Polls show that 85% of Americans believe they're going to heaven (ABC News Poll: December 20, 2005). Most Americans say they believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and say they are Christian. But...meeting the demands of Scripture for entrance into heaven is not how they decided if they are going to heaven; in fact, our behavior patterns and specific beliefs often run the opposite of Scripture. According to a May 2013 Gallup poll, 59% of Americans believe gay sexual relations are morally acceptable, 63% believe sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable, and 42% say that about abortion. But Scripture, the basis of Christianity, says none of these behaviors are morally acceptable. It seems that American “Christians” are saying fornication, sodomy, and murder are acceptable. We have to conclude that many people are calling themselves Christian, yet feel it’s OK to ignore Scripture and our Lord's commands when it's convenient. The problem is, a belief system that “gets me to heaven” with no sacrifice, no obedience necessary is what I call “easy believism.” But that kind of "believism" is a road to hell.
We need to be most cautious about what Scripture says to be saved. Can we really ignore Scripture, be disobedient and still escape Hell? Have we possibly deceived ourselves into assuming we're good enough for heaven, when Scripture warns us otherwise? Have we rationalized behavior that is unsupported by Scripture--and not considered the danger therein? Jesus, in Matthew 7:14 says:
“narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which ..leads to life, and there are few who find it."
The word "life," here, as any Biblical linguist would tell you, means "heaven." I've taken polls of my friends on the word “few,” without referencing its Scriptural source. It’s interesting how we basically agree on 6-7% of a group of people would fulfill the definition of the word. Thus, on average, only 6-7% of people are heaven-bound. That’s a long way from 65% (2019 poll) who profess Christianity in America. Doing a little math using 6%, this says that one out of 11 who call themselves Christian will make it to heaven. Do you like those odds?
This paper is inspired by a CD of David Bercot, a writer and lecturer on Scripture. The big question is, Does maintaining salvation involve works? The title of the CD is “Paul vs James,” since James seems to emphasize works and Paul seems to discount them and emphasize faith alone to escape hell.
Bercot points out that for most evangelical "theologians" today, this "contradiction" between Paul and James is “resolved” easily: their Study Bibles and commentaries “simply explain James away.” I.e., They say Paul “has it right,” so what James says (works are important) is pretty much ignored. Thus they cancel out James completely. Bercot doesn’t like the way they pass over the clear plain INSPIRED statements of Scripture in James. He asks, what is the real truth about this important matter of works? For the answer, we need to study the words of Jesus.
Actually, most Christian denominations, by focusing on Paul (as today's people interpret" him), are actually ignoring what Jesus had to say on what it takes to be saved. If we dare to speak out on what Jesus actually says about the role of works to go to heaven, modern-day evangelicals will call us “heretics!” Then, they'll say we’re not saved because we lack assurance, or that we’re preaching a “works salvation,” that we’re “trusting our own righteousness instead of the righteousness of Christ.” But do not be intimidated by them when you read the Truth from the mouth of Jesus.
Intelligent theologians had a place for the role of works after salvation all through history—until Martin Luther introduced corrupt methodologies, which were duplicated by Calvin, to give the Protestant movement an opposite twist from Catholicism. The Catholics emphasized un-Scriptural works. The Protestants, under Luther and Calvin, felt they had to go to the opposite extreme, casting works completely aside and saying salvation is just faith in Christ. But neither one had it right.
Here is where Martin Luther got it wrong:
a. He relegated the key teachings of Jesus to the back closet—Jesus “didn’t teach the theology of how to be saved,” the theologians--and Luther--concluded. “You have to read Paul to get that.”
b. He did "Proof texting:" He established theological positions by picking and choosing Bible verses that fit the theology he had decided ahead of time to promote, and ignored other verses that don’t fit. Most people, unfortunately, don’t read the New Testament in whole, to get the context of reconciling apparent differences in the overall picture. Your position on what it takes to be saved should be arrived at after reading the entire New Testament and fitting nearly all the relevant verses together on the subject.
c. He turned the New Testament writers into theologians, and changed their ordinary, everyday words into narrow theological terms.
d. He did, as many do today, make dishonest Bible translations and reference works. Remember, unlike Scripture, translations are made by humans who have their preconceptions to maintain.
