Scripture Indicates That Believer's Water Baptism Is an Essential Requirement of Salvation

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

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

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

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

Does this not say that “born of water” is water baptism? Even in the Greek, the word translated "water" simply refers to physical water. Does it not clearly say that water baptism is essential in being born again?—and that without it, you cannot enter the kingdom of God?  (There are extenuating circumstances preventing baptism, of course).

Mark 16:16 says:

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

This clearly requires baptism to "be saved," or to be in heaven and escape Judgment.  I might add, at this point, that all these verses assume believer baptism--i.e., as an adult.

Acts 2:36-38:

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

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

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

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

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

Galatians 3:27:

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

“Baptized into Christ” is water baptism, as they are tied together in Romans 6:2-4.   The allegorical nature of it is shown too:

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 10:22:

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

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

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

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

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

Again, EVERY ONE OF THESE VERSES IS DIRECTED TO BELIEVERS WHO ARE MAKING A CHOICE TO BE BAPTIZED. There are no baptisms of babies in Scripture that we know of.

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

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

Was crossing the water of the Red Sea (a type of baptism) merely a “symbol” of their salvation from the Egyptians? No, crossing the water DID save them! Then why do most evangelistic churches use the weak word “symbol” when they explain baptism? Using the Red Sea type, baptism completes our salvation. I use the word “complete” because other things of faith were involved too, all of which together ensured their salvation. They had already stepped out in faith to follow God’s leader Moses. In faith they believed the ten plagues were a message from God. In faith they obediently protected themselves from death at Passover, when they obeyed the instruction to put lamb’s blood on the doorposts. And when they packed their belongings and marched out into the desert—that was a great step of faith, since a sensible man would never expect to stay alive long in the desert. All of these things, faith plus obedience, ensured their salvation, but the baptism of passing through the Red Sea completed the job—but all this was still only at the beginning of their journey. They still had to place faith in God throughout the journey.

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

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

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

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

When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis for salvation on the conversion experience. They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” In their countries’ state churches, everyone had already been baptized—as babies--but many grew up dead spiritually. Revivalists thought the way to reach people was:  Rather than preach on the negative topic, “why baptism as a baby wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see as many people turn their life around as possible, and make the salvation easy to get to. So it was the "decision for Jesus," that was it.  You should be baptized as a witness, a symbol, to show to everyone that you're saved.

Now I again warn you: Keep in mind this extremely important caution (read the “Paul v James” blogs): Don’t assume you can get baptized, and you’re saved and done.  A continuing saved relationship with Christ, following His commands are necessary. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential as well, not just water baptism.

When you want to submit to the Lord Jesus AND when you are immersed in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. But it's also true that if you do the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing--you could still lose your salvation and be spiritually dead.  (You may not have been saved in the first place, if you were just "going through the motions.")  Don't forget to have an abiding relationship with Christ so you don't lose salvation.

Acknowledgements:  Dave Bercot CD, "Baptism"

How Astral Projection Was a Witness

I’ve just read “The Second Coming of the New Age,” by Steven Bancarz and Josh Peck.  There is a section on Astral Projection experiences by Josh Peck that is fascinating and I would like to share with you.  By sharing it I do not mean to glorify it, but to consider it an evangelistic tool, as you will see. 

His consistent level of detail and his turnaround to Christian witness that I’ve heard elsewhere and read here suggests strongly that he is telling the truth.  The story aims to prove one thing, if nothing else:  We all have souls.  Souls are immortal.  At death, Scripturally, the soul separates from the body and experiences heaven or hell.  On the negative side, as Scripture tells us in Luke 16, souls can feel pain, thirst, and torture.  Let me share some of Mr. Peck’s story.  Caution:  This was experienced before he became a Christian.  He would not do it now.

