What Happens to Us Right After We Die? Scripture Has a Surprising Answer

Perhaps the most important question of all time, to a lot of people, is, What happens after we die?  Is there life after death?   This question has puzzled mankind since Adam, and there are many different theories suggested.  Here are a few below, mostly from groups Americans are familiar with: 

1)      

     Atheists:  Nothing happens after you die.  You don’t have a soul or spirit, so your body decays, and that’s all there is. 

2)      Buddhists and some other Eastern religions:  You are reincarnated into a different creature.   You simply go on living in a different form. 

3)      Jehovah’s Witnesses: You don’t have a soul or spirit, like the atheistic view.  However, you live on in the perfect memory of God.  In the resurrection, God will re-create you to be once again the exact person you were, character flaws and all.  Saved people will live forever on a paradise Earth, a re-created Garden of Eden.  A top crew of 144,000 Christians actually go to heaven.  While most say they are not in the 144,000, they’re satisfied about a paradise Earth awaiting them. 

Even among professed Christians, there still are different answers.

4)      Seventh-day Adventists:  You have a soul, and when you die, your soul sleeps, until the resurrection, when it’s awakened and then it joins your body and goes to heaven or hell 

5)      Roman Catholics:  If you’re classified as a saint, your soul goes directly to heaven.  If you’re a “regular” Catholic, you can expect to go to purgatory.  It is neither hell nor heaven, but it’s where somebody who will ultimately have salvation can be purged of their sins.  In medieval Catholicism, it was viewed as almost like hell, full of torture and suffering.  But supposedly after you spend a time there (whose length depends on what kind of person you were),  you can go on to heaven.  Modern Catholicism has taken much of the sting out of purgatory—now it is viewed as not pleasant, but the cleansing from sin can be done without the torture and suffering—for most people.  But someone who isn’t, by Catholic definition, a Christian, they go directly to hell after they die. 

6)      Most Protestants:   whether liberal or evangelical, they believe that a saved Christian, once he dies, his soul goes straight to heaven.  His body goes to the grave, and will rejoin his soul at the resurrection.  Unsaved souls go to hell.  Liberal protestants believe that most people will be saved, while evangelicals have leaned toward a fewer number, though less assertive about that lately. 

As you can see, views differ even among those who claim to be Christian.  Now you may argue that that’s what it should be, since no scientific evidence can be obtained to prove one or the other.  You may even believe the current cultural icon statement:  “Whatever you believe is true for you.”   But the hard reality is, if you claim to be Christian, you’re covenanted to the Bible as God’s infallible Word on the subject.  And God is rather clear in the Bible on this subject, as He would be, since Scripture claims in various places that He loves His children—so He would tell us “where we’re moving to.”  

So, let’s study what the Word says on the “moving” issue.  Let’s promise ourselves that what the Scripture says is more important than what our church says.  That’s because, unfortunately, NONE of the six theories above is correct—not even the mainline Christian ones.  That’s because the doctrine of the intermediate state has either been warped or lost.  But it’s definitely in Scripture.  Studying that is the ultimate focus of this blog.

In a nutshell, here is the overall spoiler summary, before I narrow the focus:  When we die, our bodies go to dust, but our souls live on.  Those souls don’t immediately go to heaven or hell.  They all go to an intermediate state called hades.  Now, you must throw out meanings that you may have in your head about this word, and accept Scriptural indication as, simply, a waiting place, the temporary realm of the dead.  Hades is not hell.  Hell is a different Greek word. Hades is divided, in Scripture, into two parts.  The lower region, where the unsaved souls go, is a dark and gloomy place, where they are suffering in some degree of heat, and keenly aware of the lake of fire nearby—which is where they eventually will be cast (that’s hell).  Their temporary time in hades is a time of great sorrow and inner turmoil.  It is not as bad as hell—but it is a very warm, painful and anxious place.

In hades also there is a region of the saved, the righteous, who are escorted there by angels.  This is called “paradise” and “Abraham’s bosom”—it is a heavenly place, but it’s not the ultimate heaven.  The righteous can fellowship with other saved souls (the same cannot be asserted for the unsaved).  They feel in some way the presence of Christ—but they are not in heaven, where He is.  

No one can cross from one region of hades to the other—the unsaved may recognize somebody in the saved group, but can’t “switch sides” no matter what.  There is no opportunity for salvation beyond death.   THIS life decides your fate for eternity, my friend.

Hades, may I assert, is temporary--until the resurrection of everyone for the Judgment.   At Christ’s return, hades is emptied.  All will be judged.  In Judgment the body is miraculously put back together and joins the soul.  Then God sends His obedient children to heaven, and the rest to hell—for eternity.  Thus, hades is temporary; heaven and hell are for eternity. 