Let's begin at the top: The problem of putting Jesus in the “back closet.” To find out about what God says about salvation, do we go to Jesus, the God-man, the greatest Teacher who ever lived? No; our "path to salvation" begins with Paul—in Romans, for instance. It bypasses Jesus. This wrong focus started with the Gnostics, and somewhat with Augustine, but it became an overriding “principle” with Luther. He put a preface in front of each New Testament book, and an overall preface before the whole New Testament. His remarks (which books he favors, which books are “straw”) colored the thinking of theologians ever since. He said Romans was the “chief part of the New Testament, the very purest gospel.” (His praises of this one book are half the length of the book itself). In deciding “which are the best,” as he called it, of the New Testament books, he likes John, and Paul’s books, and I Peter (but not II Peter or Matthew, Mark or Luke--which, by the way, are 3/4 of the gospels!) John’s gospel is “far, far to be preferred to the other three” and “placed high above them.” He thus thinks we’re better off not reading the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain (which are only contained in the 3 Synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke)—because, Bercot suspects, their gospels by Jesus' statements contradicts Luther’s gospel which he has made up from Paul. James he called an “epistle of straw” for “it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” (Now keep in mind, reader, that God inspired ALL the books of the Bible. ALL gospels are of equal value. They are all equal because they all have something to say for our edification.)
You can't decide on a canon in the 4th century AD and then play games with what's "better" in the 16th century. Who does he think he is?!
Bercot suspects Luther liked John over the Synoptic gospels because John uses the Greek for “believe” 99 times, vs only 9 or 10 times each in the other 3 Gospels. Verses with “believe” can be easily redefined to fit Luther’s gospel of easy believism. Luther’s favoring Paul over Jesus to make up his gospel was a direct violation of Jesus’ commandment of Matthew 23:10:
...do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
To quote Luther: “We can know everything we need to know about Christ and the gospel without ever having heard or read the Sermon on the Mount or the rest of what Jesus said that’s not recorded in John.” Really? The early Christians stood against that type of nonsensical thinking when the Gnostics tried to do something similar (further fascinating CDs on the Gnostics and Luther by Bercot are also available). But nobody is standing against this twisted thinking nowadays.
So let’s look at what Jesus taught on salvation from hell, for once. There are several long passages in the 4 gospels, and a hundred or more short passages, on this all-important doctrine of how to avoid hell. Let’s analyze a few of them. We start with parts of John 15:
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned… 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love…19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Key teachings of this important passage:
a. Jesus, using the word "abide," describes an ongoing, life relationship with Him as Necessary for salvation.
b. We must abide with Jesus and bear godly fruit or we’re going to be cut off the vine (i.e., on the way to hell).
c. We abide in Christ’s love ONLY if we obey His commandments.
d. Abiding, in part, means separation from the world.
Bercot asserts that of hundreds of messages he’s heard, none have used this John 15 passage when they discuss salvation. But clearly (especially in verse 6) that’s what the passage is about! In summary, in order to be saved, we must maintain an obedient, love-faith relationship with Him. A one-time declaration of faith will not do the job.
Let's compare that to what's taught today. Doctrines of salvation taught by men today can be categorized into two groups: Either they are (1) A system that requires an obedient, love-faith relationship with Christ, or (2) Everything else—since all other systems are “equally useless” (i.e., they will leave you deceived and hell-bound if you don't read Scripture thoroughly yourself).
Some of the alternate systems of “salvation” taught by men:
a. Paul in his day fought against Christo-Judaism: It had a knowledge of Jesus as Savior and Son of God, but added that you had to follow the law of Moses in the Old Testament to be saved.
b. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox: Sacramentalism. Receive the sacraments, attend Mass regularly, don’t die in unconfessed mortal sin, and be a loyal member of a church, to be saved.
c. Merit-ism: Live dutifully by all the commandments in the New Testament to be saved. (Relationship with Christ not necessary).
d. Good-ism: Attend church and be a good person. That’s followed by liberals, and most Catholics, truthfully, nowadays.
e. Evangelical Protestantism: Accept Jesus as your personal Savior, have a born-again experience, believe that you’re saved by faith or grace alone, and obedience to Christ is not necessary for salvation. (Obedience is good, it's just possible to ignore it and still go to heaven, as long as you don't do something REALLY BAD. If you stress obedience as necessary for heaven, you’re teaching “unsound doctrine, and you’re probably not even saved.”)