The authors begin by telling us that Paul, in Scripture, might have experienced this phenomenon of soul separating from body.  In II Corinthians 12, Paul describes a vision of being “caught up” to the third heaven. “Whether in the body, or out of the body, I do not know.”  This might have been his soul leaving his body—while still healthy.  If that is the case, keep in mind that he was an apostle writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  We cannot expect the same result, as all Scripture is already written.  We would be just dabbling at some other goal that the Holy Spirit would not have us be a part of.  Scripture tells us to never mess with the occult.  Anyway, with Paul’s experience, we might today call it an OBE, or out-of-body experience.  (Not a NDE, near-death experience).  Many people, relating the latter experiences, were on the verge of death, but with medical help, came back to life.  Both groups mostly speak of positive things, suggesting heaven.  But their description of heaven is often non-Scriptural.  Actually, Scripture testifies that most people when they die don’t go to heaven, according to Matthew 7:13, 14:

“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.¹⁴Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 So their positive experiences were probably not a prelude of where they go when they die.  That’s an easy assumption that people make.  As you see by the Scripture, their minds were deceived.   The problem is, in an OBE, you have opened yourself up to influence by spirits from another dimension; Scripturally, and from experience, these things truly exist.  And evil entities are placing deceiving thoughts into the practitioner’s mind, in almost all cases.  Believers in the occult call the deceivers “trickster entities” or “negative astral entities.”  Christians call them demons. 

Now those who want these experiences, it’s possible for them to learn how to float on an astral plane, in another dimension, without getting on the verge of death.  Followers of occult practices tell us there are ways to protect ourselves against attacks.  They tell us not to fear, since fear attracts the evil entities.  That the demons can only do to us what we allow them to do.  All lies, says Bancarz.  Besides his astral plane experience, the real truth of the results from such experimentation can even be learned by online testimonies.  The internet is filled with the agonies of those who have been tormented by demons after an astral plane experience—their mind and their body--during regular life—if one fails to reverence the entities when he or she is called upon to do so on the astral plane.  Thus, you can have negative astral experiences against your will, despite “protective” measures.  And, to top it off, while one’s soul is outside their body, an opening is created, and that’s when other demons can enter the body or soul and torment them.  Perhaps that’s why it says in Matthew 12:43-45:

 “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he (ed., the unclean spirit) goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. ⁴⁴ Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty… ⁴⁵ Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”

This torment really has no end, outside of Jesus Christ.

Bancarz has found the following happenings:  demons pose as “spirit guides;” demons disguise themselves as someone significant in someone’s life—a romantic partner, or someone you hurt before they died, all to remind someone of guilt. And, demons can do bodily harm; like paralyzing them against their will.  Mr. Bancarz tells you that if you, after dabbling with deep meditation or occult, ever experience astral projection, you should “tell the first astral being you see, ‘I rebuke you in Jesus’ name…I command you, in Jesus’ name, to leave me alone.”  It will save you a world of hurt, as you will see by Mr. Peck’s ultimately horrifying experience, as we will now finally tell.

Mr. Peck tells us that he was a Baptist as a child, but had a serious interest in the supernatural.  This is because he heard voices in his room and saw a monster in his backyard.  (Maybe he could trace these things back to his mother, as we will see.)   Between 12 and 18, he suffered sleep paralysis almost weekly—that means that at night, he was fully awake, yet unable to move, along with being scared out of his wits by negative auditory and visual “hallucinations,” or contact with evil spirits.  He saw a hooded figure open the door, etc.  Imagine experiencing all that as a child.  Even after he moved out of the house, the sleep paralysis never quit.  His mother and his pastor had no answers (but he learned later that she experienced it too—she never talked about her dealings with the paranormal).  A “spiritual” friend told him that he might defeat the demons attacking him in sleep paralysis if he could learn astral projection and come face to face with them, and convince them to quit. He thought he would give it a try.  Through reading, he learned how to do certain meditation practices, etc, and suddenly he was into it.  It started as a lifting out of the body, a floating vision of current reality, including moving to other floors of apartments, seeing and hearing other people’s activities that you wouldn’t be able to see from where his body still was.  He had a perfect remembrance of his friends’ conversation in another room, and he remembered everything  that happened once he was back into his body.  By the way, he had no control of when his soul left his body, its movements, or when it decided to go back to his body. He did gain more control of where he traveled later. 

He decided to test that this was not a hallucination by asking his friends what their conversation was about.  (He wouldn’t have been able to hear it from where his body was).  They related the same details that he heard when he was out of his body and his soul was near them.  That’s verification that it wasn’t a nightmare or hallucination (he never took drugs, except to try to help him sleep).

