The Fairness of Hearing the Gospel

Answering a question on Quora:

If only [by] believing in Jesus can someone go to heaven, what about people who died before Jesus's birth, who have not heard about Jesus at their time? If they can all go to heaven, is that not fair for us as we have to choose which god is the right one[?]

This question requires some untangling because it makes several assumptions and implies several questions. 

The question assumes that people have been accountable for fulfilling the same requirements at all times. That is, people living before Jesus’s birth could only go to heaven if they believed in Jesus.

Actually, accountability has always been proportional. That means that a child who has no ability to grasp the requirements has no accountability. It also means that people living in ancient times were not required to know something that had not happened yet.

The question asks, If [Since] only [by] believing in Jesus can someone go to heaven…. That is terribly over-simplified. “Believing in Jesus” is a mere title or summary. When you add the details, you find that five out of six (83%) of the requirements now and in ancient times overlap.

In ancient times, the required knowledge and belief were:

• God exists; and He is just and holy.
• My thoughts and actions have made me unholy, so I cannot defile the presence of a holy God.
• My actions require a just God to punish my unholy thoughts and actions.
• God is also merciful, gracious, and loving, so He will provide a way for me to enter His presence.
• I, therefore, trust God rather than myself.

In 33 AD, God added one more detail:

• The way is Jesus’s death and resurrection. (This is enough detail for this context, although another layer of details appears when you ask questions such as, Whom and What was Jesus? and What do you mean by resurrection?)

People living before 33 AD could not know how God would create the way to enter God’s presence, so they were not accountable for knowing the how. They knew — or at least they could know — through the Old Testament commands, that they were guilty before God. Then knew through the prescribed Old Testament sacrifices that it would require lifeblood and a substitution, and that it would be a price they could not pay without themselves being destroyed. So, instead of trusting themselves, they had to trust God.

Jesus lived, died, and rose again to create the way to enter God’s presence. The exact how was not something ancient people could know, but it is something we know. Since we know the how, we are accountable for following it.

Imagine being on a sinking ship in the middle of the ocean. Someone tells you that a helicopter is hovering overhead, rescuing passengers.

• If you do not believe the ship is sinking, you will drown.
• If you decide to swim 2,000 miles to the nearest shore, you will drown.
• If you look at the helicopter and then return to your room, you will drown.
• If you believe them intellectually but do not let them hoist you up into the helicopter, you will drown.
• If you believe in the helicopter but insist on getting to it your own way, you will drown.

The question focuses on the way of escape, which is trusting that God paid our penalty. In a sense, failing to use that way of escape can be blamed for going to hell. But that is simplistic. The sinking ship represents our unholy thoughts and actions. Drowning represents going to hell. Failing to put faith in Christ’s actions is just one more unholy failure. A sinner does not go to hell for any single moral crime (although one is enough), but for a lifetime of moral crimes.

God sends people to hell for their sins. People send themselves to hell by failing to follow the way of escape that God created.

As for having to choose the right God, all men, always,  have "had to choose the right God." Only one God deals honestly with the problem of sin and justice. For example, when Islam's god forgives, he does so at the expense of satisfying justice. Only the Judeo-Christian God satisfies both justice and love.

The question ends by asking about fairness. Fairness is a relative concept. It is a question that children ask when they don’t get what they greedily desire. “Johnny got a gift he didn’t earn, so it’s unfair if I don’t get a gift.” If there is unfairness, it is created by us. We are the ones making the choice to repent and trust Christ or to reject God’s way.

From God’s perspective, “fairness” would have been making Jesus the political ruler over all earth 2,000 years ago instead of letting the Innocent One take the wrath the guilty deserve. Fairness would be letting all humans go to hell.

Since Jesus created a way to be saved from hell, fairness is allowing us to choose our own fates. Fairness to ourselves would be responding according to our knowledge of the way, living accordingly, and passing that knowledge along.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Assuming credit is given where credit is due, permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Hebrews 6:6 -- Not About OSAS

Does Hebrews 6:4-8 mean that a person cannot come back to God and be saved if they once were with God and then fell away from God?

The simple answer is that the passage is not about salvation. Verses 4–8 describe the first century Jewish nation, not individual Christians.

(For simplicity of language, I’m going to use the Jewish author’s term “Jews” to refer to the first-century establishment Hebrews in Judea. It’s a lot easier to type, I do not intend any insult to “Jews” of today, and I assume the reader is intelligent and flexible enough to accept that.)

Two camps within Christianity have argued for centuries over the meaning of then have fallen away. One side (called Arminians, after Jacob Arminius) say that it means Christians can fall away and lose their salvation. The other side (Calvinists, after John Calvin) claim that the Arminian interpretation would contradict other less ambiguous statements in the Bible.

The New American Standard Bible translation is the most consistently accurate word-for-word translation, so I use that here. Here is the passage:

• For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

In the Greek, the structure of verses 4–6 is:

• For it is impossible, those who (identifying phrases), to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify, etc.