None of the above 5 require an obedient, love-faith relationship with Christ. True, evangelicals stress the importance of a loving relationship with Christ, but they don't REQUIRE love as expressed in obedience (as John 15:10 above clearly points out, obedience is necessary to go to heaven). The "love" of these "Christians" is often when they are in trouble, or it may be emotion-driven, not sacrifice-driven.
Bercot stresses that, keep in mind, there are multiple thousands of people who attend churches that follow one of the 5 alternate systems above, who ALSO have a saving relationship with Him--on their own--and know His great love through sacrificial obedience.
I should make a note, that will make a lot of people uncomfortable: It’s impossible to analyze “how much” obedience, or violation, is necessary to be saved, or exactly how much of sins will send us to hell. That can’t be measured —relationships can’t be reduced to a formula. We would all like perfect certainty--but with perfect certainty comes complacence. Anyhow, a saved person doesn’t want to measure it, he just enjoys Jesus' company, and can't stand the disconnection when he sins.
Thus, salvation is not a one-time event of faith-and-you're-done. We must maintain (or abide with) the relationship. And the requirement to abide? Keeping His commandments. If we don’t keep His commandments, we don’t love Him. So it says in John 15. Obedience is not a drudge, but a loving friendship. And remember, He chose us—God first loved us before we loved Him. Salvation was originated entirely through the acceptable blood of Christ. God wants perfection, and we couldn't do that--but Christ did, as our substitute. And when we stumble, we must experience real confession and repentance. Then He gives His grace again.
And finally the world will hate us. Not everyone all the time. But our belief system is opposite the world. They hate it--when you're not participating in their sins, their violating Jesus who died for them--and our behavior rains on their selfish parade. (Remember the high percentages above of "Christians" who accept sodomy, murder, and fornication). If you don’t feel some rejection in your frequent contacts with regular people, your light is not shining God's light enough.
There are past, present, and future aspects of salvation. In the past, if we at some point accepted the Lord and repented from our sin—what He is, what He did—we became attached to the Vine (using the John 15 metaphor). We were really saved. But--very important, we have to maintain that relationship to stay saved. Are we walking in the Spirit (using His power to help us completely conquer known sin)? Then we are abiding on the Vine. It’s a breathing, ongoing relationship. A constant inflow of life-giving water drawn in from the roots of the Vine. And the future? Since our abiding produces fruit (Galatians 5:22ff), we are heaven-bound. But if we don’t produce fruit, we will be cut off from the Vine and thrown in the fire. Just because we’re on the Vine now doesn’t mean we’re guaranteed to be on it next year. No unconditional eternal security.
On the corruption of proof texting, it's true, we can back up any of the 5 false methodologies above with selected texts from Scripture. But we would have to shove lots of others under the rug because they don’t agree together. The key is to understand everything that Jesus says on the subject first, and then look for agreement by the other Scriptural authors--then you put it together integrally. (All the relevant New Testament verses are given in a separate PDF CD, by the way). Full weight to each verse. Not picking one author (like Paul) and ignoring others (ignoring Jesus!)
Keep in mind that every statement made in Scripture is not the gospel in full. John 15 above, however, is a good model of the maintenance side of salvation. Other statements, you’ll find, will add a piece to that, but none will make an exclusionary remark that disagrees with it. There are some unanswered questions in John 15 too that other Scripture fills in—i.e., what are the “fruit?” (Study Galatians 5 for that). How do you get on the Vine?
.
So what else does Jesus say on the subject of salvation? We can’t give them all, but here are enough to whet your interest. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5ff, which Luther didn't like), look at Matthew 6:14-15:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The importance of forgiving is a godly fruit we need to possess. When we are first born again, only our PAST sins are forgiven. On a daily basis, we still need to pray forgiveness for our sins (I John 1:8, 9). But how sincere is our repentance when we don’t forgive others? See Matthew 18:23-35—note how the servant’s penalty was reinstated on him due to lack of forgiveness on his part (no eternal security there—his release from debt was conditional on his future behavior). We conclude that if we are unforgiving, we can’t be sincere in asking God for forgiveness; that sin may be a stumbling block that lands us in hell.