But he learned, over time, with more astral experiences, that this was not helping his sleep paralysis problem—he couldn’t confront these entities since he never saw any to talk to. He had heard that it was possible.  But for him, he only saw real people.  But it was a trip. But he needed help:  He was experiencing sleep paralysis two or three times a week now.  But he was hooked on New Age astral projection, so he kept playing with it.  He could not convince anyone of the reality of his experiences; so he noted, later, that he felt superior to them.  He also felt himself getting more selfish and untrustworthy.  Real life became dull for him.  He didn’t care about anything that wasn’t related to New Age.  His goal was to meet a being from the astral plane, hopefully a “spirit guide.” Some were even called “angels.”  New Agers like to use Biblical words—interpreted their way—to explain their beliefs to one who had a Christian exposure.  All this he kept a secret from family and most friends.  Mr. Peck even tried to write about how New Age was confirmed in Christianity, but a mysterious “circumstance” erased all of his months of computer notes.  Discouraged, he abandoned that idea. 

By this time he was married and had a child.  On what would become his last astral experience, evidently the head demon over him (he felt he was always under observation) gave him what he wanted—lots of entities were around him. Some looked human, others looked monstrous.  He had no fear, and asked a question to open up to the idea to get them to quit tormenting him.  They ignored the question, and asked lots of questions about him.  This would presumably enable them to deceive him better later.  Then one of the entities told him “if I ever wanted help leaving my body, I could ask them to help me.”  Then he was back in his body.  Later, he was unsuccessful in his efforts to leave his body again, and he remembered their offer to help. They made sure they were now inaccessible unless he did their bidding.   But he couldn’t do it, because to ask them was really praying; it would really be praying to something that wasn’t God.  So he was willing to close his life to them.  Unbeknownst to him, this was a crucial decision.

“That was when all hell broke loose,” he wrote.  Everyone living in his trailer began experiencing horrifying manifestations of things otherworldly. They all began having sleep paralysis—every night.  This time, the images were gnarled, twisted, dark, and hate-filled.  His one-year-old daughter was screaming with night terror. They heard explosion-like crashes in the bathroom. The atheist roommate began seeing glowing orbs shoot into the bedroom.  (She soon lost her atheism.)  They all began sleeping on the living room floor at night.  Even during the day, they heard angry whispering voices out in the yard.  Mr. Peck finally saw that the “angels” were really demons.  Peck finally confessed to his wife his history of contact with spiritual powers, including the fateful last one.  He couldn’t seek outside help, since all psychiatrists would put a non-spiritual name on it and lock him away or give him strong pills.  In desperation, he called on Jesus for help—which he had never done before.  

Only a couple days later, he channel-surfed on his TV and saw L.A. Marzulli answering Biblically about aliens.  Marzulli had himself come out of New Age to Christianity, and related some facts about spiritual warfare.  Josh saw this as a partial answer to prayer, and Peck and his wife rededicated themselves to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and renounced New Age theology.  Getting Marzulli’s web address, he actually wrote to this busy man, and Marzulli actually responded—and gave him more help—and the result was God’s grace.  With Jesus’ help, He and his family never had another demonic experience again. 

Now I would like to tell of a short story that was originally researched by Dr. Gary Habermas, a Doctor of Philosophy, a college professor, and a well-known Christian apologist.  This man knows how to research, and he interviewed all the people involved.  The story is related by Chris Putnam (also a researcher and writer of some great books) in a Skywatch TV episode.  He is relating how some NDEs (near-death experiences) are verifiable fact (though most NDEs are what the demons want you to see and which you pass on).  We have a possible example of that verifiability above, in how Peck was able to determine that his friends’ conversations were the same as what he heard under astral projection.  But the problem was, he never told his friends, or anybody, what he had found.  The lack of good witnesses make it unverifiable to a secularist.  But the story, if Josh is a consistent Christian, is verifiable.

Putnam relates the Habermas story, as follows:   A migrant worker, Maria, is wheeled into a hospital in Seattle, flatlining of a heart attack. She had never been to Seattle before.  After she was revived, and she had never been out of the hospital, she told the social worker who came to talk to her, how she left her body and floated out of the hospital and up several floors.  And, she said, by the way, on the ledge of the third floor outside, there is a red shoe.  It has a hole in the corner of the pinky toe. And she told other details.  Though they didn’t believe her, she finally talked the social worker to go and look for it.  With some help, the social worker found it—exactly as described.  What’s noteworthy here is that the shoe was positioned in a way that it couldn’t be seen from the ground—it was behind a brick mass.  The hole in the toe was almost in a gutter, and could not be seen—except by someone floating near and above it.  

