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"

The State of American Morality

Two incidents reveal  the state of American morality—or lack thereof.  Here  is the first:

When Your Daughter Defies Biology, The burden of mothers whose children suffer from ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria.’ By Abigail Shrier of the Wall Street Journal

A reader contacted me under a pseudonym a few months ago. She turned out to be a prominent Southern lawyer with a problem she hoped I’d write about. Her college-age daughter had always been a “girly girl” and intellectually precocious, but had struggled with anxiety and depression. She liked boys and had boyfriends in high school, but also faced social challenges and often found herself on the outs with cliques.

The young woman went off to college—which began, as it often does these days, with an invitation to state her name, sexual orientation and “pronouns.” When her anxiety flared during her first semester, she and several of her friends decided their angst had a fashionable cause: “gender dysphoria.” Within a year, the lawyer’s daughter had begun a course of testosterone. Her real drug—the one that hooked her—was the promise of a new identity. A shaved head, boys’ clothes and a new name formed the baptismal waters of a female-to-male rebirth.

This is the phenomenon Brown University public-health researcher Lisa Littman has identified as “rapid onset gender dysphoria.” ROGD differs from traditional gender dysphoria, a psychological affliction that begins in early childhood and is characterized by a severe and persistent feeling that one was born the wrong sex. ROGD is a social contagion that comes on suddenly in adolescence, afflicting teens who’d never exhibited any confusion about their sex.

Like other social contagions, such as cutting and bulimia, ROGD overwhelmingly afflicts girls. But unlike other conditions, this one—though not necessarily its sufferers—gets full support from the medical community. The standard for dealing with teens who assert they are transgender is “affirmative care”—immediately granting the patient’s stated identity. There are, to be sure, a few dissenters. “This idea that what we’re supposed to do as therapists is to ‘affirm’? That’s not my job,” said psychotherapist Lisa Marchiano. “If I work with someone who’s really suicidal because his wife left him, I don’t call his wife up and say, ‘Hey, you’ve got to come back.’ . . . We don’t treat suicide by giving people exactly what they want.”

But giving in to patients’ demands is exactly what most medical professionals do when faced with ROGD. Like fashionable and tragic misdiagnoses of the past, this one comes with irreversible physical trauma. “Top surgery,” a euphemism for double mastectomies. Infertility. Permanent rounding of facial features or squaring of the jawline. Bodily and facial hair that never goes away.

Planned Parenthood furnishes testosterone to young women on an “informed consent” basis, without requiring any psychological evaluation. Student health plans at 86 colleges—including those of nearly every Ivy League school—cover not only cross-sex hormones but surgery as well.

ROGD-afflicted adolescents typically suffer anxiety and depression at a difficult stage of life, when confusion is at least as pervasive as fun, and there is everywhere the sense that they ought to be having the times of their lives. I spoke with 18 parents, 14 of them mothers—all articulate, intellectual, educated and feminist. They burst with pride in daughters who, until the ROGD spell hit, were highly accomplished, usually bound for top universities. Except for two mothers whose daughters have desisted, all insisted on anonymity. They are terrified their daughters will discover the depth of their dissent and cut them off. They are determined to use whatever influence they have left to halt their daughters’ next voluntary disfigurement.

Nearly every force in society is aligned against these parents: Churches scramble to rewrite their liturgies for greater “inclusiveness.” Therapists and psychiatrists undermine parental authority with immediate affirmation of teens’ self-diagnoses. Campus counselors happily refer students to clinics that dispense hormones on the first visit. Laws against “conversion therapy,” which tries to cure homosexuality, are on the books in 14 states and the District of Columbia. These statutes also prohibit “efforts to change a patient’s . . . gender identity,” in the words of the New Jersey law—effectively threatening counselors who might otherwise dissuade teens from proceeding with hormone treatment or surgery.

Reddit, Tumblr, Instagram and YouTube host an endless supply of mentors, who cheerfully document their own physical transitions, omitting mention of dangerous side effects and offering tips on how to pass as a man and how to break away from unsupportive parents. For anxious teens who tend toward obsession, these videos can be mesmerizing. Though the stars are typically pictured alone in a bedroom, they project exuberance and social élan. As one female-to-male YouTube guru who goes by “Alex Bertie” puts it: “Taking testosterone is the best decision I’ve ever made. I’m so happy within myself. It did not solve all of my problems, but it’s given me the strength to make the most out of life and to battle my other demons like my social issues.”

