An 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"

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 What it Takes to Escape Hell? (Part ii)

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 works, or 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. You should daily be in contact with His Spirit and His Word about obeying His commands and His will for your life. 

Please note:  You are initially saved through His grace, and faith in what Christ has done, and His ability to change your life.  Don't reverse this order and try to get saved by works.  
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

  Keep in mind that God is happy with Peter’s accurate presentation of the gospel, which is why He grants Peter to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles.

  We’ll begin with Peter’s gospel. Acts 2:36-38 is 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—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 righteous obedience to Him. 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 faith is all you need, and works will "inevitably" follow salvation:  You know you've seen individuals where that doesn't happen.

  
  

  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 has the 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 those children who are obedient and holy. Remember what we said in Part I on Jesus' explanation of salvation: 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're on the Vine, with faith, we must remember God judges according to our works, as the above verses show.  

  
  

  These works are not “trying to earn merit” that some people use to get into heaven: "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 or difficult).

  
  

  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 means we escape the pollutions of the world.  Thus, belief is not just mental assent, but the work of avoiding 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, 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 believe 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 jettison their list of Jewish works requirement.

  
  

  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 (Jesus' half-brother, the third leader of the early church)

  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, 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—by 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 scarily restrictive on those who want order. Being freed from the bondage of Satan is freedom indeed. When James speaks of the law here, he means His 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. 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; it is answered by the implication in “what does it profit.” The answer is “No”--that "faith" cannot save. Clearly, James is arguing that faith not followed by works is 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.

  
  

  Dead means dead—no life, so no heaven. Such is "faith" without 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, 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, hell). 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--as how his half-brother Jesus preached it.

  NEXT WEEK: DOES PAUL REALLY DISAGREE WITH JAMES? 

Escaping Hell: Is It Faith, Works, or Both? The Real Gospel, per Jesus (Part 1)

Polls show that 85% of Americans believe they're going to heaven (ABC News Poll: December 20, 2005). Most Americans say they believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and say they are Christian.  But...meeting the demands of Scripture for entrance into heaven is not how they decided if they are going to heaven; in fact, our behavior patterns and specific beliefs often run the opposite of Scripture. According to a May 2013 Gallup poll, 59% of Americans believe gay sexual relations are morally acceptable, 63% believe sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable, and 42% say that about abortion. But Scripture, the basis of Christianity, says none of these behaviors are morally acceptable.  It seems that American “Christians” are saying fornication, sodomy, and murder are acceptable. We have to conclude that many people are calling themselves Christian, yet feel it’s OK to ignore Scripture and our Lord's commands when it's convenient. The problem is, a belief system that “gets me to heaven” with no sacrifice, no obedience necessary is what I call “easy believism.” But that kind of "believism" is a road to hell.

We need to be most cautious about what Scripture says to be saved. Can we really ignore Scripture, be disobedient and still escape Hell? Have we possibly deceived ourselves into assuming we're good enough for heaven, when Scripture warns us otherwise? Have we rationalized behavior that is unsupported by Scripture--and not considered the danger therein? Jesus, in Matthew 7:14 says:

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

The word "life," here, as any Biblical linguist would tell you, means "heaven." I've taken polls of my friends on the word “few,” without referencing its Scriptural source. It’s interesting how we basically agree on 6-7% of a group of people would fulfill the definition of the word. Thus, on average, only 6-7% of people are heaven-bound. That’s a long way from 85% who profess Christianity in America. Doing a little math, this says that one out of 12 or one out of 14 who call themselves Christian will make it to heaven. Do you like those odds?

This paper is inspired by a CD of David Bercot, a writer and lecturer on Scripture.  The big question is, Does maintaining salvation involve works?  The title of the CD is “Paul vs James,” since James seems to emphasize works and Paul seems to discount them and emphasize faith alone to escape hell.

Bercot points out that for most evangelical "theologians" today, this "contradiction" between Paul and James is “resolved” easily: their Study Bibles and commentaries “simply explain James away.” I.e., Paul “has it right,”  so what James says (works are important) is pretty much ignored. Thus they cancel out James completely. Bercot doesn’t like the way they pass over the clear plain INSPIRED statements of Scripture in James. He asks, what is the real truth about this important matter of works? For the answer, we need to study the words of Jesus.

Actually, most Christian denominations, by focusing on Paul (as interpreted today) are ignoring what Jesus had to say on what it takes to be saved.  If we dare to speak out on what Jesus actually says about the role of works to go to heaven, modern-day evangelicals will call us “heretics!” After we're done putting Jesus' comments in, today they'll say we’re not saved for believing that, 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 when you read the Truth from the mouth of Jesus.

