Historic popular Christianity significantly deviated
from the gospel from about the 2nd or 3rd Century onward, fulfilling
Paul's words,
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock." Acts 20:29 and
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump." Gal 5:9 And
while there are many areas of theology one could consider, I'm jus
critiquing the denominational history of Soteriology. That is, the
theology of doctrines concerning salvation. The first major deviation is
Catholicism.
The Origin of the Catholicism
The Sect of the Circumcision
The
most serious deviation from a Scripture view of salvation is found in
those who make salvation contingent upon one's performance. While today
this soteriology can be found in various sects of Christianity, I
believe it's origin to be from a deviant sect found in the church a
Jerusalem spoken of in the New Testament where,
Some
men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers:
"Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses,
you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 Turns out these men came
from the church at Jerusalem, where resided the Eleven apostles and
James who end up writing to the Gentiles concerning those men,
"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said." Acts 15:24This
was in response to Paul going down to that church to make them aware of
the situation whereby their people were preaching this to the Gentile
Christians. There he met privately with those who seemed to be leaders
to present his gospel to see if they were on board with him.
"I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders" Gal 2:2b Acts records that
some
of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up
and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law
of Moses." Acts 15:5 Apparently these were the category
of men that had taken upon themselves to preach such an idea to the
Gentiles. They were not only members of that church but also on the
leadership team. And while Luke, speaking in a generic sense, calls them
"believers", Paul says what they really were.
"This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4
Celebrity Status doesn't matter
So
the church at Jerusalem had been infiltrated by false brothers who wen
around preaching a false salvation by works gospel, right under the
noses of Peter, James and John. How could Christians of such caliber
have been so negligent? If you read through Acts the way I do you'll
find it's not the first time, and it's not the last time. No one should
be above scrutiny, not even the apostles, not even James. Paul comments,
"As for those who seemed to be important—
whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by
external appearance" Gal 2:6 Why does Paul make this
comment but to tell us that one's office, one's popularity should no
deter us from scrutinizing even the most religiously elite among the
Christian community, including the apostles, and James. If it made no
difference to Paul, it should make no difference to the rest of us.
The Neo-Circumcision
The
sect of false brothers in the church of Jerusalem Paul often refers to
as "the circumcision", though on occasion he'll use that term to
generically refer to Jews as a separate connotation of the term. These
false brothers still exist, though only in small numbers, particularly
among the Jewish Christian sects. However from the events of Acts 15
arose sects which derive their soteriology from the "Circumcision",
which I call the "Neo (meaning "new")- Circumcision". And while the
Neo-Circumcision sects such as Catholicism generally don't advocate the
ceremony of circumcision, it can be said that their soteriology is
rooted in the viewpoint of the sect of the Circumcision.
The Circumcision:
You must go through a religious ritual and follow laws to be saved.
The Neo-Circumcision:
You must go through a religious ritual and follow laws to be saved.
Same thing. Many of the Salvation by Works Christians sects attempt to mislead
people into thinking they don't believe in salvation by works. In many
cases, like with Catholicism, they'll parse between two types of
salvation. The first being "initial salvation" or they may refer to i
as "justification" which they say is by faith alone apart from works,
but for them that is just the start of the process of salvation
culminating in "Final salvation" which involves works. They don'
believe that if a person is initially "saved" by faith he will finally
be saved. Salvation is not actually salvation if the person ends up in
hell. So if salvation is not finalized upon coming to faith in Christ,
it's not salvation.
But concerning Final Salvation, take Catholicism. According to the Catholic Catechism it says under the topic
"Final Salvation"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm#2068
The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are
obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to
keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors
of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching
all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all
men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.
In fact what the Catholics refer to as "Commandments" go beyond the 10
Commandments as they add a plethora of commandments like if you wear a
condom you're guilty of a mortal sin. Can't find that in the 10
Commandments. Likewise other Neo-Circumcision non-Catholic sects, like
the holiness Pentecostals will have their own plethora of commands they
have to comply with in order to be saved. It's a different gospel. Yes,
they'll claim it's scriptural. But they'll misread scripture to get a
it.