The meaning is ambiguous because the identifying phases can be interpreted to mean either Christians or the Jews. The following is a literal translation of the Greek identifying phrases without the adjustments needed to make the sentence fit together in English.

• those who, having once been enlightened
• having tasted of the heavenly gift
• having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit
• having tasted the good word of God
• having tasted... the powers of the age to come
• and having fallen away

Arminians interpret having fallen away to mean that a Christian can fall away. This is based on the King James Version’s mistaken translation, if they shall fall away. If and shall fall makes the phrase conditional and future.

But that interpretation is incorrect because it derives from an incorrect translation. If does not exist in the Greek text, and the verb to fall has the same past tense (called aorist) that all the other verbs have. Having fallen is not about a potential action that might happen in the future. It is about an actual action that had already happened at the time the author was writing.

The phrase does not describe hypothetical Christian individuals in the future. It describes an action that the Jewish establishment had already performed.

If you remove the identifying phrases, the sentence reads thus:

• For it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame

If you apply these phrases to Christians, it does not make much sense. Why can’t a straying Christian be restored? How would restoring a repentant Christian crucify Christ afresh and put Him to shame? If restoring a “fallen” Christian re-crucifies Christ, then isn’t Christ re-crucified every time a sinner repents?

In contrast, it becomes quite simple if applied to the Jewish establishment. If you outline Hebews, you will notice that it's all about contrasting the Jewish temple system against the superior system of Christ's gospel and church. Before Christ’s sacrifice, the temple system’s daily sacrifices pointed forward to redemption through His sacrifice. Afterwards, continuing the sacrifices implied that Christ’s sacrifice had not happened, or if it had happened, it was insufficient. (Roman Catholicism’s mass has similar problems.) This was analogous to hanging somebody in effigy. It was an insult.

Also note that the sentence does not say, if one renews them again to repentance, they will crucify to themselves the Son of God…. The meaning is, it is impossible because they crucify…. The temple sacrifices rejected Christ’s coming and sacrifice. The leaders had already been called to repentance and had rebuffed that call.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is ambiguous enough for a careless reading to lead to several possible interpretation. However, it is far more likely that the fallen refers to the Jewish system that rejected Christ, and the evidence that it is impossible to renew the Jews to repentance was that they insulted the person and work of Christ. If you continue on to verse 8, you will see a veiled threat to the Jews that their system was about to undergo God’s judgment.

This dovetails with what we know from history, namely, that God allowed waves of Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem and Judea starting in 67 AD. This was prophesied hundreds of years before (for instance, by Joel) and later by Jesus. So Hebrews 6:6–8 fits into a much larger picture.

Let's not stop at verse 8. Verses 9–12 contrast with the preceding verses. Whereas verses 4–8 describe people who were never saved, verses 9–12 describe people who have been saved.

There are “things” that accompany salvation such as love and ministry (verses 9–10). It does not say that love and ministry produce salvation, but rather, they are found in the person who already possesses salvation. Diligence in producing evidence of salvation produces not salvation, but assurance (verse 11).

Also note a contrast between verses 9 and 12. The beginning of the paragraph treats salvation as a present condition of the Christian whereas the ending of the paragraph treats inheritance, that is, reward, as something that comes at the end of a faithful, persevering life.

God saves through faith alone, but faith plus salvation results in fruits of the Spirit such as love, good works such as ministering to the needs of the church, and perseverance through doubts, temptations, and trials. Those results of salvation produce assurance and result in rewards. Be careful when people try to turn the results or evidences of salvation into causes of salvation.

Psalm 23:2 -- Translating "Green Pastures"

In Psalm 23:2, why is "pastures of grass" translated to "green pastures" (or similar)? (Question on Quora)

As you know, a word can have multiple definitions ("denotations"), but it can also imply multiple meanings, including emotive and figurative meanings ("connotations"), depending on how it is used in its context.

The Hebrew noun deshe, translated grass, comes from the verb dasha, to sprout, shoot, grow green. Thus, deshe implies grass or vegetation that is in its growing phase, and the word is sometimes translated more generically as herbs, vegetation, or as my doctor called it, greens.

Deshe contrasts with a different word for mature grass, châtsı̂yr. Châtsı̂yr implies grass that has turned brown and is ripe for the harvesting of its seed. Where I live, the seeds of brown natural grasses have husks called foxtails that embed into a sheep’s fur (and human’s clothes) and cause irritation. (Shall we add that that this evokes tick season and the hottest time of the year?)

In this case, the noun is used as an adjective that modifies the noun pasture. Grassy pasture wouldn’t quite draw out the meaning. Tender/young/green grass-pasture comes closer but is awkward in English. Grass and pasture are also slightly redundant. Since what matters is not the composition of the vegetation, but the fact that it is nourishing and comfortable, we can simplify the wording to green pastures.