Intelligent theologians had a place for works in salvation all through history—until Martin Luther introduced corrupt methodologies, which were duplicated by Calvin, to give the Protestant movement an opposite twist from Catholicism.  The Catholics emphasized works, but they layered in un-Scriptural works.  The Protestants, under Luther and Calvin, felt they had to go to the opposite extreme, casting works completely aside and saying salvation is just faith in Christ.  But neither one had it right.

Here is where Martin Luther got it wrong:

a. He relegated the key teachings of Jesus to the back closet—Jesus “didn’t teach the theology of how to be saved,” the theologians--and Luther--concluded. “You have to read Paul to get that.”

b. He did "Proof texting:" He established theological positions by picking and choosing Bible verses that fit the theology he had decided ahead of time to promote, and ignored other verses that don’t fit. Most people, unfortunately, don’t read the New Testament in whole, to get the context of what is the overall picture. Your position on what it takes to be saved should be arrived at after reading the entire New Testament and fitting nearly all the relevant verses together on the subject.

c. He turned the New Testament writers into theologians, and changed their ordinary, everyday words into narrow theological terms.

d. He did, and some 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:  Putting Jesus in the “back closet.” Christianity is the only religion or philosophy where the modern-day adherents ignore the teachings of the Founder and study the teachings of a disciple of the founder! To find out about what God says about salvation, do we go to Jesus, the God-man, the greatest Teacher who ever lived? No, we go to Paul—in Romans, for instance. This wrong focus started with the Gnostics, and somewhat with Augustine, but it became an overriding “principle” with Luther. He put a preface in front of each New Testament book, and an overall preface before the whole New Testament. His remarks (which books he favors, which books are “straw”) colored the thinking of theologians ever since. He said Romans was the “chief part of the New Testament, the very purest gospel.” (His praises of this one book are half the length of the book itself). In deciding “which are the best,” as he called it, of the New Testament books, he likes John, Paul’s books, and I Peter (but not II Peter or Matthew, Mark or Luke, 3/4 of the gospels!) John’s gospel is “far, far to be preferred to the other three” and “placed high above them.” He thus thinks we’re better off not reading the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain (which are only contained in the 3 Synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke)—because, Bercot suspects, their gospel by Jesus contradicts Luther’s gospel which he has made up from Paul. James he called an “epistle of straw” for “it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” (Now keep in mind, reader, that God inspired ALL the books of the Bible. They are all equal because they all have something to say for our edification.)

Bercot suspects Luther liked John over the Synoptic gospels because John uses the Greek for “believe” 99 times, vs only 9 or 10 times each in the other 3 Gospels. Verses with “believe” can be easily twisted to fit Luther’s gospel of easy believism. Luther’s favoring Paul over Jesus to make up his gospel was a direct violation of Jesus’ commandment of Matthew 23:9-10:

Do not call anyone on earth your father…10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

To quote Luther: “We can know everything we need to know about Christ and the gospel without ever having heard or read the Sermon on the Mount or the rest of what Jesus said that’s not recorded in John.” Really?  The early Christians stood against that type of nonsensical thinking when the Gnostics tried to do something similar (further fascinating CDs on the Gnostics and Luther by Bercot are also available). But nobody is standing against this twisted thinking nowadays.

So let’s look at what Jesus taught on salvation from hell, for once. There are several long passages in the 4 gospels, and a hundred or more short passages, on this all-important doctrine of how to avoid hell. Let’s analyze a few of them. We start with parts of John 15:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit... 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned… 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love…19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Key teachings of this important passage:
a. Jesus, using the word "abide," describes an ongoing, life relationship with Him as Necessary for salvation.
b. We must abide with Jesus and bear godly fruit or we’re going to be cut off the vine (i.e., on the way to hell).
c. We abide in Christ’s love ONLY if we obey His commandments.
d. Abiding, in part, means separation from the world.

Bercot asserts that of hundreds of messages he’s heard, none have used this John 15 passage when they discuss salvation. But clearly (especially in verse 6) that’s what the passage is about! In summary, in order to be saved, we must maintain an obedient, love-faith relationship with Him. A one-time declaration of faith will not do the job.

Let's compare that to what's taught today.  Doctrines of salvation taught by men today can be categorized into two groups: Either they are (1) A system that requires an obedient, love-faith relationship with Christ, or (2) Everything else—since all other systems are “equally useless” (i.e., they will leave you deceived and hell-bound if you don't read Scripture thoroughly yourself).