The Acts 15 Decree
Here's
what happened in Acts 15 as I see it, which resulted in serious
misconceptions and the rise of Catholicism and other Neo-Circumcision
sects over the last two millenia. Paul presented his gospel to the
leadership at the church of Jerusalem. Peter completely agreed with
Paul. But James picked up on something Peter said. Namely speaking to
the Circumcision on the leadership team there Peter said,
"Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a
yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10 Peter
was referring to their making salvation out to be conditioned upon
one's compliance to the Law of Moses. Paul writes extensively on tha
point in Galatians such as
"All who rely on
observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is
everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of
the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law." Gal 3:10,11Wha
James does is try to find a compromise. He literally compromised the
gospel. He took Peter's comment of the Law being too hard to keep, and
what he did was that instead of rejecting the Law altogether as a means
to salvation as Peter and Paul did, he simply cherry picked a few
commands from the law and made the Gentile's salvation conditioned upon
their compliance to those regulations. James says,
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to
them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Acts 15:19-20Consider
how arrogant that statement is. Who does James think he is that he
could tinker with the gospel in this fashion. Indeed one wonders whether
a number of Paul's statements in Galatians were directed at James. Such
as
"even if we or an angel from heaven should
preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be
eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And Paul's emphasis concerning the origin of his gospel,
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is no
something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I
taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11,12
That in contrast to James' fabricated gospel. For soon thereafter in
Galatians Paul references the events of Acts 15. Nor does Paul speak of
this decree in any of his epistles, not even in Galatians, but rather in
fact often writes contrary to them. James imposes dietary restrictions
on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. Paul writes contrary to
James' decree, for example,
"Eat anything sold in
the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, The earth
is the Lord’s, and everything in it." 1Cor 10:25,26 And
the context indicates that even included meats sacrificed to idols if i
didn't bother one's conscience or that of another.
Catholic Councils and Canon Law
Catholicism
took hold on James' example in Acts 15 as endorsing the idea that you
could convene councils which could tinker with the gospel and make
salvation contingent upon man made Catholic Canon Law. James is the
father of Catholicism.
Negligence and Hypocrisy in the church at JerusalemHow
was it that the leadership team at the church of Jerusalem included
those of this heretical sect of the Circumcision? And that in light of
the fact that Peter sided with Paul with regards to the gospel. Peter
was not as respected in the church there as some make him out to be.
Notice James' statement previously
"It is my judgment".
James had such a dominant role in that church that others, even the
apostles were mere rubber stampers in comparison. Perhaps Peter had a
misconception of humility being a trait in which you allow others to
walk all over you.
Furthermore consider in Acts 11 when he
returned preaching to the Gentile Cornelius, and that even reluctantly.
This is how he was welcomed in his own church,
the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them." Acts 11:3,4
Note the prejudice. Obviously if even an apostle has to come up with an
excuse to preach to the Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not welcomed
in that church. This despite the fact that James himself hypocritically
writes,
"My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality." James 2:1 Paul writes,
"there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" Rom 10:12 and
he preaches the same gospel to both. But in the church of Jerusalem
there was reckoned a difference between Jew and Gentile. James even made
a distinction between the two in his tinkering with the gospel. And
then Peter abandons his responsibility to the Gentile Christians,
abandoning the Great Commission given him, abandoning the fact that he
himself admitted that Christ had called him to preach to the Gentiles,
and decided to make his ministry exclusively to the Jews, along with
John and James.
"James, Peter and John, those
reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship
when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should
go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Though
while they (James, Peter and John) agreed to this, Paul apparently
didn't agree. For he continued to minister to both Jew and Gentile
alike and never even mentioned the decree in any of his epistles even though in Galatians he spoke of the meeting.
Peter Rebuked for Fear and Hypocrisy
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal 2:11,12Likely
what happened here is that James wanted to make sure that the
regulations he had imposed on the Gentile Christians were being
observed. Interesting to note, first of all, who did James send? He sen
the very category of people who had been preaching a false gospel to
begin with - the group of the circumcision. Likely the same false
pharisaical brothers among the leadership in Jerusalem who had insisted,
"The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Acts 15:5
(Kind of an - in your face Paul - moment) Paul noticed that Peter was
apparently afraid of these guys. Doesn't say why he was afraid, but i
appears that through James' influence and his circumcision cronies, and
Peter's fear and insecurity lead to the rise of Catholicism. If Paul had
taken a more direct approach from the start in dealing with that sect,
rebuking James directly for what he explicitly said in tinkering with
the gospel, as he had publicly rebuked Peter for what Peter only implied
by his actions, Catholicism and the rise of other Neo-Circumcision
sects, may have been rooted out from the start. Nonetheless in his
battle against the Circumcision Paul has left us with ammunition in his
epistles against such sects.
Scrutinizing JamesI
pointed out some of the conflicts between James and Paul from Galatians
and the events of Acts 15. Likewise there are conflicts between the
epistle of James and that of Paul's epistles, particular Romans chapter 4
and James chapter 2. While Catholics inserted James into the Bible, I
say,
"As for those who seemed to be important— whatever
they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external
appearance" And that includes James. Even Paul expected himself to be scrutinized.