All of this came to my mind (I believe God put it there) after I tried to evangelize our next door neighbor.  I told of my belief in an afterlife.  He told of his belief—he would die and be six feet under, and that was it.  I was taken aback and stumbled for words after that (most everyone says they’re going to heaven), except to say that the Bible is God’s Word and says otherwise.  But you know people—they don’t want to hear that Scripture is God’s Word; they want “real facts.”  (I mean, look at all of our denominations.  The unbeliever would say; if Scripture was His Word, wouldn’t it have clarity, and not be subject to so many interpretations?  Another blog someday, I guess.)   Of course, they could still write off Dr. Habermas, Josh Peck, the migrant worker, and the social worker--as all conspirators and con artists.  That doesn’t sound rational, though, since none of them knew one another before this event.

Now I have some proof to share to my neighbors, outside the Bible, about how we all have souls—in fact, we’re embodied souls—and I could go on, and tell how the soul has a place, decided by God, as to where we spend eternity.  We are accountable to God, and need to find His plan for salvation from Hell--I have many blogs on that subject.  By the way, Scripture also teaches that later our new perfect bodies join our souls in heaven--for those going there.

Acknowledgements:  Skywatch TV and the book “The Second Coming of the New Age,” by Peck and Bancarz

Things you need to know about John Calvin

Calvin is classified as a great theologian.  Let's see what he is, as a man, and we may question his theology when we are through.  

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

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

In 1534 he became a Protestant Reformer, at the peak of Luther’s popularity in Germany.  Because the Catholics were hunting down Reformers, Calvin fled to Geneva, Switzerland, which became ruled by Protestants.   The leaders of Geneva were impressed with Calvin’s keen mind and energy, and made him the leader of the Reformation there. 

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

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

Does this doctrine sound like it reflects God's personality to you? 

You would think that few people would accept this philosophy, because it doesn’t line up with God’s personality in the Bible.  But people grabbed onto the nice collateral idea that he threw in: the elect can know beyond doubt that they are the elect, and you cannot possibly lose your salvation.   He got a huge following—at least, from those who felt like “the elect.” Not so much from those who perceived themselves as non-elect. 

Another aspect of his theology was, he didn’t see the difference between Christ’s moral teachings and the Old Testament Law.  Thus, he felt that communities should be theocratic, like Israel. Old Testament Law should rule.  He decided infant baptism of all was mandatory, to keep the infant, if it died, from going to Hell (even though that was not a specific Biblical doctrine).  The Anabaptists, who believed in believer’s baptism only (as does Scripture), were thus heretical, to Calvin.  His approach to them?  Torture them, get them to recant.  They need to accept the truth.  (Luther had the same attitude in Germany, but less passionate about pursuing it).  In Calvin’s Institutes, it further spells out that every nation should be governed only by the elect.  The job of civic government was to protect the true faith, and regulate the lives of its citizens so they follow God’s law.  Even the non-elect had to “toe the line.”  If the nation does what was right, God would prosper it.  If the nation was experiencing military or economic decline, or natural disaster, it must be that God was punishing that nation for something they’re doing wrong.  The state mandated that church attendance was for all, and the city elders’ job includes observing carefully the private lives of all its attendees to make sure they’re living in bounds with God’s Law. They would even ask your neighbors about you to find out "the truth." The church could excommunicate those who strayed, and then the state also would punish them, the worst punishment for the worst sins being hanging, burning, or even drawn and quartered. 

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

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

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

 His huge ego reached its most grotesque result in the Michael Servetus case. Servetus was a gifted and well-known Spanish Renaissance man, but he questioned  the Trinity, the infant baptism, and predestination.  Calvin thought he would do Servetus a favor, he felt, by sending him a copy of the Institutes to straighten him out.  Servetus had the "audacity" to annotate his own critique of the Institutes, and sent it back.  This began a flurry of arrogant letter-writings back and forth.  Finally Calvin said in a letter to another friend, “If I consent, he (Servetus) will come here...if he comes here, and my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.”  There never was a doubt about Calvin’s authority—no imprisonment, no exile, no torture or beheading went without his consent.  He was called “the pope of Geneva.”  Servetus made the mistake of naively wandering in.  He was arrested.  Calvin himself prepared the 38 criminal counts against Servetus, at least one of which was “insulting Calvin’s authority.”  Servetus did not have the right to an attorney, since as Calvin said, he could “lie without one.”  At trial he was not allowed to explain or defend any of his points.  He was sentenced to be burned at the stake alive.  He was chained to a stake.  The authorities then piled wood around him, half of which were green (which takes longer to burn, prolonging the agony of suffering).   The crowd watched in fascination.  Keep in mind: Calvin, by his position and by consenting, was guilty, in our courts, of conspiracy to murder.  This was similar to David’s crime (II Samuel 11:14-17)—yet in the Bible it was just as bad as murder--it was called murder in II Samuel 12:9. 