Some of the alternate systems of “salvation” taught by men:
a. Paul in his day fought against Christo-Judaism: It had a knowledge of Jesus as Savior and Son of God, but added that you had to follow the law of Moses in the Old Testament to be saved.
b. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox: Sacramentalism. Receive the sacraments, attend Mass regularly, don’t die in unconfessed mortal sin, and be a loyal member of a church, to be saved.
c. Merit-ism: Live dutifully by all the commandments in the New Testament to be saved. (Relationship with Christ not necessary).
d. Good-ism: Attend church and be a good person. That’s followed by liberals, and most Catholics, truthfully, nowadays.
e. Evangelical Protestantism: Accept Jesus as your personal Savior, have a born-again experience, believe that you’re saved by faith or grace alone, and obedience to Christ is not necessary for salvation. (Obedience is good, it's just possible to ignore it and still go to heaven, as long as you don't do something REALLY BAD. If you stress obedience as necessary for heaven, you’re teaching “unsound doctrine, and you’re probably not even saved.”)

None of the above 5 require an obedient, love-faith relationship with Christ. True, evangelicals stress the importance of a loving relationship with Christ, but they don't REQUIRE love as expressed in obedience (as John 15:10 above clearly points out, obedience is necessary to go to heaven). The "love" of these "Christians" is often when they are in trouble, or it may be emotion-driven, not sacrifice-driven.

Bercot stresses that, keep in mind, there are multiple thousands of people who attend churches that follow one of the 5 alternate systems above, who ALSO have a saving relationship with Him--on their own--and know His great love through sacrificial obedience.

I should make a note, that will make a lot of people uncomfortable:  It’s impossible to analyze “how much” obedience, or violation, is necessary to be saved, or exactly how much of sins will send us to hell. That can’t be measured —relationships can’t be reduced to a formula. We would all like perfect certainty--but with perfect certainty comes complacence.  Anyhow, a saved person doesn’t want to measure it, he just enjoys Jesus' company, and can't stand the disconnection when he sins.

Thus, salvation is not a one-time event of faith-and-you're-done. We must maintain (or abide with) the relationship. And the requirement to abide? Keeping His commandments. If we don’t keep His commandments, we don’t love Him. So it says in John 15.  Obedience is not a drudge, but a loving friendship.  And remember, He chose us—God first loved us before we loved Him. Salvation was originated entirely through the acceptable blood of Christ. God wants perfection, and we couldn't do that--but Christ did, as our substitute. And when we stumble, we must experience real confession and repentance.  Then He gives His grace again.
And finally the world will hate us. Not everyone all the time. But our belief system is opposite the world.  They hate it--when you're not participating in their sins, their violating Jesus who died for them--and our behavior rains on their selfish parade. (Remember the high percentages above of "Christians" who accept sodomy, murder, and fornication).  If you don’t feel some rejection in your frequent contacts with regular people, your light is not shining God's light enough.

There are past, present, and future aspects of salvation. In the past, if we at some point accepted the Lord and repented from our sin—what He is, what He did—we became attached to the Vine (using the John 15 metaphor). We were really saved. But--very important, we have to maintain that relationship to stay saved. Are we walking in the Spirit (using His power to help us completely conquer known sin)? Then we are abiding on the Vine. It’s a breathing, ongoing relationship. A constant inflow of life-giving water drawn in from the roots of the Vine. And the future? Since our abiding produces fruit (Galatians 5:22ff), we are heaven-bound. But if we don’t produce fruit, we will be cut off from the Vine and thrown in the fire. Just because we’re on the Vine now doesn’t mean we’re guaranteed to be on it next year. No unconditional eternal security.

On the corruption of proof texting, it's true, we can back up any of the 5 false methodologies above with selected texts from Scripture. But we would have to shove lots of others under the rug because they don’t agree together. The key is to understand everything that Jesus says on the subject first, and then look for agreement by the other Scriptural authors--then you put it together integrally. (All the relevant New Testament verses are given in a separate PDF CD, by the way). Full weight to each verse. Not picking one author (like Paul) and ignoring others (ignoring Jesus!)

Keep in mind that every statement made in Scripture is not the gospel in full. John 15 above, however, is a good model of the maintenance side of salvation. Other statements, you’ll find, will add a piece to that, but none will make an exclusionary remark that disagrees with it. There are some unanswered questions in John 15 too that other Scripture fills in—i.e., what are the “fruit?” (Study Galatians 5 for that).  How do you get on the Vine?
.