Brie Jontry, a spokeswoman for Fourth Wave Now, an international support network for these families, is one of the two mothers who spoke on the record. She tells me ROGD teens often come from politically progressive families. Many of the mothers I spoke with say they enthusiastically supported same-sex marriage long before it was legal anywhere. Some of them describe welcoming the news when their daughters came out as lesbians. But when their daughters suddenly decided that they were actually men and started clamoring for hormones and surgery, the mothers begged them to reconsider, or at least slow down.

“If your kid went off and joined the Moonies, people would feel sorry for you, and they would understand that this is a bad thing and that your kid shouldn’t be in the Moonies,” one mother, a former leader of the pro-gay organization Pflag, said. “With this, I can’t even tell anybody. I talk to my husband, that’s it.” The couple have faithfully covered their daughter’s tuition, health-care and cellphone bills—even though she refuses to speak to them.

Under the influence of testosterone and the spell of transgression, ROGD daughters grow churlish and aggressive. Under the banner of civil rights, they assume the moral high ground. Their mothers take cover behind pseudonyms. As ROGD daughters rage against the biology they hope to defy, their mothers bear its burden, evincing its maternal instinct—the stubborn refusal to abandon their young.

And, the second. Are Christians being targeted here?  It looks so.

The Shaming of Karen Pence by William McGurn, WSJournal
A mob of secular Puritans targets her for teaching at a Christian school.

Will no one speak up for Karen Pence other than her husband?
In scarcely a week, the vice president's wife has become a public face of hate. CNN's John King suggests that what Mrs. Pence has done is so grievous maybe taxpayers shouldn't fund her Secret Service security protection. The American Civil Liberties Union says she's sending "a terrible message to students."

The Guardian sees in Mrs. Pence a reminder of "the vice-president's dangerous bigotry." During a Saturday night performance in Las Vegas, Lady Gaga told her fans that what Mrs. Pence has done confirms she and her husband are "the worst representation of what it means to be Christian." A former Washington Post editor and senior writer for Politico tweets: "How can this happen in America?"
So what is this terrible thing Mrs. Pence has done? She plans to teach art part-time at Immanuel Christian School in Northern Virginia. This is a small private K-8 academy where Mrs. Pence has taught before. It adheres to a biblically rooted view of human sexuality.
Thanks to the crack reporters at the Washington Post, what this means is no mystery. The Post reports the following provision in the school's employment contract: "I understand that the term 'marriage' has only one meaning; the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive covenant union as delineated in Scripture."
Hmmm. Though presented as dangerous stuff, we've heard this before. For example, this is how Senate candidate Barack Obama put it in a 2004 radio interview: "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

So why are so many eager to cast the first stone against Mrs. Pence and not Mr. Obama? Because everyone knew when Mr. Obama spoke he didn't really mean it; his position was taken out of political calculation. Mrs. Pence's sin is that she really believes what she says.
In the narrow sense, the vilification of Mrs. Pence makes prophetic Justice Samuel Alito's prediction in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision throwing out all state laws against same-sex marriage. Justice Alito saw a perilous future for those who still embraced the view Mr. Obama once claimed to hold. "I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes," he wrote, "but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."
In the larger sense the faith-shaming of Mrs. Pence exposes an inversion of tropes. In history and literature, typically it has been the religious side that can't tolerate the slightest disagreement from its dogma and behaves like outraged 17th-century Salemites when they think they have uncovered a witch.
Now look at the Immanuel Christian School. Those who run it know they and those who think like them are the big losers in America's culture war. All they ask is to be allowed, within the confines of their community, to uphold 2,000 years of Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and the human person.
When Obergefell was decided, it was sold as live-and-let-live. But as Justice Alito foresaw, today some sweet mysteries of the universe are more equal than others. In other words, it isn't enough for the victors to win; the new sense of justice requires that those who still don't agree must be compelled to violate their deepest beliefs, whether this means forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception or dragging a baker in Colorado through the courts until he agrees to make a cake celebrating "gender transition."
Today's militant secularists ironically resemble the worst caricatures of religious intolerance of early America. Where the Puritans humiliated sinners with the stocks, the modern intolerant have Twitter . Where the Amish shunned those who lived contrary to their beliefs, today's violators find themselves driven off the public square. And whereas in Hawthorne's novel Hester Prynne was forced to wear a scarlet "A"for adulterer, today we have folks such as Jimmy Kimmel using their popular platforms to paint the scarlet "H" for hater  on people such as Mrs. Pence.
Vice President Mike Pence defended both his wife and Christian education during an appearance last Thursday on EWTN, a Catholic television network. But it says something that so few on the commanding heights of our culture have been willing to join him there.
It would be a shame if Mrs. Pence were to allow the mob to keep her from teaching art to those children at Immanuel Christian School. But however it turns out, her experience surely tells us which orthodoxies today are truly sacred and beyond question.