Now consider Matthew 7:21, 23:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Their profession of faith required works. But they only do good works on the surface, since Jesus accuse them of works of lawlessness, so their profession is meaningless. Their disobedience kept them from heaven--that's what easy believism leads to.
Bercot says people have this “cop-out:” They say, “I get suggestive feelings of supernatural instructions in my head. This must be God’s commandment for me!”—but we cannot let the so-called personal "instructions" override His written Word. You have to know the written Word. Study it.
Look at Matthew 10:32:
“Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
Don’t forget, you can deny Him not by words only, but also by living the way of the world. You cannot have two masters. If you live the world and think mostly of it, you lose Christ. He will not be your Advocate when the Judgement Day comes.
Stressing sacrifice of personal indulgences as part of salvation is Matthew 10:38:
And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
Jesus requires great commitment. Yet His yoke is light (Matthew 11:29), infused and rewarded with His love. We will joyfully lay down our lives for Him, knowing that things are much nicer in heaven.
In Luke 16:6-9, Jesus is saying God will extend patience for us to produce fruit. But not forever. At some point, with nothing produced, the tree is cut down. It also says, He will help us, with His Spirit, to produce fruit—unless we let worldly pleasures block those efforts.
In Luke 24:46-47, repentance is necessary:
Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
In John 3:3-5, we learn that salvation begins with a New Birth. That's when we realize our sin and the need of a Savior--and that Jesus is the only Savior. That’s what puts us “on the Vine.” We all know John 3:16 and surrounding verses. Or do we? Let’s look at “the rest of what He said,” John 3:19-21:
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
Again, deeds are involved, not just belief. We must "DO the truth." Your real belief can be seen in your deeds (which is what James is saying, James 2:14ff).
Another treasure for you to think about: Two closely-related Greek words that are translated “believe:” The first word, pisteuo means to believe, trust, but it’s just mental assent. The other is peitho, sometimes translated “believe,” but other times translated “obey.” Thus, Scriptural believing is interwoven with obeying. Not just mental assent. Webster’s defines “believe” as “confidence in the statement of another.” Our level of confidence can be tested on us by God, and our response—our deeds--signifies if we truly “believe.” Thus belief and deeds are one. Do we believe Jesus when He says that we must bear fruit or else be cut off and burned? When He says that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments? Do we really read His Words to see what all those commandments are? Do we believe that His commandments are truly in our best interest—enough to follow them even when they don’t make sense? Our deeds will signify if we believe. One-third of the world “believes” in Christ, but Bercot suspects it’s mostly the first Greek word—mental assent only. But that's a ticket to hell. Remember, Jesus said only the “few” would be saved (Matthew 7:14). Can Jesus be talking about the first definition, not requiring deeds, when He says “few” would be saved, when 1/3 the world fulfills that loose definition? And Luke 13:24 says we must “strive” to enter heaven—that again suggests deeds are involved.
There’s an evangelism tool that says we ask the prospect, “If you die and are standing before God, and He asks, “Why should I let you in?” And if the prospect gives the “standard” answer (I’ve been good), you’re supposed to say, “No, all your works are as filthy rags; have faith in what He has done—not your works, which count nothing in salvation.” But Scripture shows the opposite--it so happens that Jesus set up the same standing-before-God scenario in one of His sermons; And, He told all of us the “answer to the test” (every student’s dream to get the correct answer)—on what basis will He let us into heaven, Jesus asked. (Hint: It's not the evangelism tool). He said in the Last Judgment, people will be lined up, and He will let in some people and reject other people. On what basis? He will separate people, in the Last Judgment—based on their deeds. Thus, his comments were the exact opposite of what modern theologians say. In Matthew 25:34, 35 and 40, Jesus says
Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in.. ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.
On that day, He won’t expect us to feel that our deeds mean nothing. He will be looking for deeds that show our belief is strong, and right. Once we are born again, we must strive to exercise our gifts and do the righteous deeds that will get us to heaven. Or else, as He clearly points out--we won't be allowed in.