So no one goes straight to the final destination when they die—they go to a “waiting place,” they go to one of the two sectors of hades.  Scripture is clear—hades is not for the purpose of changing final destination.  Your final destination is fixed during this life.  We are now “probies,” as it were.  Our life on earth’s main reason is a testing period for where we spend eternity.   

Let’s get to Scripture to back up this summary.  I will focus on the intermediate state, hades.  The most detailed explanation of life just beyond the grave is found in Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus.  See Luke 16:22-31, where Jesus says: 

²² So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. ²⁴ “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’  ²⁷ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, ²⁸ for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ ²⁹ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ ³⁰ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ ³¹ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

What do we see?  

1)      They can see one another and talk to one another— the rich man in the lower region of hades can see how nice the previously poor man has it now in the good section—and Abraham talks to him. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude they’re both in the same place, but in seriously different environments. 

2)      The previously poor man is in “Abraham’s bosom.”  (It is not called “paradise” here).  He is “comforted.”  The rich man is “afar off”—a “great gulf fixed”-- in another region.  Yet they’re in the same place.  The rich man in the suffering region then becomes the focus.  He is “in torments.”  He “cries out” in agony.  Thirst is a serious problem, since a flame is nearby. 

3)      He is well aware of his previous life, since he remembered his brothers and wanted to see them saved.  This adds to his mental anxiety while there.

4)      As vv 27-31 show, there is no way that someone in the lower region can warn those still alive.  Thus, seances would be meaningless, today as well as then.  

5)      Jesus is tough on the man who is eventually to be cast to hell:   

a.       He is willing to let him suffer, acknowledging as He does, simply, “you are tormented” --without relieving him.   

b.      When the man complains of his suffering, Jesus even taunts him, reminding him of the reversal of roles for the two of them—and telling him, too bad, he can’t change his fate.

c.      Abraham, too, has no sympathy to do anything for the man's  five brothers . 

For those who want to cast these verses aside as theology:  This is not a parable (since it has named Lazarus, and parables don’t do naming).  This is God’s truth for the intermediate state, what happens right after we die.  Other things He says in Scripture are consistent with this doctrine, as we’ll see below.  Second, this is not a polemic on “we love the poor, we hate the rich,” since other Scripture clearly records rich people that get saved—but salvation just happens to a lesser proportion of the wealthy, since there is a natural tendency to be deceived by riches and it’s easier to love and trust the world rather than Christ.

Other supporting Scriptures for the intermediate state: 

1.       Luke 23:43 records Jesus’ words on the Cross to the dying and just-saved thief alongside:  

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

So, if the saved poor man’s first stopover after death, from Luke 16, is “Abraham’s bosom,” as we saw above, and if the first stopover for the just-saved thief is in “paradise,” we have to conclude that paradise is another name for Abraham’s bosom.  Paradise is not another word for heaven.  Since Abraham’s bosom is in hades (Luke 16:23), we have to conclude that paradise is too.  Neither person goes directly to heaven.  They both go to hades, the intermediate state.  Jesus was in hades too.  Remember, that’s not hell. 

2.       Matthew 12:40 and parts of Acts 2:22-27:  

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ²⁴ whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning Him:  Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.²⁷ For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

As we also proved above, Jesus did not die and go straight to heaven; nor did He go to hell, or “gehenna” in Greek, the lake of fire, a different Greek word.  As it clearly says here, His death would be followed by a short time “in the heart of the earth,” in “hades.”  Thus hades is located deep in earth.   His soul did not remain in hades long—three days and nights. 

Perhaps you have noted, your Bible uses "hell" when it should be called "hades."  Blame William Tyndale.  He took three Greek words, meaning different things, and translated them all "hell" in English.  A proper modern translation would catch this. As we see above, gehenna and hades have been translated "hell."  The third place translated “hell” in English is the Greek “tartarus.”  That’s where the fallen angels went, “pits (or chains) of darkness,” awaiting judgment for their special sin (see my DNA blog).  This is found in II Peter 2:4.  This, like hades, is not hell either--it is a special place for fallen angels awaiting final judgement--when they will be sent to hell.

These truths about the intermediate state were so universally believed by the earliest Christians (they knew their Greek) that it became part of the Apostles’ Creed:  I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ…was crucified, dead and buried.  He descended to hades (the Greek word); on the third day rose from the dead…Jesus did not go to hell, but gave hope to the waiting godly souls in hades.

3.       John 14:1-3:  

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. ² In My Father’s house are many mansions;  if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

Note the underlined phrase.  This proves that when the righteous die, they do not go immediately to heaven.  Jesus has to “come again” and pick us up, and then we go to heaven.  If we were already in heaven, He would not have to “come again” to get us.  No, we are in the heart of the earth, in hades, waiting for “pick up.” The pick up will be better than ziplining, better than being an Amazon drone, I’ll bet.  