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

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

Now we finally get to Spirit-inspired Scriptures from Paul--the man that Martin Luther twisted the most to get his “faith-only gospel” started. Folks, we desperately need the truth about how to get to heaven.  We've seen what Jesus said about how to get there in Part i; we've seen that Peter, John, and James' Scriptures agree with that.  What do Paul's Scriptures say?  They say that, unlike what Luther wants you to believe, Paul was not a “faith-only gets you to heaven” guy. Yes, it takes faith--along with repentance and believer baptism to begin the path to heaven. But he, like Jesus and like Peter, James and John, taught, same as they did, that you must form an obedient, love-faith relationship with Christ to stay saved and make it to heaven.  Again because of time limitations, we have a limit on his inspired verses that we can cover, but if you want ALL the verses that prove this truth about getting to heaven,  buy “Paul v James” Disc 3 (from scrollpublishing .com), a Text CD, put it in your computer and read and print it.   Folks, the truth about getting to heaven—from Scripture—is not being taught much nowadays. Yet it is critical to our eternal life. Let us never become one of the “believers” in Matthew 25, for example, who go to hell, finding out too late that they were deceived when some simple real Bible reading would give them the truth.

Luther insisted that obedience has nothing to do with salvation. Just have faith, and you're eternally secure. Once you're initially saved, you are predestined, So strict obedience to Jesus' commands are not critical to salvation.  But read Paul in Romans 2:3-11: 

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

Note how many times the these words appear:  "deeds," "doing good," "do not obey" "does evil," "works what is good."  Five of them spoken about in God's Judgement Day.  God is clearly saying, doing ungodly works and not repenting, will not escape God’s judgment, no matter what your “faith” is.  Eternal life, or heaven, are for those who continue to do good. To maintain salvation, God “will render to each one according to his deeds.” Crystal clear, is it not?

Romans 8:1, 6: 

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit...6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 

Romans 8:1a is quoted frequently by the "faith-only" crowd.  But if they would only finish the sentence, they would see that how they walk in life is a condition of escaping condemnation.  "Carnally minded" is not thinking about Christ or God six days a week (unless you get in trouble), but thinking about the world--this results in a carnal life--guaranteed "death, or "hell.

Romans 11:20-23: 

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

Yes, you begin in faith--but you need to fear God Who sees your behavior.  God, unlike what you hear from the pulpits, is also severe, and can remove your salvation, or leave you "cut off," as it says. We must strive against sin, we must continue in His goodness, to stay heaven bound.

I Corinthians 6:9-10:

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

Some sins are more serious, and by themselves will throw you off salvation and on the way to hell—unless you repent (repentance is not mentioned here, but it’s covered in other verses). There are no escapes: it bluntly says, you lose salvation by participating in these acts. Do everything you can to avoid these sins.

I Corinthians 7:19: 

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

Paul is saying, we’re not bound to Mosaic law (such as on circumcision). We’re bound to Jesus’ commands. Study those. Maybe begin with the Sermon on the Mount.  Whenever He says, or implies, "do this," that's a command. Obeying Christ is doing it.  But you need to read it first.  I should add, ignorance of the law (Christ's law) is no excuse.  An example from the Sermon on the Mount is to love your enemies, a tough one to obey--but possible if we ask the Holy Spirit for help.

