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

 

You should read my Part 1 last week before reading this. Here is a very brief summary of it: What Jesus taught about salvation is seldom taught nowadays from the pulpits. Namely, salvation from hell is in two phases: To get on the Vine (i.e., be initially saved)—a reference to John 15-- you exercise faith in what Christ did, dying for our sins; and repentance (and probably believer baptism), then you're saved. What you typically hear from the pulpits. But "staying on the Vine"--keeping salvation--requires abiding in Him. John 15:5-6:

 I am the vine, you are the branches: He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. ⁶ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

What that means is, we must abide in Him.   By continually having a loving relationship with Him, showing obedience to Him as your Lord. Simply keeping the same doctrinal beliefs is not abiding; it requires your heart as well as your head. It is intentionally strategizing to avoid sin, and learning how to love. If you are not reading Scripture, and have no regular prayer; if you are ignoring Christ's commands, this is a ticket to hell, even if you "exercised faith" at one time in your life, and pretty much ignored Him thereafter. You were just assenting to what He did intellectually. Assenting is not abiding. You should daily be in contact with His Spirit (through prayer) and His Word. I still stress that you are saved through His grace, and faith in what Christ has done, taking the penalty for our sin. But you must have follow-through to maintain salvation.  That's what Jesus taught, as I showed in Part I.

Now let's look at today’s 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 his preaching in the first ten chapters of Acts, are pleasing to God, so He grants Peter to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles as well. So let's study how Peter presented the gospel. In Acts 2:36-38, we see his clear words about how to get initially saved:

“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 10:22, 34-35:

And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”...Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 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, since it stresses works and doesn’t mention faith (but it does say “fears” God. But Peter is simply giving the second phase of salvation: maintaining salvation through a life of righteous obedience to Him. In other words, fruits (see Galatians 5:22-23 for more). This idea of a “second phase” doesn’t jibe with Martin Luther’s doctrine (see last week), preached today as “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 you say that works will "inevitably" follow salvation: You know you've seen individuals where that doesn't happen. That person, despite his initial confession, was never saved, or was saved but never had the desire to produce fruits for Him—which left him finally unsaved. 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"); but then he pairs it with the phase "obedient children." Now which model of salvation does that fit--Luther’s model—or Jesus’ model? Scripture shows that Peter’s words are in line with Jesus’ model. Grace just means kindness or favor, and God gives it to His undeserved children when they trust in Jesus for heaven. But we still must, with the help of the Holy Spirit, read Scripture and work on being obedient to His commands, and become holy. He extends favor to those who ABIDE while on Christ’s Vine. Once you had faith in His finished work, and got on the Vine, you were saved; but as Peter says above, God judges according to our works. That means we must follow through. These works are not “trying to earn merit” that some people use by themselves to hopefully get into heaven; there is no way they can, just by works, get to heaven; it starts by God's love and grace. He exercises continuing grace and overlooks sins IF we abide in Him. We love Him back to be His obedient children.   I Peter 4:17:

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?

A rhetorical question; the answer is, the end of those is not heaven. This requires a new way to think, does it not?

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 must cause in us a desire to avoid the pollutions of the world. Thus, belief in Him is not just mental assent, but the work of avoiding the materialism and sins of the world. Note that those who resume being entangled with the world enough to "turn away from the holy commandment" will mean that "the latter end is worse for them than the beginning." This is clearly interpreted as losing salvation--because its end is worse than the unsaved. Why is it worse for someone previously saved, but then loses that salvation vs the one who was never saved at all? (Note: nothing was said about this guy repenting. Scripture does say we can truly repent, and get right with God again.) He is worse because he now has a hardened heart. He will not stand up to give it a second chance because that would humiliate him to his friends and family, and he has guilt for walking away from God. For most people, it’s too hard to admit to guilt or humiliation. Most people have too much pride, and cannot get through all that. (But it is never too late for God).

As we said in Part I, Luther didn’t like II Peter. You can see why—no two verses like the above speak more clearly about the possibility of losing salvation—an idea that doesn't fit Luther’s “gospel.” Like Calvin, he didn’t believe it possible to lose salvation, once obtained (more details on that in another blog). But don't forget, we want to agree with Jesus. Jesus said if we don’t stay in a relationship with Him, we’ll be cut off from the Vine and thrown into the fire (John 15: 5-6). 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 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 the law, if you define it as “works,” are no longer necessary. But Scripture clearly doesn’t teach that as the whole story, as we have seen last week, and with Peter (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. Requiring circumcision, for instance. But after the apostles and the early church fathers had much debate (you need to read the first 29 verses of Acts 15), after they thought about how the Gentiles had already received the Holy Spirit with no “history lesson” in the Law, they separated from what would have become a syncretic Christo-Judaism. John is saying here that it's not the law of Moses, which was works, that gets us saved. That’s initial salvation. No argument there.

In other verses, we get another side of the picture. 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.