Remember: The Psalms, as poetry, are saturated with metaphor. Barnes' Notes on the Bible points out that the verse describes a place where one’s hunger is satisfied by a bounty of food and where one is made to comfortably rest from one’s journey. I would add that it also signifies springtime, a season of renewal.

The word picture evokes New Testament themes. For example, Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and ‘you will find rest for your souls’ (Matthew 11:28–29).

Most churches and sects keep their flocks in a state of insecurity and perpetual work to achieve redemption. Work — ceremonies and do’s and don’ts — is good when done out of love and gratitude, and it is needed as evidence that we have become God’s sheep. 

However, work is an unending, impossible mission when done to establish or cling to justification. The gospel teaches us to renounce striving for self-righteousness and enter into the rest that God offers. When pride and fear cease, then love and gratitude transform former work into pleasure.

Why is the Catholic faith so strict?

Why is the Catholic faith so strict?

The gentleman who asks the question clarifies that the strictness that concerns him regards types of sins. I will answer from a biblical perspective, which agrees with Catholicism about most points of morality. Where the biblical perspective differs is in the motive behind that strictness.

As a courtesy, I will quote from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation; and where needed, I will include explanatory words or words from current translations in parentheses.

Defining Morality

God’s primary attribute is holiness. Because He is holy, He must be just and loving.

• God could be loving without being just or holy.
• God could be just without being loving or holy.
• If God were not just and loving, He could not be holy.

You can tell a lot about how biblical a church is by how well it balances holiness, justice, and love.

Holiness takes two forms. First, it means that all of God’s attributes and actions are right. This may sound circular because God’s holiness is the standard against which we judge “right.” However, we can refine that. God’s perfection before He created the universe is the standard, and he has neither changed away from that standard nor violated it.

Second, God’s holiness involves the concept of sacredness. To illustrate, the leftover Jesus-flesh and Jesus-blood is not to be used for ordinary purposes or disposed of like trash. The priests must protect the leftovers, but God’s holiness is self-protecting. God alone hath immortality, and inhabiteth (dwells in) light inaccessible (unapproachable), whom no man hath seen, nor can see… (1 Timothy 6:16). One day, in the resurrection, the unjustified will see Him. According to Revelation (“Apocalypse”) 20:11, I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it (God), from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them.

The commandments, or morality in general, is a standard applicable to life on Earth, that reflects God’s character. God revealed the standard gradually. First, there were a few simple commands in the Garden of Eden. Our ancestors disobeyed. Then there were the Ten Commandments. The Ten were summarized in two: Love God first, and love your neighbor. That was in about 1250 BC. Over 600 more commands followed in the Old Testament to help apply the Two and the Ten in daily and religious life.

But it doesn’t end there. You can probably finish this: “Man looks at the outward appearance but God….” It’s in 1 Samuel 16:7.

God judges motives, intents, and emotions, not just actions. For example, Jesus said, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28), and whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment…. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22).

We can state the prohibitions against sins positively.

• Sins insult God and hurt others, so abstaining from sins can be a way to love God and others.

If a church is strict in warning against the many sins that we can commit, then it is consistent with God’s own revelation of Himself. The “blame” if there be any, falls upon us for the many ways that we insult God and hurt others.

This can be a loving act on the part of the church. Warning: This is not a loving act when a church crosses into being “strict,” as in being judgmental, intolerant, or impatient. The approach must be balanced because the goal is to help people grow; it is not to turn them into slaves.

Motives for Morality

Because God is holy, souls bearing guilt cannot enter God’s presence. Even if God or the angels did not bar the way, guilty souls would flee — some in regret and fear, others in hatred. God presents two solutions so souls can live in His presence:

• Live so that no guilt ever accumulates
• Find forgiveness of guilt

World religions add:

• Earn your way out of guilt-debt

Catholicism adopts a hybrid:

• God lets us earn forgiveness from some guilt and enables us to work our way out of the remaining guilt

Going back to the Ten Commandments and the other 600+ commands: This is called The Law. Since God gave the Ten and the bulk of the 600 through Moses, it is also called the Mosaic Law. It is one united Law with many points. Break one point, and you’ve broken the whole.

Israel failed to keep the Mosaic Law. Their relationship with God was a roller-coaster ride. Eventually, God split Israel into two kingdoms. They continued their ups and downs — mostly downs — until God allowed other nations to destroyed one kingdom and then the other. After a time, God restored one of the two kingdoms, Judea, keeping it under the rule of other nations. The priests learned their lesson too well.

By the time of Jesus, Judaism had added thousands more commands, called “traditions,” to ensure that they kept the first 600+. Sadly, their efforts to earn righteousness led them, as Jesus said, to make void the word of God by your own tradition (Mark 7:13). They focused on microscopic details and left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith not done (Matthew 23:23).