II Corinthians 5:15&6:1:

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

His purpose for giving us a new life?  So we don't live for ourselves (how many of us have ruminated on that one, how to avoid living for ourselves?)  We are to live for Him and for our poor or unsaved neighbor; that's obedience to Him. How do you “receive the grace of God in vain”? By losing the grace you once had.  The only way we receive all the grace of God is by getting saved. Then if it becomes "in vain," that means you lost salvation. Thus, this says, that at some point, living for ourselves and not thinking about transferring our behavior to living for Him, sets us back on the way to hell.

II Corinthians 13:5: 

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

The eternal security person doesn’t like this verse.  The truth is, we have to examine ourselves, to see if our behaviors are more godly or more corrupt (i.e., are we still "in the faith").  The "faith only crowd" preaches that the "believer" must feel certain that he is saved, no matter what. But isn’t that complacent thinking? But the Truth, as seen in this verse, says that you should examine yourself for sin that threatens to eventually take you out of the faith. Doesn’t sound like eternal security in this verse. If you're looking for proof that "behavior" is in this verse, look simply at one word:  disqualify.  there are some behaviors that can disqualify us. (A bad word to the Luther crowd).  If you're disqualified you're hell-bound. 

For the benefit of those "predestined folks," note this: Disqualify is not the same word as unqualify. “Unqualify” means you never got saved in the first place. Disqualify means you got it, then did something that got yourself turned out. Thus, another proof, in a single word, that you can lose salvation, and sinful behaviors are involved. A big difference in a little prefix, wouldn’t you say?

Galatians 6:7-9:

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

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

II Thessalonians 2:11-12: 

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

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

I Timothy 5:8: 

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

“Denying the faith,” a terrible sin, isn’t restricted to verbally denying Christ; it seems to have a broader, dangerous meaning that includes doing, or in this case, not doing, certain works. The man who is lazy and does not attempt to provide for his family has spoken loudly to the world that he has no Christian character. This is denying the faith just as much as verbally telling the world so. And note that an act of unrighteousness made him lose his salvation (implied because he became “worse” than an unbeliever.”) 

II Timothy 2:12-13: 

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

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

Thus, Paul and James really agree: We maintain salvation through faith and an obedient relationship with our Savior. And it is possible to lose salvation by not performing both sides of the linkage.  

Now onto a related subject:  Many of you will insist that I'm "avoiding" the verses that disparage works.  But when Paul disparages works, he is proving a different point than what you think.  He is arguing against the Judaist believers who wanted the Gentile new believers to be circumcised and forced to follow Mosaic (or, Old Testament) law—those works are what he disparages. So he’s saying that Moses’ laws, those works, are not essential to Christianity. 

So to prove that "selective verse picking" is not going on, let’s take a fresh look at these verses below, some of Luther’s favorites, in the light of what we've conclusively proven above. Let’s start with Romans 3:20-31: 

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

Note how the interpretation of these verses changes when you understand this term “law” means “Moses’ law.” To back that up, consider Romans 4:1-17, where Paul disparages the work of circumcision (a big item in Moses’ law), how Abraham was not saved by circumcision, but by faith. His circumcision came later, after God declared him righteous. So now, with this thinking, we have no problem reconciling these supposedly “work-disparaging” verses into our gospel, Jesus’ gospel. Paul was talking about a different meaning of “works” than James. 
On the meaning of "we establish the law."  He means, we are, through love and commitment, loyal to Christ and His family--by being "circumcised by faith."  That's the real meaning of circumcision now.

Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God

This seems to be about disdaining people trying to earn salvation through their own righteousness, or--it is assumed--works. But "their own righteousness" is about disdaining the Jews continuing Jewish practices to obtain salvation. 

Romans 11: 5,6: 

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

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

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

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

In summary: getting on the Vine requires belief, repentance, washing the water of regeneration. Abiding on the Vine, as John 15:1-6 clearly points out, requires obedience, a regular relationship with our Lord. You can lose your salvation by living by the flesh. Examine yourselves, readers! Read all Jesus’ words on what it takes to escape hell. Determining what it takes to spend eternity in heaven is a worthwhile occupation!