“Knowing” is a deeper word than the intellectual. Recall that Adam “knew” his wife (Genesis 4:1). From which she became pregnant. He loved her and wanted her intimacy—that’s Scriptural “knowing.”  Not knowing Jesus (intimately: what He feels, what makes Him unhappy, etc),           is because someone does not keep His commandments or reads the Gospels. That means that person does not love Him. They ignore His commandments, and care little about knowing Him. So they are not “perfected” in the love of God. In that situation, to say that we “love” Him is a lie. Not knowing Him is not being known by Him, and not being in Him--a ticket to hell. This is way beyond initial faith, is it not?

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. Or, bound for hell. "Practicing" suggests a daily effort to be obedient--in effect, abiding in Him. We do not become sinlessly “perfect,” but the right meaning of the word means “mature.” How can you love the brethren if you avoid church? (Thinking about it, going to big churches these days does nothing to truly learn about people, so as to help them with whatever gift you have (I Corinthians 14), and learn to love them. In America, nobody gives up their secrets, sad to say.  

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.

Did you know that the word “approved” here (Greek, dokimos), is a salvation word? It is the opposite of the Greek adokimos, defined as “rejected”--as in rejected by God, “not standing the test,” and “reprobate” (that is Paul’s word for the pagans who rejected God in Romans 1:28, KJV). Salvation, in the end, is conditional on our enduring temptation. This doesn’t mean God gives us an “extra crown,” as most pastors say today, which is nice but not salvational. Enduring, carrying our cross, is a daily task to break out of the habits you learned from the world, as well as defeating any doubts that relatives or friends try to make us change our mind. Then we will be approved for heaven. We will have stood the test. Did you know that we are in a test?

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 bothering to do His Word—i.e, not practicing obedience, and loving Him. Self-deception might surprise us only when you die and wake up in hell. Reading the Scriptures daily and honest prayer definitely helps stop self-deception. We sin more than we are aware. We need to confess them to God.

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. The word “law” here is speaking of Christ’s commandments (the word "law" has more than one meaning in Scripture). How is a “law,” which suggests restraint, paired with the classic word for freedom—liberty? By looking at the phrase in a new way. Sin is a bondage of Satan.  It is possible to break free of sin—liberty from sin-- by keeping our relationship with Jesus open, by confessing and repenting after we sin. That is not suggesting perfection—just striving for holiness.  Note also that James is speaking to saved people—telling us that we will be judged—and disciplined, if necessary, or worse. 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?

The last question is rhetorical; When asked “what does it profit?” The only answer is “None.” That seems to strongly suggest that the real profit, heaven, is not present. 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.

These verses are explained away by most "evangelistic" commentators, who want to make it meaningless. Just try to read them pretzeling Scripture on these verses. But truth is, dead means dead—no life, so no heaven. Such is "faith" without the follow-up fruit, or works. These verses demand from us an ongoing intentionality to avoid sin. 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--and a dangerous complacency). No, it takes effort, it takes striving.

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, if one was saved before (note that he was “among you”), and knew the truth, and then wanders from the truth (enough to be unsaved),  someone could then correct him--and see him saved again--from eternal death. Yes, if you were on the Vine, you can wander away—to death of the soul. Thus, you can lose your salvation. But you can sincerely repent and be saved again.

Thus, we conclude: ALL THREE of these apostles—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 was especially clear on the importance of works. That’s why he was under attack later from Luther, and 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 makes it especially clear to praise the role of works--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—OR WITH JESUS?

 

Escaping Hell: Faith, Works, or Both? Jesus' Real Gospel (Part 1 of 3)

 Polls show that 65% of Americans believe they're going to heaven (Pew Research). 62% of Americans say they are Christian. Most Christians say they believe in the inspiration of Scripture, but...their actual beliefs are too often not based on Scripture. In fact, they often run the opposite of Scripture. According to 2016 and 2022 Pew polls, 54% of Christians believe gay sexual relations “should be acceptable by society,” 50% believe sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable, and only 56% of Protestants say abortion is morally wrong. The same figure is true among Catholics--but among  “mainline” denominations—such as United Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc., only 38% believe abortion is wrong! Which is why, politically, we still kill a million babies in the womb in the U.S. annually (these sad data were 2023, the latest available, a year after we “overturned” Roe v. Wade.) But Scripture, the basis of Christianity, says none of these behaviors are morally acceptable.  It seems that too many 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, too many of us have a belief system that “gets me to heaven” with no sacrifice, no obedience necessary--what is called “easy believism.” This doctrine mostly runs American Christian religion. But that kind of "believism" is a road to hell, as I will show.

We need to be most cautious about what Scripture says to be saved. Can we really ignore Scripture, still be disobedient to God’s Words for the majority of our lives, and still escape hell? Have we possibly deceived ourselves into assuming we're good 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 3-7% of a group of people would fulfill the definition of the word. Thus, on average, only 3-7% of people are heaven-bound. That’s a long way from 62% who profess Christianity in America. Doing a little math using 6% as “few,” this says that one out of 10 who call themselves Christian will make it to heaven. Do you like those odds?

The big question is, Does maintaining salvation involve works?  We've already proved that people don't think their belief system on what’s moral is a problem, when it does.  Scripture is inspired, word for word, by God.  Believing counter to Scripture is a problem. A belief system that is Christian, requires adherence in words and behavior towards God's Words in Scripture.