"Even
if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one
we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal 1:8 And he commended those who scrutinized him.
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11 When subjecting James to such scrutiny I find he falls short and as such, to me, is not scripture.
I'll
go into the apparent contradictions between the epistles of Paul and
James, but to note, I have studied intensively the various view points,
debated them online regarding views that allegedly resolve apparen
contradictions between the two and found all such alleged resolutions to
be wrong. Basically the Neo-Circumcision Christians try to read Paul in
light of James, reading their salvation by works ideas into Paul's
epistles, while many non-Neo Circumcision Christians tend to read Paul
into James, viewing James' reference to justification by works merely
referring to works being an indicator rather than a cause of one's
salvation.
A few of
us, including myself and Martin Luther view Paul and James as in fac
contradicting one another, Paul advocating justification by faith apar
from works, and James advocating works along with faith being necessary
pre-conditions for salvation. Among the objections Martin Luther notes
in his introduction to the epistle of James
"I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons
follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the
rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works".
Not that Luther speaks for me, but just to point out that the
forefather of the Protestant Reformation holds the same opinion as I do
in this matter. So I'm not alone in this opinion. I do not regard the
Catholic epistle of James as scripture. And in all my debates with
Catholics they'll always run to James to support their justification by
works idea.
James vs Paul
Perhaps the most obviously contradictory passages are the following:Paul in Romans 4:2-6
"if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (Gen 15:6) Now
to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. Bu
to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes
the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from
works"
James 2:14,20-24
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
... You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is
useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he
did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith
and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete
by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," (Gen 15:6) and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James
is talking about salvation as he says in James 2:14, and so is Paul.
Both quote Gen 15:6, which I show in bold, demonstrating that they are
talking about the same kind of justification. But they had different and
incompatible interpretations of that verse, along with the obvious
contradictions between the rest of the two passages. Paul utilized Gen
15:6 to support his contention that justification is by faith apart from
works. For Abraham was given a promise in Gen 15:5 and then before
taking any action on the promise he was right then justified - and tha
in the same sense that believers are today under the gospel, apart from
issues of works or performance.
While James views Gen 15:6 as not being
fulfilled right then, but rather was a prophecy which was not fulfilled
until over a decade later when Abraham did a work of faith associated
with the promise. Thus James believes you must have faith to be saved,
but you're not saved until you do works of faith. Thus in James saying
"faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:17
he is indicating that Abraham's faith was dead until Gen 22 when he
offered Isaac and the promise of Gen 15:6 was fulfilled. Now if James is
right, Paul is wrong. The two interpretations are inherently
contradictory and irreconcilable. One of these two is wrong and must be
disregarded. My conclusions is James is wrong. If he were standing in
front of me
"I would opposed him to his face, because he is clearly in the wrong." James
doesn't know what he's talking about. And what he is makes no
difference to me, God shows personal favoritism to no man. (Gal 2:6)
Disarming the Neo-CircumcisionDiscarding
James from the arsenal of Catholic Soteriology reduces their defense to
pile of rubble - vain postulations of the infallibility of Catholic
forefathers and of Catholicism itself and misinterpretations and
mishandling of the writings of Paul and of the four gospels. But other
than James, one of the most common defense Catholics give to suppor
their salvation by works theology is a misinterpretation of Romans 2:7
which they claim is proof the Paul supports their Neo-Circumcision
claims.
Rom 2:7 "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."This
verse is frequently utilized not only by Catholicism but other
Neo-Circumcision - salvation by works - sects among non-Catholic
Christians. Yes in that verse Paul is talking about salvation by works.
There I said it. But look at the context. From Romans 1:18 to Romans
3:20 Paul is talking about justification by law, including this verse.
But his conclusion is:
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law,
has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This
righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who
believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Rom 3:20-24
No
one is qualified to be justified by Rom 2:7 because no one lives up to
it. No one persists in doing good. All end up sinning. Sure "good
people" will be saved because they are good. But under such a principle,
"There is no one righteous, not even one; there
is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away,
they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, no
even one." Rom 3:10-12And this relates to another passage the Neo-Circumcision often reference. Namely
Luke 18:19 (or Mk 10:18) in which Jesus is approached by a man who says,
"Good
teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" To which Jesus
responds, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—
except God alone." Likewise the Neo-Circumcision think that they
are "good" people. They haven't embraced what Jesus said here that no
one is good. Then Jesus, seeing as this man thinks he's good, challenges
him with the Law. Paul does the same thing in Romans as I pointed out.