Do Peter, James and John Agree With Jesus on How to Escape Hell? (Part 2 of 3)

You should read my Part 1 before reading this. Here is a very brief summary of it: What Jesus taught about salvation seems to be little taught nowadays from the pulpits. Namely, true salvation from hell is in two phases: To get on the Vine, you exercise faith and repentance (and believer baptism), then you're saved. But "staying on the Vine"--keeping salvation--requires abiding in Him (John 15)--i.e., by fruit, showing obedience to your Lord. Not reading the Gospels, ignoring Christ's commands, is a ticket to hell, even if you "exercised faith" at one time in your life, and ignored Him thereafter. A mind assent is all that is. You should daily be in contact with His Spirit and His Word about obeying His commands. Please note: You are saved through His grace, and faith in what Christ has done, and His ability to make you a new creation and to avoid the power of sin in your life.

Now let's look at Part II: Did the three leaders of the early church get the gospel right—which means, is it the same as Jesus’ gospel? Let’s read and see.

PETER

Peter’s presentation of the gospel in the first ten chapters of Acts, are pleasing to God; which is why He grants Peter to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles as well. We’ll begin with Peter’s gospel. In Acts 2:36-38, we see his clear word about “how to get on the Vine” (see Part I last week for an explanation of that term):

“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."

What do they do to be saved after they were told to accept the identity of Jesus as the Christ? Repent (have a change of heart and behavior), and be baptized—this is the normal way to get on the Vine. Now let’s see his gospel presentation at Acts 10:34-35:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said…35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

This seems to disagree with Peter's words in Acts 2 above. But Peter is simply giving the second phase of salvation: maintaining salvation through a life of righteous obedience to Him. In other words, fruits. This second phase doesn’t jibe with Martin Luther’s “just have faith, no works necessary"--what I call "easy believism." But Peter agrees with Jesus, not Luther. For those of you who believe mental faith is all you need, and works will "inevitably" follow salvation: You know you've seen individuals where that doesn't happen. That person was never saved, or never had the desire to produce fruits for Him. I Peter 1:13-17 says:

Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; 15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear

Peter uses God's favorite word, "grace" (translated, unfortunately nowadays, as "no works necessary") included with the phase "obedient children." Does that fit Luther’s model of salvation—or Jesus’ model? But grace really means kindness or favor, and is awarded to His undeserved children. But we still must be obedient and holy. Remember what we said in Part I on Jesus' explanation of salvation,from John 15: If you don’t obey Christ, you don’t love Him—and that means you’re not saved. He extends favor to those who ABIDE while on Christ’s Vine—abiding means a relationship with Jesus, one of faithfulness and obedience. Once you had faith in His finished work, and got on the Vine, we must remember God judges according to our fruits, as the above verses show. These works are not “trying to earn merit” that some people use to get into heaven: They like to say, "I'm good more often than I'm bad." I Peter 4:17-18:

For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 Now “If the righteous one is scarcely saved, Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

Note that Peter uses the word "obey" as necessary to pass the Judgment seat. Note his emphasis on being "scarcely saved." (Modern evangelistic churches avoid these terms as being uncertain). II Peter 2:20-21: For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. Note that the knowledge of the Lord and Savior causes us to avoid the pollutions of the world. Thus, belief is not just mental assent, but the work of avoiding the materialism and sins of the world is involved. Note that those who are entangled with the world enough to "turn away from the holy commandment" means "the latter end is worse for them than the beginning." This is clearly interpreted as losing salvation--because this is AFTER they were originally saved, yet they are in the position of being "worse" than the unsaved. As we said in Part I, Luther didn’t like II Peter. You can see why—no two verses speak more clearly about the possibility of losing salvation—an idea that doesn't fit Luther’s “gospel.” But don't forget, we want to agree with Jesus. Jesus said if we don’t bear fruit, we’ll be cut off from the Vine and thrown into the fire (John 15: 6). So Peter agrees with Jesus, not Luther. There are many more verses, lots more proof of Peter’s gospel agreeing with our Lord, but we have space restrictions.

