get to heaven, we have to be more passionately determined to be holy.  We have to really discipline ourselves to bully the desires of our flesh out of the way, to persevere in seeking God’s heart, to fight against the natural tendency in wealth to be complacent, or not depend on Him. We need to fight against the FALSE theology that “I’m doing well, and I know this comes from God, so God loves me.” (Most Americans have that belief.)  We have to fight against placing all our trust on this world, depending on our savings--and not thinking about the next world--which is a lot longer in duration! We too easily fall into the trap of Revelation 3:17, spoken to the church at Laodicea:

“You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

The severe denunciation of this church was because of their lukewarmness, their deception (well-off people who figure they do not need God every day--and complacency and self-deception, go hand-in-hand).  But what does Jesus do to these lukewarm people?  Vomits them out of His mouth.  They don't belong in His Body.

May God help us to see us as He sees us.