The Jews had missed an important lesson of the Law. We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6)

The main purpose of the law was to show us our inability to justify ourselves by showing us an impossible standard, God’s perfection. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

Jesus stressed the lesson through irony. The religious leaders had their thousands of commands, yet Jesus said, unless your justice (righteousness) abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

So the lesson was not to rely on self-righteousness. Rather, as Paul wrote, the law was our pedagogue (teacher) in Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24).

The Jews of Jesus’s day tried to earn their way to heaven. Abstaining from sins and doing good deeds are good, but not as a way to heaven. The Apostles explicitly taught that works and faith, and wages and grace, were mutually exclusive pairs. For example:

• Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galatians 2:16).
• If by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6).

Just as Judaism went off track with teaching self justification, the Church gradually went off track, mixing grace and self justification. Grace means “gift,” but the church redefined it as being like money, to be earned through ceremonies and deeds, here a little, there a little. And if you collected enough of this substance, you could buy your way out of Purgatory or Limbo sooner. This is a blasphemous insult to the Giver of grace.

The Church also came to teach that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not enough. When He cried Tetelestai on the cross, it was a victory cry, “It is finished!” But the Church claims to continue that sacrifice in thousands of locations every day.

• We are sanctified by the oblation (offering) of the body of Jesus Christ once. And every (Jewish) priest indeed standeth daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, From henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool. (Hebrews 10:10–13)

Notice the contrasts. The Jewish sacrifice was continuous. Christ sacrificed Himself once. It had a definite ending. He does not now rise up and descend to Earth to continue His suffering thousands of times each day, but rather, sits, resting, waiting with the Father on God’s throne, making intercession for His followers. To teach that the one-time sacrifice of infinite God the Son was inadequate is blasphemous.

• For by one oblation (offering) he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (believers) (Hebrews 10:14).

Not only was the sacrifice a complete act, but the redemption of those who place their faith in it is perfect (complete). Redemption is not bit by bit, but perfect. Implying that a complete redemption cannot be claimed blasphemously insults the Giver’s resources and generosity.

Now we can apply this to the original question. The biblical Christian has many reasons to recognize strict rules of morality.

• The rules are ways to love God.
• The rules are ways to love others.
• Love seeks the benefit of others
• In the eyes of others, our holiness qualifies us convey the gospel
• By obeying the rules, we love ourselves
• We emulate our Father
• We live at peace with God
• We enjoy peace with others
• We avoid our Father’s loving chastisement
• We earn rewards in heaven

The Roman Catholic recognizes some or many of the above benefits, but the primary reason to obey strict rules of morality is to earn “grace” and redeem oneself. Reliance on morality for justification before God has a name: self righteousness.

As Hebrews 6:1 says,

• Wherefore, leaving (moving on from) the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect: not laying again the foundation of penance (repentance) from dead works and of faith towards God….

The writer framed the gospel for Jewish converts (and all of us) this way:

• Repent from the dead works of attempting to achieve self righteousness through ceremonies and deeds.
• Simply consent to the Giver who bestows the gift upon you.
• Trust the Giver to keep His promise.

Rightly Interpreting James 2:24

Someone invoked James 2:24 to rationalize that Catholicism is strict because good deeds are necessary for salvation. Here it is, out of context:

• Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

Now, here’s the context. There are three types of justification.

• Justification by God who paid for and forgave your sins — assuming you have received the gift as a gift, without insulting the Giver
• Justification before others
• Justification before yourself (1 John has a lot to say about self examination in order to gain assurance of the sincerity of your faith).

James chapter 2 is about justification before others. Look at how the passage begins in verse 18:

• But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me (a man) thy faith without works; and I (a man) will shew thee, by works, my faith. (Emphasis added.)

James refers to Abraham’s offering of Isaac as an argument, but acknowledges, by citing Genesis 15:6, that God had already justified Abraham roughly 25 years before, on the basis of faith alone. Abraham believed God, and it was reputed (accounted) to him to justice (righteousness).

Offering Isaac justified Abraham before men. And he was called (by men) the friend of God. Being justified before men is not salvation.

We agree, good deeds are necessary. You’re useless to anybody if you don’t do good. Jesus said,

• Jesus said, So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16).
• John the Baptist said, Bring forth therefore fruit (deeds) worthy of penance (repentance at the time of conversion) (Matthew 3:8).

Genuine faith produces good works.

• For it is God who worketh in you, both to will (desire) and to accomplish (act), according to his good will (Philippians 2:13).

But good deeds are worthless for redeeming yourself before God. This was addressed above but bears repeating.

• Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galatians 2:16).
• We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6)

People who cite James 2 to rationalize a requirement works for salvation violate an important rule for interpreting the Bible:

• Never use a vague, tangential, or ambiguous passage to contradict a clear, explicit, relevant passage.

Read Romans chapters 3–6. Chapter 4, in particular, puts James’s argument into context.