So what else does Jesus say on the subject of salvation? We can’t give them all, but here are enough to whet your interest. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5ff, which Luther didn't like), look at Matthew 6:14-15:

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The importance of forgiving is a godly fruit we need to possess. When we are first born again, only our PAST sins are forgiven. On a daily basis, we still need to pray forgiveness for our sins (I John 1:8, 9). But how sincere is our repentance when we don’t forgive others? See Matthew 18:23-35—note how the servant’s penalty was reinstated on him due to lack of forgiveness on his part (no eternal security there—his release from debt was conditional on his future behavior). We conclude that if we are unforgiving, we can’t be sincere in asking God for forgiveness; that sin may be a stumbling block that lands us in hell.

Now consider Matthew 7:21, 23:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Their profession of faith required works.  But they only do good works on the surface, since Jesus accuse them of works of lawlessness, so their profession is meaningless. Their disobedience kept them from heaven--that's what easy believism leads to.

Bercot says people have this “cop-out:” They say, “I get suggestive feelings of supernatural instructions in my head. This must be God’s commandment for me!”—but we cannot let the so-called personal "instructions" override His written Word.  You have to know the written Word.  Study it.

Look at Matthew 10:32:

“Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

Don’t forget, you can deny Him not by words only, but also by living the way of the world. You cannot have two masters. If you live the world and think mostly of it, you lose Christ.  He will not be your Advocate when the Judgement Day comes.

Stressing sacrifice of personal indulgences as part of salvation is Matthew 10:38:

And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Jesus requires great commitment. Yet His yoke is light (Matthew 11:29), infused and rewarded with His love. We will joyfully lay down our lives for Him, knowing that things are much nicer in heaven.

In Luke 16:6-9, Jesus is saying God will extend patience for us to produce fruit. But not forever. At some point, with nothing produced, the tree is cut down. It also says, He will help us, with His Spirit, to produce fruit—unless we let worldly pleasures block those efforts.

In Luke 24:46-47, repentance is necessary:

Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 

In John 3:3-5, we learn that salvation begins with a New Birth. That's when we realize our sin and the need of a Savior--and that Jesus is the only Savior.  That’s what puts us “on the Vine.” We all know John 3:16 and surrounding verses. Or do we? Let’s look at “the rest of what He said,” John 3:19-21:

And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Again, deeds are involved, not just belief. We must "DO the truth."  Your real belief can be seen in your deeds (which is what James is saying, James 2:14ff).

Another treasure for you to think about:  Two closely-related Greek words that are translated “believe:” The first word, pisteuo means to believe, trust, but it’s just mental assent. The other is peitho, sometimes translated “believe,” but other times translated “obey.” Thus, Scriptural believing is interwoven with obeying. Not just mental assent. Webster’s defines “believe” as “confidence in the statement of another.” Our level of confidence can be tested on us by God, and our response—our deeds--signifies if we truly “believe.” Thus belief and deeds are one. Do we believe Jesus when He says that we must bear fruit or else be cut off and burned? When He says that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments? Do we really read His Words to see what all those commandments are?  Do we believe that His commandments are truly in our best interest—enough to follow them even when they don’t make sense? Our deeds will signify if we believe. One-third of the world “believes” in Christ, but Bercot suspects it’s mostly the first Greek word—mental assent only. But that's a ticket to hell. Remember, Jesus said only the “few” would be saved (Matthew 7:14). Can Jesus be talking about the first definition, not requiring deeds, when He says “few” would be saved, when 1/3 the world fulfills that loose definition?  And Luke 13:24 says we must “strive” to enter heaven—that again suggests deeds are involved.

There’s an evangelism tool that says we ask the prospect, “If you die and are standing before God, and He asks, “Why should I let you in?” And if the prospect gives the “standard” answer (I’ve been good), you’re supposed to say, “No, all your works are as filthy rags; have faith in what He has done—not your works, which count nothing in salvation.” But Scripture shows the opposite--it so happens that Jesus set up the same standing-before-God scenario in one of His sermons; And, He told all of us the “answer to the test” (every student’s dream to get the correct answer)—on what basis will He let us into heaven, Jesus asked. (Hint:  It's not the evangelism tool).  He said in the Last Judgment, people will be lined up, and He will let in some people and reject other people.  On what basis?  He will separate people, in the Last Judgment—based on their deeds.  Thus, his comments were the exact opposite of what modern theologians say. In Matthew 25:34, 35 and 40, Jesus says

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in.. ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.

On that day, He won’t expect us to feel that our deeds mean nothing. He will be looking for deeds that show our belief is strong, and right. Once we are born again, we must strive to exercise our gifts and do the righteous deeds that will get us to heaven.  Or else, as He clearly points out--we won't be allowed in.