None of these teachings by Jesus disagree with our John 15 model—they harmonize with it. This is not a selection of proof texts. In context, “salvation is by faith alone” doesn't cut it, as Luther claimed. Works have a place. They always had a place, if you read the early church fathers. Do you want to believe man’s gospel, or Jesus’ gospel? Where you spend your eternity may depend on it!
Acknowledgements: Dave Bercot: "Paul vs James" Disc 1
NEXT WEEK: IS THIS MODEL HARMONIZED BY THE OTHER BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? BERCOT’S “PAUL VS JAMES”, DISC 2.
Thursday, September 24, 2020
Thursday, September 17, 2020
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
Friday, September 11, 2020
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 part of the job of the watchman, when necessary. God made prophet Ezekiel a 'watchman,' whose purpose was to look for gross sin in the people, hear from God that it was time to speak, and then speak strongly to caution and warn them. If he didn't warn, their blood exacted from them in God's judgment would be on his hands when God comes by to punish them for their apostasy (Ezek 33:6ff). Most people dislike the prophets, so 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 my assertions about America? 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. God does not provide a third alternative for eternity. 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. (Not measured by America 25 years ago). 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 than 6%—we might even suggest that it is less than 6%! What do I find that "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, or even any discomfort? 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.
I'm saying that people in America may ask in pride, what is our great evil here, that you think Jesus would pick on us, that makes it extremely hard for us to be saved? It’s this: If you have "wealthy" assets (we’re talking larger houses than 1500 square feet--obviously larger if you have children at home--or a modest 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 and sisters 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 command that Jesus really did make.
So Jesus said, 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 for myself, or throw it on my pile of savings to make my future even 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, and other complacent thoughts. 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 real 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 that way. But we spend it on ourselves, and thus do not bear fruit. If we get too wrapped up in consumption and materialism, we bear less 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 survey people innocently, 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 the idolatry of materialism that we go into debt, so we are trapped with huge payments, and then we can never help the poor. Meanwhile, our desperate international brothers often die without help. This is especially true of refugees, who have no medical care, no income, and live in crowded quarters--leading to more disease and dysentery.
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 lay up treasures, or 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 (like us) 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%, not 70%, as we’ve said—so that means the other 63% are deceived, probably by the deceit of 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. I'm talking about sins like complacency or idolatry. 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? Or are you the one out of 12? Prove to yourself that you're the lucky one by the standards I've enumerated above. What did you do to show you're the one. Are you going to be with 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 any. 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 into sin, 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, our young are not prepared to hear agnostic professors on 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.
So, you want to know, what proof do I have for my assertions about America? 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. God does not provide a third alternative for eternity. 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. (Not measured by America 25 years ago). 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 than 6%—we might even suggest that it is less than 6%! What do I find that "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, or even any discomfort? 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.
I'm saying that people in America may ask in pride, what is our great evil here, that you think Jesus would pick on us, that makes it extremely hard for us to be saved? It’s this: If you have "wealthy" assets (we’re talking larger houses than 1500 square feet--obviously larger if you have children at home--or a modest 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 and sisters 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 command that Jesus really did make.
So Jesus said, 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 for myself, or throw it on my pile of savings to make my future even 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, and other complacent thoughts. 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 real 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 that way. But we spend it on ourselves, and thus do not bear fruit. If we get too wrapped up in consumption and materialism, we bear less 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 survey people innocently, 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 the idolatry of materialism that we go into debt, so we are trapped with huge payments, and then we can never help the poor. Meanwhile, our desperate international brothers often die without help. This is especially true of refugees, who have no medical care, no income, and live in crowded quarters--leading to more disease and dysentery.
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 lay up treasures, or 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 (like us) 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%, not 70%, as we’ve said—so that means the other 63% are deceived, probably by the deceit of 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. I'm talking about sins like complacency or idolatry. 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? Or are you the one out of 12? Prove to yourself that you're the lucky one by the standards I've enumerated above. What did you do to show you're the one. Are you going to be with 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 any. 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 into sin, 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, our young are not prepared to hear agnostic professors on 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.
Thursday, September 3, 2020
An Apparent Contradiction Resolved 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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)