Two Ways to Heaven

There are two ways to heaven: the impossible and the possible.

1.  Be perfect throughout your entire life.

That makes you superior to the rest of us. In fact, it must make you God, since only God is perfect. 

Proud people think they can earn heaven, but the Ten Commandments (and the over 600 more) do not show a way to heaven for us real people. Instead, they show us that we are condemned before God.

• Have you had anything in your life that was more important than God? The scriptures call that idolatry.
• Have you had any incorrect idea of whom God is and what he's like? Have you prayed through a statue? That's idolatry, too.
• Have you worked on the Sabbath (Saturday)? That's putting other things ahead of God, so it's idolatry, too.
• Have you used the Lord's name in vain? That's a personal insult to God!
• Have you ever spread gossip that turned out to be untrue? That's lying and murdering somebody's reputation.
• Have you hated somebody without just cause? That's murder in your heart.
• Have you looked with sexual desire at somebody other than your spouse? That's adultery.
• Have you wanted something that belonged to somebody else? That's stealing in your heart.

And God looks on the hearts, not just the actions. 

Remember, the Law is One Law with many points. You don't have to break all the points. Break just one point, and you've broken the Law and lost your place in heaven. If you think you've never sinned, just wait. You will.

Satan said, "I will be like God." Adam and Eve said, "We will know good and evil like God." And the self-righteous says in his heart, "I will be perfect." 

Yes, Jesus said, "Be perfect," but He was using the Law to break people's pride, to show that earning heaven by your own merit is impossible. The point of His instruction was not, "Attempt the impossible." His message used irony to show that we are condemned. Salvation comes another way, and only to the humble. 

2. God prepared a gift

The gift that can save us if we accept it as a gift instead of as something we deserve.

The Creator of time and space entered into His creation as three Persons, each fulfilling a distinct role, yet united as One God in eternity.  One of those Persons, God the Son, added a human nature called Jesus to His own nature (without changing in His essence). 

Jesus lived a perfect life. If He had not, He would have died for His own sins, not for ours. But He was God, so He could live a perfect life. And because of that, when He gave Himself on the cross, God could credit our guilt to Jesus  (like a big brother taking the punishment for his little brother) and credit Jesus' righteousness to us. And to demonstrate His approval of what Jesus did, God raised Him from the dead.

God offers that gift to those who (a) recognize God the Son and (b) in desperate need and humility, receive the gift as what it is, a free gift.

Many cling to the impossible way by mixing it with God's provision. They mix faith and works, and corrupt grace (which means "gift") by turning it at least partly into wages. They seek credit for themselves instead of glorifying the Giver alone.

The mixture takes two forms. The first form says you have to do ceremonies, or good works, or clean up your life; and then you receive some or all of the gift. The second form says God gives you the gift, but then you have to earn the right to keep the gift through works or perseverance. Both of these insult God's generosity.

The second (you have to work to retain the gift) also recognizes only half the relationship. Salvation becomes yours, but also you become God's. You become God's child and Jesus' "sheep." (People often lie about the following part because they don't understand it.)

You can't do whatever you want for three reasons (at least!).

• When you became a Christian, you hated your sins because they were evil and they condemned you. Since you hated your sins, and as a new Christian, God begins changing you to free you from those sins, you will try not to repeat those sins.
• God will chastise you, even to the point of killing your body if that's what it takes to keep your soul safe.
• The "whatever you want" will change because God works within you, making you want to do what pleases Him.
• If you do "whatever you want" and get away with it, your conversion was not genuine. Beware false conversions due to.
• Pride in self merit
• Knowledge without heart conviction
• Being carried along by emotion with only partial understanding or with misunderstanding
• Knowledge and emotion, but without prioritizing conversion over everything else

In the gospels, Jesus says, "Be perfect."

The sinner says, "I cannot. I have sinned."

Jesus says, "Be perfect, or be condemned."

The sinner says, "Woe to me, for I am a sinner, condemned!"

Jesus says, "Now you are ready to receive the gift."

The self-righteous man says, "Let me do ceremonies, chant repetitious prayers, and do good works for the gift."

Jesus says, "Go away and do not insult me by trying to earn my gift."

The misled man says, "I receive the gift" but thinks "and I will do good works and persevere so that I don't lose it."

Jesus says, "Come back when you are ready to stop insulting my faithfulness."

The humble man says, "I deserve condemnation. I can do nothing to earn or to keep the gift. I surrender. I trust You to have mercy upon my sins and grace upon my need."

Jesus says, "I give you the gift. Now you are mine and I am yours, and I keep my promises. Welcome to my kingdom, little brother! Now, let's get to work!"

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler -- Permission granted for personal or non-profit, non-published use. Please give credit where credit is due.

I was forgiven. I need forgiveness. Contradiction?