None of these teachings by Jesus disagree with our John 15 model—they harmonize with it. This is not a selection of proof texts. In context, “salvation is by faith alone” doesn't cut it, as Luther claimed. Works have a place. They always had a place, if you read the early church fathers.  Do you want to believe man’s gospel, or Jesus’ gospel? Where you spend your eternity may depend on it!

Acknowledgements:  Dave Bercot:  "Paul vs James" Disc 1

NEXT WEEK: IS THIS MODEL HARMONIZED BY THE OTHER BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT? BERCOT’S “PAUL VS JAMES”, DISC 2.

What Happens When the Good Guys Become the Bad Guys?

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

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

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

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

During medieval times, the Catholic church was the only recognized Christian church--but their corruption dimmed their witness. Larger protesting groups were rising as early as the 1200s, but the Catholics persecuted them mercilessly, and the groups were snuffed out. The Spanish Inquisition was then set up, 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 50-150 years before Martin Luther. Many of these people were burned alive at the stake, or targeted and slaughtered in Crusades ordered by Popes.  The Pope also had wicked leverage on his side called “indulgences.” Indulgences supposedly reduced the time your loved ones spent in purgatory. These generally had to be bought (and became an important source of papal revenue), but wily Popes also gave them away to the “right” people as well— such as to common citizens who gathered up wood to help burn these Protestant heretics at the stake. They were also given to people who volunteered to go on Crusades; or he gave them to torture-Inquisitors.

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

But here is where the story changes, and the playlist gets harder to tell. The only reason Luther stayed alive from the Catholics is because he had the backing of wealthy German princes, who protected him. The princes were still running a very profitable feudalism, where they effectively confiscated the people’s property under the agreement to protect them, but they were poor for life.  They worked the property, and their profits went to the princes.  (Some accused the princes’ willingness to follow Luther was not religious at all; it was just to get out of a burdensome Roman Catholic tax). 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.” God’s Word suggests that people who hate are unsaved. In I John 3:15:

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

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

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

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

My next good guy/bad guy story is in Zurich, Switzerland. Rolling back the years again, when Catholics were in charge:  At the same time as Luther began reforming Germany, Ulrich Zwingli was trying to do the same in Zurich, Switzerland. He urged his followers to read Scripture, a very anti-Catholic idea at the time. He was already an admired public figure, so the liberal Catholic magistrates in Switzerland gave him a free hand, but...as long as he didn’t suggest radical changes. But readings of Scripture caused him to request that the people be allowed to drink from the cup during the Eucharist—but the magistrates said No. He backed off, taking no further action.
Further Scripture readings caused him to request the magistrates to cease the state-collected tithes (a tax used to support the Catholic church). They said No again, and he backed off again. His disciples were now getting restless for reform, and nothing was happening. His disciples, upon their further Scripture reading, stumbled upon a huge, heady question--what was the church, they asked? The procedure at the time was, every infant (except Jewish) was baptized, and was considered part of the church. This doctrine was initiated by the Catholics, of course, and based on St. Augustine's speculation that unbaptized infants were damned—but it was completely un-Scriptural.  It also was unchallenged by the Lutheran Reformers. But some of the Zwingli disciples urged him to request the magistrates again (by the way, this seemingly odd practice was because civil and religious were the same government), this time to permit them to stop baptizing babies, but to change to a Biblical idea, baptizing people when they become believers, and are willing to be disciples of Christ. They decided that only the people who were old enough to follow Christ's commands in Scripture, were the church. The civil court said “no” to this "radical" idea and Zwingli backed off--again. Now his disciples went public, talking about Scriptural reform, and about Catholic doctrine not agreeing with Scripture. So Zwingli was asked by the magistrates to calm his disciples down. He couldn’t. Hey, he taught them to investigate Scripture, right? Several of his followers now took a bold move--expressing their faith in Christ and His commands, they baptized each other. Since that was their second baptizing, they were called Anabaptists (which means “baptize again.”) The Anabaptists rejected that name, since they only felt that a single baptism, as believers, was properly Scriptural. They called each other Brethren—and started another Movement. From this movement, we have the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Swiss Brethren, and the Bruderhof. It was later called a “Radical Reformation.”

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

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

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

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

Persecution wasn’t his thing. For him to teach radical ideas is easy, but following through, taking up Jesus’ cross, knowing you will be expelled or killed, takes some guts.
In the end, he must have developed some spine: He died in armed conflict against canton magistrates when he was only 47--on other issues. But he never led any “real-Christian” movements.  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