The rest of this paper is inspired by a CD of David Bercot, a writer and lecturer on Scripture. The title of the CD is “Paul vs James,” since James seems to emphasize works and Paul seems to discount works and emphasize faith alone to escape hell.

 

Bercot points out that for most evangelical "theologians" today, this "contradiction" between Paul and James about works is “resolved” easily—but unfortunately: 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, God in the flesh.

Actually, most Christian denominations, by focusing on Paul (as today's theologians and pastors “interpret" him), are ignoring what Jesus had to say on what it takes to be truly saved.  If we dare to speak out on what Jesus actually says about a role of works to go to heaven, modern-day evangelicals will suggest 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; just read the Truth from the mouth of Jesus.

Intelligent theologians had a place for the role of works after salvation in early church history—until Augustine (400 AD) damaged it, and Martin Luther (1520) finished it off. These two introduced a system of justification, which was 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 in the 1500s, felt they had to go to the opposite extreme, throwing 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:

1. 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.”
2. 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 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 til’ they are integrated into a belief system.
3. He tried to turn the New Testament writers into theologians, and changed their ordinary, everyday words into narrow theological terms.
4. 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 the Romans road, for instance. It bypasses Jesus. This wrong focus started with the Gnostics (around 50 AD), 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 print length of the book itself). In deciding “which are the best,” as he called it, of the New Testament books, he also likes John, but not Matthew, Mark or Luke—which means he insults 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 focusing on 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 made up from John and Paul. He likes Paul’s books, and I Peter (but not II Peter). In James, he called it 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.)

But you can't decide to ignore the canon that was put in place in the 4th century AD—which included James as inspired--and call yourself a Bible teacher. And as we read, he also played games with what Books are "better.”  Bercot suspects Luther liked John over the Synoptic gospels because John uses the Greek for the word “believe” 99 times, vs only 9 or 10 times each in the other 3 Gospels. Verses with “believe” can be easily redefined to fit 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, as translated: “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 by Bercot on the Gnostics are also available). But nobody is standing against this twisted thinking nowadays.

So let’s look at what Jesus taught on salvation from hell. 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. But we only have space to 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.

Key teachings of this important passage:
a. Jesus, using the word "abide," is describing 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. (From verse 10) 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 continue to be saved, we must maintain an obedient, love-faith relationship with Him. A one-time declaration of faith will not finish the job. Salvation is not a sprint, not a one-timer, but a marathon—like Pilgrim’s Progress (John Bunyan).

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 to avoid hell, 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 all the law of Moses in the Old Testament (i.e., circumcision) 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: Try to live dutifully by all the commandments in the New Testament to be saved. (day-to-day 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 not worry about 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 your insecurity is your main problem).

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). These "Christians" 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.  Obedience is not a drudge, but a loving faith that “He knows what’s best.”  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.  I John 1:9 was written to saved Christians, so confession and repentance of a sin you really want to get rid of is an ongoing thing:

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

 

And, of course, the world will hate us. Not everyone, not 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--then our behavior rains on their selfish parade. (Remember the high percentages above of "Christians" who accept sodomy, murder, and fornication—may I bluntly say, they "talk (or silence) themselves out of" persecution).  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.

Let’s get back to  proof texting: it's true, we could 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. (Such a list is in my blog with “appendix” in the title). 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 on this important subject are given in a separate PDF CD, by the way, by Scripture Press). 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, does not tell how you get on the Vine (hint: “initial salvation” blog has Scripture answers). But John 15 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).

So what else does Jesus say on the subject of salvation? We can’t give them all, but here are a taste 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 is not a one-shot deal). 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 (a metaphor for hell-bound), 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 also required works done for Him, not double lives, lest Jesus says "I do not know you" and calls them “lawless.”   They only do good works on the surface, since Jesus accused them of lawlessness, so their profession is meaningless. Their disobedience kept them from heaven--that's what easy believism, and not being acutely aware of our sins, may lead 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.

Consider this:   you can deny Him and not confess 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 with His love, enabling us to make it despite temptation to sin. We should joyfully lay down our lives for Him, knowing that things are much nicer in the long-run—heaven for eternity.

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 regularly 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 the depth of 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. Not used by itself for salvation.  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, they say--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). With “few” saved, can Jesus be talking about the first definition, not requiring deeds, 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. (Hint:  It's not the 4-laws 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—unless you were the guy on the cross next to Him, or you get run over by a truck immediately after you truly confess the Lordship of Christ. 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.

 

What Happens When the Good Guys Become the Bad Guys?

 I grew up when TV was first becoming popular. 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 spiritual 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, even if 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 when necessary.  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 100-300 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: “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 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, so making them poor for life--but protected.  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 that they assessed on the people (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.  The bad theory and rule 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 "extremists" 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, making papers and 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 the participants' 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. Their pacifist idea was seldom-practiced at the time--but it was 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 to everyone). 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 he either feared that his beloved disciples might all die; or he might have worried about his reputation). He made a decree in 1526 that urged their drowning, and testified against them more than once.  A betrayal. 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