The Bible teaches that salvation means you have been forgiven; yet it also teaches a continuous need for confession and forgiveness. Skeptics twist that into a contradiction. Arminians and Wesleyans twist it into "proof" that salvation is conditional and not secure. Both reflect a need for greater understanding. 

Forgiveness or being forgiven means either an action or a state. The word forgiven has more than one meaning.

• Past participle of the verb to forgive — You were forgiven, meaning, God forgave you.
• Adjective — You are forgiven, meaning, since you were declared forgiven, now you are in a state of forgiveness; it is one of your attributes.
• Present participle — You are forgiven, meaning, I forgive you.

I forgive

Before discussing forgiveness in the spiritual context, we need to recognize a practical context. Sin affects everybody.

• My sin affects me because it has consequences for me.
• It affects God because it desecrates His creation, it is an affront to His holiness, and it rebels against His sovereignty.
• Some sins directly hurts others.

So if somebody says, You are forgiven, they might mean that, assuming you have obeyed the gospel, God has forgiven you. However, they might mean that they forgive you for what you did to them.

God forgives

The state of forgiveness cannot be reversed. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1, NASB).

This is because Christ fulfilled the Law — the Old Testament commandments that condemned us. God God reckons Christ’s death and payment of the debt to our accounts, so in the new birth, we died to the Law of Condemnation and were born into a Law of love.

Romans 7:1–6 uses marriage as an analogy. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. When one spouse dies, the other is free from that first commitment and free to marry another. Similarly, when Christ’s death is imputed to us, it’s like we’ve died to the Law of Condemnation, and God places us under a new law, the Law of Love. So the passage concludes in verse 6,

• But now we have been released from the Law [of commandments that condemn], having died to that by which we were bound [the Law and our guilt], so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter [the Law].

Because God remakes us as His children, His role in relationship to one whom He remakes into His child changes from Judge to Father. Formerly, His end role was to pronounce guilt, hand down the sentence, and execute justice. Now, His role is to train us; and by being trained, we can bring more honor to Him, earn rewards, enjoy fellowship with Him, and become more of a blessing to those we encounter. His end role will be to judge our performance and give rewards rather than to condemn.

On the other hand…

All this means that sin cannot condemn us, but it does not mean that sin does not hurt is. Sin still

• brings embarrassment to God’s name
• wastes rewards
• interferes with our fellowship with God
• interferes with our fellowship with others
• makes us a hindrance to others instead of a blessing
• weighs us down with guilt

Even though we have been forgiven by our Judge so that no penalty of condemnation remains, we still seek forgiveness from our Father because a penalty of lost joy and usefulness weighs us down.

Whereas the book of Romans focused on judicial forgiveness, the book of 1 John focuses on daily life.

• [I]f we walk in the Light… we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:7–9, NASB)

This passage would seem self contradictory. “He forgives us of all sins, yet we need continued forgiveness?” This is resolved if you recognize the difference between forgiveness by our Judge and forgiveness by our Father.

Again, judicial forgiveness cleanses us from all our sins — past, present, and future. But within that state of forgiveness, we still need that cleansing of conscience and restoration of fellowship with our Father.

That’s why we should, even though our sins are forgiven, live in a continual state of repentance, confession, and attempted reform.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

The Heresy of Including Reform in Repentance

The Heresy of Including Reform in Repentance

Like John MacArthur, despite clearly defining grace as the means of salvation and faith as the channel of grace, Todd Friel occasionally crosses the line into salvation by works.

I highly recommend listening to Wretched Radio. God does call on His children to reform their lives. Too many churches fail to call for reform, and communicating the gospel should describe the cost of obeying the gospel. Becoming a Christian does not mean God will heal all your relationships or make your life easy; and Eternal Security does not mean you can ignore your new life in Christ and do whatever you want without chastisement.

Apostate Christian churches have mis-defined repentance in both directions. Historically, churches, dominated by Roman Catholicism, have over-defined repentance by adding reform to it. In our times, New Evangelical churches tend to under-define it or omit it altogether. Many "Reformed" Christians over-emphasize repentance as an over-reaction to the New Evangelical watering down of the gospel. The mis-definitions of repentance makes it difficult to accurately differentiate between the call for non-Christians to repent and the call for God's children to reform.

While we should, therefore, practice grace when an earnest brother occasionally blurs the line, we should also stand for a correct definition of the gospel and point out failures to do so.

Friel crossed the line on Wretched Radio's "Witness Wednesday" episode for 19 June 2019. The conversation begins at 14:50. https://www.wretched.org/06-19-2019/

Friel crossed the line into a gospel of works while explaining the gospel to a young Roman Catholic woman, saying in his conclusion:

Friel: [W]hat do you need do to go to heaven? What would your answer be? 

Woman: Live for Jesus and for God.  

Friel: Yeah, that's right, to repent, and put your trust in Him. To repent, to ask for forgiveness, forsake your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ. And then you inherit eternal life.