JOHN

Moving to John, consider a difficult verse, John 1:16-17, which seems to agree with Luther:

And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

This seems to say that Jesus' grace replaces the law--and that seems to say that works are no longer necessary. But Scripture clearly doesn’t teach that, as we have just seen (there's further explanation, but that's in another blog.) So, is Scripture contradicting itself here? No, there is a clear explanation: the word "law" here is the Law of Moses. It is Christo-Judaism that John is battling against--those who believed that, to get on the Vine, it was necessary to be like a Jew and have to follow the Law of Moses; for instance, they wanted the prospective believer to be circumcised. But that's not true Scripture; as we have seen, to get on the Vine, it's not the law of Moses--one only must repent, and have faith in Jesus as our substitute, Who paid for our past sins. John wants to remove the Jewish works. Those works are not a part of salvation. 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.

Not knowing Him is a sentence to hell. As we see above, not keeping His commands means we do not know Him--and are on hell's path. Also note the last sentence. We are in Him, we know Him intimately--we are still saved--by keeping His word (i.e, His commands), which perfects the love of the Spirit. I John 3:10:

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Loving your fellow believers is one of the fruits that God expects. Note also that not practicing righteousness leaves you "not of God," or not a child of God, but thus a child of the devil. "Practicing" suggests a daily effort to be obedient--in effect, abiding in Him. This is a strong hint for regularly attending a gospel church. How can you love the brethren if you avoid church, and know nothing about them? There are more, but space demands we move on.

JAMES

He is Jesus' half-brother, the third leader of the early church. Let's start with James 1:12:

Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

Note that “approved” (a salvation word) is not guaranteed forever by your once expressing faith—but it is conditional on our enduring temptation. This is a daily task to break out of the habits you learned from the world. James 1:22:

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

How do we deceive ourselves? By thinking we’re saved when we’re not doing the word—i.e, not practicing obedience. James 2:12:

So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

The phrase “law of liberty” is not an oxymoron, not self-contradictory. Good laws give liberty to people. Lawlessness in society is scary. It restricts the freedom of those who want order. Being freed from the bondage of Satan is freedom indeed. When James speaks of the law here, he means His moral commandments (he thinks about the word "law" differently than Paul). Note also that he is speaking to saved people; we will be judged. Many folks actually believe that Christians will escape judgment. Not the case, as this verse indicates. Our judgment will be based on whether we are speaking AND DOING what His commandments are, in Scripture. This agrees perfectly with Christ in Matthew 25:40ff. James 2:14:

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Of the two questions, the last question is rhetorical; When asked “what does it profit?” The answer is “None.” That brand of "faith" cannot save. Clearly, James is arguing that "faith" not followed by works is not real; it's just mental assent, and does not gain us heaven. This is also made clear in James 2:24-26:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

This verse is explained away by commentators, who want to make it meaningless. Dead means dead—no life, so no heaven. Such is "faith" without the follow-up fruit, or works. Also, we need to be justified by God to be saved, and the verses are clearly saying, God’s justification expects the follow-through of works. Note that James nowhere implies that a "once-declared" faith means that God will force, or predestine, you to do proper works (that's an idea that lends itself to believing in "eternal security"--what many theologians believe). No, it takes effort, it takes striving; words that are elsewhere in Scriptures. James 5:19-20:

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

Note that this says AFTER one wanders from the truth (thus, he was saved before), someone could then correct us--and see us saved--again. Yes, if you were on the Vine, you can wander away—to death of the soul (or, hellbound again). Thus, you can lose your salvation. But you can sincerely repent and be saved again. Thus, we conclude: ALL THREE of these prominent Christian leaders—who were closest to Christ—agree in total to Christ’s gospel. An obedient love-faith relationship with Him is necessary to maintain salvation. The epistle of James, under attack later from Luther, should be particularly defended here—he had a leadership role in early Christianity—as Acts 15:13 and Galatians 2:9 show. The main point is, he praises works as essential--not to be saved, initially, but to stay saved. Call on the Holy Spirit for help. James' words agree with his half-brother Jesus. NEXT WEEK: DOES PAUL REALLY DISAGREE WITH JAMES?