The Bible itself is written this way - the presentation of the law
precedes the presentation of grace. Not that salvation is contingen
upon one's compliance to the law as these other sects say, but rather
"through the law we become conscious of sin." Rom 3:20 and
"the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal 3:24 Thus to be justified by faith a person must abandon one's reliance upon the law as a means of justification, which
is what the Neo-Circumcision fails to do. The law is like an X-ray,
it's usage is to diagnose, not to heal, and if fact too much reliance
upon it can damage.
Disarming the enemy is one way to win the battle. "Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it." Col 2:15
The Works of the Law
Typically Catholicism's spin on the verses where Paul speaks abou
salvation by faith apart from works is that they interpret "works" to
only mean certain works - namely ceremonial works under the Law of
Moses, but that living up to works such as not sinning, living up to the
10 commandments, all the moral laws are all conditions for salvation.
But notice what laws Paul references when he speaks of the righteousness
of the law in contrast to the righteousness which is by faith.
Romans 10:4-6 Christ is the fulfillment{or, completion, or end} of the
law
for righteousness to everyone who believes.
For Moses writes about the righteousness of the law,"The one who does them will live by them." (Lev
18:5) But the righteousness which is of faith says this ..."
The righteousness of the law involves doing the very things tha
Catholics insist a person must do to be saved. For if we go back to the
context of
Lev 18:5 which Paul references we find such things as no
committing sexual immorality, be holy, respect your parents, observe the
Sabbath, do not make idols, do not steal, do not lie, do not swear
falsely, do not pervert justice, do not slander, do not seek revenge or
bear a grudge against one of your people, but
love your neighbor as yourself. To name a few.
Thus Paul is saying, in contrast to Catholicism, that making salvation
out to be contingent upon such things as obeying the ten commands and
loving your neighbor as yourself is contrary to the righteousness which
is by faith. Thus Catholicism makes itself out to be as much an enemy of
the gospel as the legalistic Jews were.
Non-Catholic Neo-Circumcision Sects
Along with Catholicism there are non-Catholic Neo-Circumcision
sects. That is sects that believe that salvation is contingent upon your
performance. Typically these can be identified by their rejection of
the doctrine of Eternal Security, individuals like Dan Corner, and the
predominant denominations being Pentecostal and Methodists among others.
Reformed Theology
Reformed theology is composed of Lutheranism and Calvinism.
And though they came along in the 16th Century, their views of election
find their origin in Augustinian theology of the 4th Century.
According to Reformed theology a person is fated to eternal life
prior
to birth, and that not based upon God's foreknowledge of their faith.
That is the "U" (Unconditional Election) in the Calvinist's "T.U.L.I.P"
acronym. As such under Reformed Theology the elect are never in
their
life in danger of going to hell as they are predestined prior to birth
to go to heaven and nothing can change that fate, and logically as such
such people have been saved insomuch as they are guaranteed eternal life
and are eternally secure in their fate. Thus Reformed Theology removes
faith in Christ as a pre-condition for salvation.The apostle answers the
question
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" with
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved"
which logically contradicts "Unconditional Election". Under Reformed
Theology a person cannot do anything to make themselves elect to eternal
life.
Those of a Reformed Theology don't believe in salvation by faith.
They believe in salvation by election.
The difference between Lutherans
and Calvinists on this point is that Calvinists believe only the elec
can come to genuine faith in Christ, while the Lutherans believe tha
anyone can come to genuine faith in Christ, but that the non-elect will
eventually lose their faith.
Consider what John Calvin himself wrote in his Institutes:
Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter 21.
Of the eternal election, by which god has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction. (title is calvin's)
"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation"
"The
predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and
adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious
ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at, especially by
those who make prescience its cause."
Calvinism's Concept of Imputed Guilt
Another
major aspect of Calvinism I object to is the idea of imputed guilt,
much of which they hold in common with Catholics. Imputed guilt is the
idea that God reckons people guilty of crimes they haven't actually
committed. That itself would seem to be a definition of injustice. And
in conversing with Calvinists over the matter they often end up saying
, "God is not just in human terms." To which I respond that they can drop the phrase
"in human terms"
seeing as the Bible was written to humans. If they are preaching to
humans, they should just come out and admit that according to their
theology God is unjust.