(Note that the woman's answer was about works, and while supplying missing elements, Friel reinforced her error.)

"Forsake your sins" is ambiguous by itself, but a minute before, Friel had described repentance and faith thus:

[Y]ou repent, you recognize that you've sinned against God, you confess your sins to him, then you forsake them instead of living for yourself, you start living for Him, and you put your trust in Jesus Christ as if your life depended on it because frankly it does.

Just as there are sins of omission and sins of commission, there are good works of restraint and good works of commission. Forsaking sins is obeying the Don'ts of the commandments. Living for God is the Do's of the commandments.

What Friel and people like John MacArthur are saying is, "Do good works and then put trust in Christ." They do not say it all the time, but they say it often enough that they need to be called out on it. Making good works a requirement for salvation prevents salvation.

Whether one reforms by obeying God's covenant with Israel or by obeying the Law of Love is irrelevant. In the context of entering into salvation, "works" includes any attempt to be righteous enough to please God. 

The rest of what Friel says is, more or less, consistent with the gospel. It is consistent because we must recognize our sin and deserved condemnation in order to approach God. It is inconsistent because the emphasis is entirely on moral sin; it ignores that "sin" includes holding wrong beliefs.

There are sins we must forsake. For example:

• Worship of false gods
• Rejecting God's standards of sin and righteousness
• Rationalizing our sins 
• Believing we can be righteous enough to be accepted by God
• Believing God will forgive us without a price being paid
• Adding anything to grace and faith -- including reform

These are all matters of heart and mind, not of moral actions. For example, it does no good to give up adultery if you continue to worship the Unitarian god of Oneness Pentecostals or to serve statues and pray to Mary. With time, the fruits of repentance and of God reforming you from within follow. But actions are not included as requirements for salvation.

God sees the sincerity of the heart and the mind. He does not have to wait to see your actions. When you repent (mind and heart) and put faith in God for redemption, God saves you in that instant.

• Repentances does not include its result, reform. 
• Reforming yourself does not cause salvation. 
• Salvation enables repentance to cause reform.

In fact, reforming yourself to achieve salvation blocks salvation because you are attempting to make yourself presentable to God instead of relying on Christ to do that for you.

Preachers like Friel and MacArthur confuse many believers. When they preach salvation through faith alone, and then require works before faith, they contradict themselves and bring heresy into their gospel.


Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Did Christ Die "for" Only the Elect?

Reformed / Calvinist / Particular versus Arminian / General

The Reform movement began a Century before Calvin's time, but one of the debates that divide Protestants from Catholics and Reformed Protestants from other Protestants came into clear focus as a result of conflict between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius.  For this reason, the Reformed school is often called Calvinist and the non-Reformed school is called Arminian.  Within Baptist history, the Reformed position is held by Particular Baptists and the Arminian position is held by General baptists.

The differences break down into many points.  In general, the Reformed beliefs are far more biblical than the Arminian beliefs.  Here, I'm going to focus on just one point: For whom did Christ die?  The Reformed belief holds that Christ died for the elect; that is, for, and only for, those whom God saves from damnation. The Arminian belief holds that Christ died for the world.

Both sides oversimplify by failing to separate the value of Christ's sacrifice and its application into two issues.

Reformed interprets "Christ died for the elect" too restrictively

The Reformed side errs by interpreting "Christ died for the elect" as meaning that the Sacrifice of Infinite God has finite potential value.  First, this mathematical absurdity is reverse-engineered from the Catholic assumption that God's grace and sacrifice are quantifiable.  Some argue that if all the value of Christ's sacrifice is not applied, then all is somehow wasted.  However, dead is dead, and eternal God is infinite. It is absurd to quantify and limit the infinite.

Second, it is a logical absurdity to assume that having one purpose, dying for the elect, excludes having other purposes. For example, Christ's sacrifice glorifies the Father and Himself, so it would be correct to say that Christ died "for" glorifying God.  By Reformed logic, Christ could not die for the glory of God or for vindication of the Father's plan to allow the Fall because He died (only) for the elect.

Third, Christ's sacrifice not only redeems the elect, but also, after the removal of the lost in the Day of Judgment, redeems the whole of creation.  Yes, Christ died "for" the elect, but His sacrifice has far more value.

Arminian interprets "Christ did for the elect" too loosely

The other side understands that the Sacrifice of the Infinite has unlimited potential value but errs by confusing unlimited value with universal application.  Arminianism holds that God applies the value to all men by freeing them to choose to receive or not receive Christ and His gift of salvation.  This flies in the face of New Testament teachings about how the lost are enslaved by sin and how the carnal mind is at enmity with God.  Paul makes it clear that even faith is a gift from God, and without that gift comes no conversion.  