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

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

So, was the murderer Calvin (based on the Gruet and Servetus cases above) a believer in Christ?  Based on Scripture, as I point out in other blogs, that means, did he follow Christ’s commandments and abide in Him (I John 3:24)?  Unless he repented at the end, I think not; I believe he ended up unsaved.  No one could consent to these unimaginable things and claim they “love the brethren” and love God, which believers must do (I John 4:8).   
Now the big question:  Are you a follower of Calvin’s predestination theology?  Most Americans who call themselves "Christian" actually are--most don't know its details or the details of its founder.  I don't doubt that most are really Christian.  But when you think about it, do you really agree that people are predestined to hell by God, by random selection, not based on any of their works or faith? Is that what God is to you?

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

Acknowledgements:  David Bercot, CD, “Geneva.”

The Honor Killing That Went Awry

I used to think “honor killing” had to do with killing a Muslim daughter that committed a dreadful sin, like fornication or pregnancy, outside of marriage.  But an HBO Documentary Film, “A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness” changed my mind. Please read on for your own enlightenment. 

More than 1000 women are murdered in Pakistan each year by male relatives who believe the victims have dishonored their families.  Here is the story of a young Pakistani woman who was the target of one of these honor killings.

It happened three years ago in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. It’s not a backwoods or ignorant area, since five million people live there. The girl, Saba, is 19. She is very pretty—on the right side of her face. On the left, it’s a different story.  A gunshot blew away her cheek from eye to jaw.  The surgeon did a terrible job of sewing it back together, but at least she is alive. The eye and teeth were miraculously untouched.  She also suffered a defensive wound on her right arm.  

It all began when she fell in love with Qaiser, a young man.  As typical in Muslim culture, they only met a few times, but talked on the phone.  He was kind and didn’t get angry, and she was in love.  Her father, at first, was planning their wedding. The problem was, her uncle objected.  “They are not of our status. They are poorer than us.”  He suggested that she should marry his brother-in-law.  A much older man whom she knew little about.

Since her male relatives had the last word, she was desperate.  Upon Qaiser’s parents’ suggestion, she decided to run away to Qaiser’s house, and his parents would see to it that they marry in court.  Which they did.   But her relatives paid a surprise visit the wedding day, before she got any “alone” time with him, and kidnapped her.  Her parents told her “return home to uphold our family’s honor, then Qaiser can come and take you back honorably.” But she was fearful of what they might do to her.  Then her parents put their hand on the Quran and promised her they wouldn’t harm her.  That finally decreased her fear.  But that night her uncle and father put her in the car, took her to the river, and started slapping and beating her.  She begged them for mercy, but her father put a pistol right at her brain, clutched her neck to keep her still, but she was able to tilt her face at the time he shot her, which means the shot ripped through her cheek instead.  Assuming she was dead, they put her in a bag and threw her in the river, and left.  But she fought off shock and amazingly climbed out. And she was taken to a hospital.

Authorities have laws against this, so now her father and uncle were on the run. Qaiser rushed to the hospital.  In an interview with Qaiser at the hospital, he said “my love for her is very strong.  I’d die without her.”  He seemed like a level-thinking good man. 

Police were assigned to guard her at the hospital.  She believed, because her parents took an oath on the Quran, Allah saved her.  “It is a sin.  They broke that oath and now the wrath of God will fall upon them.  I will never forgive them, no matter what happens or who comes in the middle. Even if someone powerful asks me, I will not forgive them.”  Then she spoke of the big picture.  “The world should see this—brothers, sisters, parents…So this doesn’t happen again.  They should be shot in public in an open market. With God’s will, I am going to fight this case.”  The Sharia law in Pakistan, though seemingly modernized, has a "get out of jail free" card:  the court will release a killer if the family of the victim forgives him.  Cultural pressures usually saw to it that that was what happened.  And the local families were already beginning to lean heavily upon her to forgive her father and uncle in court.  If she did that, they won’t spend 20 years behind bars. This is for shooting her in the face, up-close and personal. So, forgiveness would let them off scot-free, of attempting to murder their own child because she wanted to live a quiet life in love with Qaiser her chosen husband.  Was her not wanting to marry upscale a reasonable excuse for killing your own daughter?  How perverse is that?  But there was more to it.  They accused her of rebelling against her parents.  The loss of honor by the parents was enough to make her worthy to die.  Family honor was more important than her life.  Also, the father and the uncle were the family breadwinners.  Taking them away would definitely make the family scrounge for a decent living.     