First the God of Calvinism is unjust in
reckoning everyone as guilty of Adam's sin, a sin of which they didn'
actually commit seeing as they were not even alive at the time. This is
different than the proposition that we suffer consequences or affects of
Adam's sin as innocent victims of unjustified suffering. Rather
Calvinists propose that God actually reckon people guilty of and no
simply victims of Adam's sin. Secondly they reckoned that God reckoned
Jesus guilty of the sins of the world, sins of which he was innocent,
and poured out His wrath upon him on the cross. This in contrast to the
view that Christ suffered as an innocent victim of unjustified suffering
and on that basis earned the compensation necessary to pay off the sins
of the world (as it's a matter of justice to compensate victims of
unjustified suffering). The latter scenario does not have God pouring
wrath upon Christ, but rather stepping aside for the wicked to do their
thing. Note Peter says,
"This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men" Acts 2:23
Calvinism leads one to conclude that God was one of those "wicked men",
as opposed to taking a passive role in allowing him to suffer.
There are other aspects of Calvinism I object to, but I'll just mention these.
Free Grace Soteriology
Many non-denominational churches, along with groups that follow Darby
like Watchman Nee's Local Church and the Plymouth Brethren are of a Free
Grace Theology. Those
of a Free Grace soteriology would say they trust in Jesus to save them,
not relying at all on their works or performance to qualify them to be
saved. I agree with them on that point. They believe in Eternal Security
as I do. But where they are off is on two related points, first being
viewing one's allegiance to Christ as their commander is optional with
regards to being a condition for salvation, and secondly denying the
power of regeneration.
The first may stem from the second. By
denying the power of regeneration, they view that there is no guarantee
that such a believer will characteristically behave as a child of God
should, or even continue in the faith, seeing as there's nothing tha
locks those things in.
Based on the denial of the power of
regeneration they end up having to misinterpret much of scripture in
order to fit their theology into it, including the Lordship of Christ.
For example what they'll do with Rom 10:9 which indicates tha
confessing Jesus as Lord is a condition for salvation, is they'll say
"Lord" simply refers to his deity, and not to the idea that it's an
expression of one's intention to do what he says. And they take verses
like Gal 5:19-21 which ends
"those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." and
claim that "kingdom of God" is only referring to Jesus 1000 year
millenial reign on earth, during which they introduce varying degrees of
a purgatory concept for those Christians who don't measure up. One Free
Grace sect even suggested that Christians who don't measure up are cas
into hell fire during that 1000 years, but then are saved from tha
afterwards. All these inventions I've critiqued on my theology page, so I
won't go into a thorough analysis here, but simply point out the
distinction for those unfamiliar with this view.
Summary
So to summarize:
While the conditions for salvation are to trust in Christ as Savior and Lord
- The Neo-Circumcision Sects essentially reject Christ as Savior and opt for a salvation by works scenario.
- Those of a Reformed Theology reject all conditions for salvation an opt for salvation by an unconditional pre-birth election
- Those of a Free Grace theology view salvation as contingent upon trusting in Christ as Savior but not as Lord
How about the demographics?
There are about 2.42 billion people in the world claiming to be Christians
Of the Neo-Circumsion sects of significant numbers:
- About 1.3 billion of them are Catholic and about 300 million Orthodox
- About 500 million sects of Pentecostalism
- 80 million Methodists
Of those of a Reformed theology about 190 million
Of those of a Free Grace theology, too few to mention
Now granted that there may be those who believe the gospel, but who ou
of ignorance associate themselves with one of the above heretical
denominations. But then again Jesus said in John 10,
"My
sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me .... But they
will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him
because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice." So I don'
expect they would stay long. And much for the same reason I would expec
those who falsely claim to believe the gospel would, in the long term,
end up actually believing the gospel or "falling away", revealing their
fraud. As John said,
"They went out from us, bu
they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they
would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them
belonged to us." 1John 2:19 And
"No
one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains
in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This
is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the
devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God;
nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1John 3:9,10
But adding up these rough denominational numbers and it appears, based on their soteriology,
90% of the "Christian" community doesn't believe the gospel. The only major denomination we're left with is Baptist, and that along with some non-denominational churches. So indeed
"a little leaven leavens the whole lump" and
"though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved" Rom 9:27 Same holds for the Christian community.
"Wide is the gate and broad is the
road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is
the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find
it." Mt 7:13,14
The Necessity of Bereans"Bereans" are those who dare to scrutinize
ideas in light of scripture and are bold enough to make their opinions
known even if it means persecution and expulsion from the Christian
community.
"We are destroying speculations and
every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are
taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ," 2Cor 10:5 Without Bereans the church would end up like the church a
Jerusalem. But in fact much of that is the case today where almos
universally in my experience institutional churches are anti-Berean. We
are the Jeremiah's of our day thrown into the mud pit by the
institutional authorities. We are the watchmen on the wall of whom few
if any listen. We are despised and forsaken of men. Men of sorrows and
acquainted with grief, like those from whom men hide faces, being
reckoned smitten by God. But we are in good company.
The Church needs more Bereans.