Many denominations, the Roman Catholic Church among them, carry the error further by falling into forms of Universalism, the belief that all men will be redeemed (or at least purged) and enter heaven.  Pentecostals and Charismatics carry unlimited value to an absurd extreme by applying it to carnal desires for wealth ("it's in the atonement"), health ("by His stripes you were (physically) healed"), and personal pride ("he who speaks in tongues builds up himself").

On this point, both sides err by dragging along Catholic baggage.  The error on the Reformed side does not affect any critical points of the gospel that I know of, but the errors on the Arminian side can be damning.  

That is not to say that all Arminians are unsaved.  One can believe the gospel before being taught Arminian errors, and not everybody who belongs to a given church believes all that their church teaches.  However, I have only discussed one of many points.  Those who have accept Arminian errors before conversion fall short of the grace of God.  Their conversions are false, and those who mislead by preaching false gospels shall have much to answer for.

Saved by Grace but Secured by Self Righteousness

"I believe i am saved from this ungodly world by the grace of God. but to continue in that salvation or saving grace requires effort on my part."

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:3

If the potter makes a pot for honorable use, does the pot need to take action to remain a pot? If God turns a goat into a sheep, does the sheep need to take action to avoid turning back into a goat? 

Doctrines of piecemeal justification (Catholicism) or perishable justification (Arminians) contradict the very definition of grace. They do not recognize that the new birth changes a believer's very nature.

The new birth

• Changes strangers into members of the household
• Changes citizens of the kingdom of darkness into citizens of the kingdom of light
• Emancipates slave, turning them into free persons
• Changes children of satan into children of God and brethren of Christ
• Gives sight to spiritually blind
• Gives life to those who were spiritually dead
• Gives an inheritance to the disinherited
• Turns the condemned into the glorified

If God turns a lump of coal into a diamond, a little bit of dirt does not turn it back into coal. Diamonds continue to be diamonds because that's what God has remade them into, and diamonds will shine because that's what diamonds do.

Living in insecurity and in fear of your fleshly nature is not God's will for believers. IFF (if and only if) you are a believer, your spirit is a diamond embedded in a fleshly lump of coal. God promises, indeed predestines, that in the resurrection or rapture, He will transform your old coal into a new diamond, too. You cannot break God's promises or defeat His predestination.

Living in insecurity and fear is wrong for believers, but it is right for those who have not received The Gift, as a gift, from the Giver. God does not take away what He has freely given. Neither does He give the gift to those who insult His generosity.

If you received the "gift" of salvation as though it were something that you would have to pay for on the installment plan (Catholic) or would have to earn through other do's and don'ts (Wesleyan), then you may not have received the gift as a gift. Please make sure you receive the gift God's way.

Hyper Grace, Hyper Repentance, and the Middle Ground

Response to

Rooting Out Fuzzy Theology Behind the Hyper-Grace Message

DAVID & NANCY RAVENHILL
Charisma Magazine online 9:21AM EDT 4/2/2013
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/prophetic-insight/17255-rooting-out-fuzzy-theology-behind-the-hyper-grace-message

Two Types of Repentance

Most Charismatics Christians (they mistakenly call themselves Pentecostals) fail to distinguish between two types of repentance. Peter explicitly names the first type, and only regarding changing minds FROM rejection of Messiah TO receiving Him. The New Testament only describes the second type without naming it "repentance." We label the second type "repentance," but the label is not Biblical, although it works as long as one does not confuse the two.

Unfortunately, many people DO confuse the two.

The first repentance exchanges a broken-down death trap of a clunker for a brand new car. The dealer has stamped "IT IS FINISHED" on the papers, sent the clunker to the recyclers, and placed the new owner's name in the Lamb's Book of Car Registrations. That new car irrevocably belongs to the new owner.

The second repentance leads to cleaning up the car, driving on better roads in accordance with the Car Ownership Bible, repairing any damage and wear, and learning to use it for profitable purposes. The owner may dent the car, soil it, and fail to maintain it until it's no earthly good. A judge may tell the owner to take it off the road. But the car will always belong to the owner.

Confusing Grace and Repentance

Many people confuse the two. When the car gets dirty, they foolishly keep returning to the dealership to ask for the car again. As the author implies, however, they would be wise to return to the Dealer as many times as needed to maintain and learn more about their car.

Just as one extreme insults the blood of Christ by excusing sin that has been washed away, the other insults the blood by ignoring its sufficiency and attempting to re-apply it, even though "there remains no more offering for sin."

Contrasting the Dangers of the Two Hypers

If we wish to compare the dangers of the two, hyper repentance poses the greater danger. Lost people who have learned hyper repentance add self-reliance on repentance to reliance on Christ. Paul explicitly explains that grace and works mutually exclude each other. The Giver does not give gifts to those who ask for wages.

Therefore, both hypers present practical dangers to the saved, but hyper repentance adds an everlasting danger to the lost.

The irony lies not in the Ravenhill's attempt to correct hyper grace (for which I am grateful), but in that he does so from within the territory of hyper repentance.