The investigative policeman, Ali Akbar, caught up with Saba’s father and uncle and jailed them awaiting trial.  He was also interviewed, and said, “In my opinion, Islam teaches nothing about “honor killing.”  It teaches that we should safeguard the rights of all human beings, be it a man or a woman.  God has given her the right to choose freely.  Yet on the simple matter of marrying the person she loved, she had to pay such a heavy price.  What happened here was totally against religious values."  Hey,a moral man in Pakistan.  I think he really believes that, since he went through the hassle of chasing and finding a dangerous criminal, who would most likely be released.   But the truth is, as I point out in another blog “Are the Christian God and Allah the Muslim God the Same?”  the Quran is all about hatred and revenge, with only a few phrases about tolerance.  It is also highly misogynistic, and clearly points out that women are not as valuable or trustworthy as men.  It is easy to see how a perversity like honor killing could arise out of a culture rooted in the Quran as a foundation.  I firmly believe that the real God cannot bless such a culture, and that is why Pakistan remains one of the poorest countries on the planet.

Saba got no support from her family for wanting justice. So she went to live with her husband’s family.  In the interview with her sister Aqsa, who is about 16 I would guess, I was shocked to hear how assertive she was backing up her parents.  There was no reticence at all, which is surprising considering how she watched while they deceived and tried to kill her very own sister:  (Someday that could be her). “All our family did was to preserve their integrity and honor.  Who can tolerate such betrayal from a daughter who runs away and marries without their consent?  Our family was respected by the entire community.  People who feared us now taunt us.”  (The use of the word “fear” is a telltale statement).  “We’ve stopped going anywhere …because of the shame she has brought upon us.  People say my father neglected his kids.”  (One could only wish he had done so).  Her thinking was totally corrupted, thinking that the daughter was the betrayer.

Mom chimed in: “I could have scolded, explained to her. This is what happens when honor is at stake. No woman should disrespect others.  No woman should ruin her parents’ reputation.  This girl here (pointing, lovingly I guess, to Aqsa), if she does this sort of thing, she will be beaten.  If she stays home, I will get her married in a good way.  I prayed to God, “My daughter has done this, make me die.”” So mom is unrepentant of her assistance to her murderous husband, and despite Aqsa’s loyalty to mom, her mom still threatened her too!  Mother love on display.

The interview with Maqsood, Saba’s father, and Muhammad, her uncle, in jail was the strangest of all.  Here are her uncle’s words, which clearly show resentment that Saba lived:  “What my brother did was absolutely right.  I guess she survived.  It was her destiny.”   Saba’s father was also totally unrepentant:  “Whatever we did, we were obliged to do it.  She took away our honor.  I am an honorable man.  So I said no, I will kill you myself.  You are my daughter, I will kill you myself.  Why did you leave home with an outsider?  I haven’t seen the boy yet.  If I had seen him, I would have killed him too.  He has brought such destruction upon our home.  Just look.  I’m behind bars right now.”  (His logic about why he is in jail is beyond me).  The interviewer couldn’t resist.  “You’re locked up because you tried to kill your daughter.”  His answer:  “Lady, Islam does not permit the girl to go out of the house.”  (A total lie).  “Was she dying of hunger?  She got everything.”  Interviewer:  “Does Islam permit murder?”  Reply:  “No…”(actually, he was wrong.) “but where is it written that a girl can run away with a stranger?”  Interviewer: “What did you say to your wife?”  Reply:  “I told her “I have gone and killed your daughter as per my desire.”  My wife cried.  What else could she do?   She is just my wife.”  About his family who he left potentially starving without a breadwinner:  “The Lord will provide for my family too.” 