4.        John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice ²⁹ and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Thus, ALL will “come forth” to the Judgment at the same time—so hades will be emptied all at once.  If we’re already in heaven, as often taught, the resurrection would be no big deal--since we're "already there."  But it IS a big deal.  It gets us from hades to heaven, not from heaven to heaven.  

Hopefully these many Scriptures will be convincing.  But, you ask, if all the six groups and theories I named at the beginning are wrong, are there any groups who still believe this Scriptural way? Well, many Mennonites, some Brethren, some Amish, some in the Restoration movement, some conservative Anglicans still teach it right.  Teaching on the intermediate state has gotten dropped because it got corrupted by the Catholics’ teaching on purgatory.  Purgatory teaches that (a) the Intermediate State can cleanse your sins and (b) it can change final status. Double False.  Scripture shows that hades (the real Intermediate State) does not change final status, as we saw in Luke.  The sincere pleadings of the rich man were greeted coldly.  The rich man encountered Jesus not as merciful, but as Judge.  Remember, few are saved (Matthew 7:14).  We are shocked and sometimes uncomfortable about seeing this "negative side" of God.  But He doesn't think as we do.  We cannot imagine, for instance, how deep is God’s hatred about sin.  If you’re unsaved when you go into hades, you’re unsaved when you go out.  Period.  There is no Scriptural basis for “cleansing from sin” in that state either.  The idea that you can purge your own sin is completely false and anti-Biblical, as I point out in many blogs. Jesus has done that cleansing from sin for us. The “works vs faith” argument was what kick-started the Reformation—a just movement in its beginning, but it went to wrong theology on some points to get away from looking Catholic. 

Next, Catholicism teaches that there is a special status for those classified as “saints”—they get to go straight to heaven.  Everybody else has to go to purgatory to “work off” their sins.  False.  Scripture is clear that everyone saved is a saint.  There are no “status” Christians.  Philippians 1:1 says:   

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops  and deacons. 

 If saints are only the “status” Christians, why is Paul calling every Christian a “saint,” and, oh yes, let’s not forget the bishops and deacons.  How do you explain that?  

John Calvin, who formulated many Protestant doctrines (not my favorite person, as I have a blog on him), dropped the intermediate state doctrine (probably to get away from Catholicism as much as possible).  So both Catholics and Protestants have it wrong.  You’ve got to read Scripture for yourselves, folks. 

If you want to know more about what Scripture really says on How Do You Get Saved, so you can graduate from earth to heaven during this “probie” status, you need to know that Catholics and Protestants have that wrong too.   I have a blog just on salvation, and another on initial and final salvation.  Smarter, though, would be tread the Gospels over and over, noting what Jesus says on that very subject.  He is quite clear.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Life After Death.” Scroll publishing.

Scripture Says Adult Baptism Is A Necessary Part of Salvation

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

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

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

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

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

Mark 16:16 says:

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

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

Acts 2:36-38:

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

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

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

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

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

Galatians 3:27:

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

“Baptized into Christ” is clearly water baptism, as Romans 6:2-4 points out:

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 10:22:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis on the conversion experience. They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” In their countries’ state churches, everyone had already been baptized—as babies--but many grew up dead spiritually. Rather than preach on the negative topic, “why baptism as a baby wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see as many people saved as possible. They saw the idea of requiring baptism a second time, as an adult instead of a baby, as confusing to most lay people. Confusion would slow the number of people moving forward, mixing a difficult intellectual topic with their wonderful, often real, emotion. Was a second, and real, baptism important enough to trump that? They decided No.

Now I again warn you: Keep in mind this extremely important caution (read the “Paul v James” blogs): Don’t assume you can get baptized, and you’re saved and done. These Scriptural benefits of baptism were not “automatic” at baptism, as I’ve stressed several times in this paper. A saving relationship with Christ, following His commands (and baptism was one of them) are necessary. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential as well, not just “outward” baptism.

When you want to submit to the Lord Jesus AND when you are dunked in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. If you do the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing? You’re still spiritually dead.

Acknowledgements:  Dave Bercot CD, "Baptism"

Things You Need to Know About John Calvin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements:  David Bercot, CD, “Geneva.” 

Does Paul agree with Jesus on What It Takes to Escape Hell? (Part 3 of 3 of Bercot's "Paul vs James" CDs

Please read my related blogs, Parts I and II, 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 in place, predestined, 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--and not a word about faith.  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, but thinking about the world--this results in guaranteed "death"--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." We must endure 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 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. An example there is to love your enemies, a tough one for sure.

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; that necessarily involves 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 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 much 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.  Also note: This person was once a believer, since he is contrasted to an unbeliever. 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 and pursued 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.

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 (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.

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 works. But it’s 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 ignoring 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!