Saba, with her husband and family, is content, to use her word.  I tend to believe her.  Qaiser’s mother said, “She’s my daughter now.”  As to the question of them being poorer:  “We will live off what we have, and she can eat with us too.”  Saba says she’s heard that her father is asking for forgiveness.  Despite his brave words about honor earlier, he really doesn’t want to spend his life in jail--but he won’t condescend to speak with her.  At this point, she insists she still will not forgive him.  Her uncle did beg her forgiveness, but she told him to go away. 

Saba has a forward-thinking lawyer, who does many of his cases pro bono.  He feels that “honor killing” cases should be treated as any other murder/attempted murder case.  But Sharia law puts a misogynistic twist.  Most of the time the daughter is usually dead, so that makes it easy that the near relatives of the victim can get together and forgive the killer.  Her lawyer asserts:  “That is one more reason why honor killings are rising.  This is not just Saba’s cause; it’s society’s cause.”  He believes that the judicial system should be changed, not to allow such compromise.  But it will take time to change people’s mind.   “Seeking justice is a long, drawn-out process, and women are at a disadvantage.”

Saba begins to relate the growing pressure on her:  “They say we must listen to the influential and dominant men of our neighborhood.”  The male elders of the community play a major role in making the parties reach a compromise, and here is where the truth really comes out, about her inability to even make her feelings known, since she is trained from birth to obey the men and not speak up.  The elders expressed their dominance in refusing to meet with her; and they parroted the same charge as her father: she ran away, and society will not respect people who allow that with their daughter.  Her lawyer, in meeting with them, does a lame job of pleading the rights of the girl who is thrown away by her family.  But they sat there with arms folded, not an ounce of compassion on their faces, and they insisted that the real issues are honor “and land.”  (I don’t understand how “land” enters the picture).  They did hint that, if honor is not maintained, that fights between families could grow worse.  An interesting statement; it makes me think that if a family kills off another (dishonorable) family, they might even have community support in taking their land. Why not, if killing is treated so lightly here?    They say, if Saba forgives, then everyone will live in peace.  (The thing is, both families were there, and they were all calm, and I never saw any inter-family hatred, so I think either the real feelings are hidden, or the elders made that one up to add to their case.  What’s weird also is, everyone in that meeting was just talking like it was the day’s weather, despite this gross injustice staring them in the face.)

The police officer had an intelligent word: If she forgives, “a message is sent that this crime is no big deal. The laws should be the same for everyone.”  I would add, if you always end in forgiveness, and freedom for the criminal, why should a police officer bother chasing the criminal?  As a result, his job status, which should be important for the community to maintain, would eventually deteriorate. You would not have good men wanting to be police officers with this kind of action going on.   

Qaiser is against a settlement—but here’s another ugly truth about their system:  his older brother handles everything.  And of course, elder brother wants to acquit the attempted killers.   Forgiveness, he says, are the “laws of the community,” whatever that is.  He was worried “if this escalates.”  This hints at what the elders said about inter-family fights..   

As you might have guessed by now, Saba, through the men in her family, forgave.  (Actually, they didn’t ask her opinion).  And HBO got an award for this stunning documentary.  In fact, at the awards ceremony, the prime minister of Pakistan showed up and announced that the perpetrators of honor killings must not be allowed to be forgiven by family members.  He would do what he could to change that Sharia law. 

But wait a minute, who really has the power to change Sharia?  The religious leaders and the community.  Mufti Kifayatullah, a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, a religious party, accepted that some Islamic laws were being misused to protect killers. But he said any reform attempts would be resisted.  "Removing Islamic laws shall never be tolerated, as this country came in to being in the name of Islam,” he said. “The religious parties will not allow the government to solve the problem in this way.”

So the honor killings go on, and even grow.  Some killings have gotten pretty brazen, such as the 2014 killing of a woman by her family right outside Lahore’s high court, no less.

Now you the reader, consider how all the main players in this drama believed in and invoked the support of Allah, their God. Yet look how their compassion was absent and their mind corrupted. There were only two people who wanted peace and love.  Yet they were almost killed for that.  Please read my paper on the truth behind the Quran. Now tell me, dear reader, how “all religions lead to the same God.”  Contrast the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:43ff with the vengeful relatives:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 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, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”

 Is this the same God as Muslims call on for defense of these horrific actions?  Or should we take a word of advice from Matthew 7:16:  You will know them by their fruits.

Acknowledgement:  HBO Documentary Films, "A Girl in the River"