Salvation Cops

     I recently had a very interesting conversation with my friend Karen.  She and I have a lot of in-depth conversations about very interesting topics.  This particular subject involved the church God has led her and her family to attend.

      Karen and I have been friends for almost twenty years.  We're originally from the same area in California.  We have much in common, including our church backgrounds.  Both of us grew up in churches (and continued into adulthood attending such churches) that taught that believers are eternally secure in Christ, unable to lose their salvation.  We both still believe this.

     In recent years, both Karen and I have moved around a bit.  In my case, my husband and I spent two years in South Dakota, one year in New Mexico, and have settled (hopefully permanently) in Texas.  Our moves were a result of my husband's pursuit of his graduate studies, and he now has a job in his field.  In Karen's case, the moves involved her husband's work.  They are more or less permanently settled in Missouri now.  We haven't seen each other in the flesh in years, but we write letters and send emails quite a bit.  One subject we discuss a lot is churches.  One aspect of moving is finding the church God wants us at, where we can fellowship, be fed spiritually, and serve.  The church Karen and her husband have recently joined in Missouri is part of the Nazarene denomination, as have been the churches in the last few states they've lived in.  The Nazarene church is a Christian denomination which believes it is possible for a believer to become an apostate (or, backslide so greatly that they cease to be a Christian).  While Karen doesn't believe this, it hasn't been a problem at all in the churches they have been led to.  She has gotten clear, biblical teaching.  Their family is being blessed by it.  She said that, while she is aware of their position on this theological issue, they don't harp on it.  They simply teach the Word, which is exactly what a good church should do.

     Through the course of our conversation, she brought up something I thought was very insightful.  She said that, in her experience, churches that believe we are eternally secure put much greater emphasis on "making sure" your'e really saved than the churches that believe you can lose it.  You'd think it would be the other way around, but it isn't.  As a lifelong Baptist, I can attest to that.  I have sat through so many alter calls (especially at summer camp) where the preacher would first give an invitation to be saved, followed by an upped ante.  One year at camp, the preacher tried to cast doubt on our salvation: "If you remember receiving Christ, but can't remember the exact date, come forward today and settle that with the Lord."  When only a few responded to this, he took it a step further, "If you remember a time and date that you received Christ, but you aren't 100% sure you really, truly meant it, come forward now, and mean it!"  I think this was overkill.  I'm am 100% in favor of sharing the gospel clearly and giving people the opportunity to receive Christ.  I'm also in favor of people making assurance of their salvation (that's biblical: Second Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure...) What I am not in favor of is intentionally casting doubt.  It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict us, and to give us assurance of our salvation.  Humans are called to speak the truth, but we can't make anyone have conviction or assurance.

     In truth, churches that differ on the issue of eternal security have more in common than they realize.  The issue of losing our salvation only really seems to come up in discussions involving carnal people who claim to be Christians.  The "once-saved, always saved" side (which I am on) would say, "Oh, they were never saved to begin with."  The side that claims you can lose your salvation says, "They must have lost their salvation."  Both sides are really saying the same thing.  They're asserting that this person in question is not a Christian.  Whether they lost it or never had it, everyone agrees this person isn't really saved.  They've all become the salvation cops.  That's what I want to address.

     How are we to know someone else's heart?  We are right to be concerned if someone claims Christ, but their life doesn't follow that claim.  If someone says, "I'm a Christian," but they also claim to believe Buddha and Mohammed are also equal to Christ, we can claim from the Word of God that this person isn't a Christian, because John 14:6 says, I [Jesus] am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, except through me.  The same is true for anyone who claims to be a Christian but then says something theologically in opposition to what the Bible teaches about salvation. We can take the Bible's authority and consider this person an unbeliever.  Salvation isn't about works (Ephesians 2:8-9).  It's what you do with Jesus Christ.  That is why we have biblical authority to consider someone an unbeliever if they claim something false about Jesus.  However, if someone claiming to be a Christian is in sin, we shouldn't be so quick to decide they aren't saved (whether we would be apt to believe they never were, or that they lost it).  Christians still sin.  We all do.  We're not the salvation cops.  If Christians didn't still sin, Jesus would never have said what He did in Matthew 18:15-20.  In this passage, He gives instructions for dealing with believers in sin.  According to this passage, we are to confront privately when a brother or sister falls into sin.  If the person won't hear us, we are to bring along a couple of others and try again.  If they won't listen, then it goes before the church, and if they still aren't repentant, they are to be treated as an unbeliever.  It doesn't mean they are an unbeliever.  It means they are no longer in fellowship.  At any time, they can repent, and be welcomed back.  In all my years as a Christian, I have never, ever seen this process applied to the fullest extent, and very seldom seen it done according to Jesus' instruction anyway.  I have seen leaders being too passive and allowing sin to continue, misusing grace...OR, I have seen leaders being very quick to confront, to the point that they just skipped all the steps and kicked people out without any warning, often when they weren't even in sin, but just didn't fit into the leader's plans.  One time, in a church I was a part of, I know that the pastor confronted someone in sin.  This person was unrepentant, but knew the Matthew 18 passage that was being applied, and just decided to leave after the initial confrontation.  This was the only instance I know of where it was even started in the biblical way.  My husband has shared that at the Bible college he attended, they would use this biblical process, but not for biblical reasons.  They confronted anyone and everyone for "stumbling" others.  In one case, it was a girl whose offence was showing up in morning classes with wet hair.  The "stumbling" was because people knew it was wet from taking a shower, and that made a particular guy mentally visualize her naked in the shower.  I am all for modesty, but this was quite a stretch. Showing up with wet hair, while unprofessional, is not a sin, and not even sexually immodest.  In this case, I believe the guy who claimed to be "stumbled" was the one in the wrong.  He was choosing lust, and using his supposed "stumbling" to control someone else.

     Matthew 7:16 says you shall know them by their fruit.  If someone's life really isn't bearing fruitful evidence of their salvation, it does make us wonder.  The great reformer John Calvin said, "It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone."  This means that a godly lifestyle is a result of salvation (not the other way around).  This echoes what the apostle James said in James 2:26, ...faith without works is dead.  True, saving faith will produce godliness in believers.  It's okay to be a fruit inspector.  It isn't okay to decide flat-out that the person isn't a Christian.  We can't see what's going on inside their heart.  Maybe the presence of the Holy Spirit in them is what's keeping them from being much worse than they are.  When we start putting qualifiers on people's salvation that are based on their behavior or performance instead of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, we are making Christianity into a works-based religion. 

     As we have seen, there are biblical ways for handling a professing Christian who is not living a Christian lifestyle.  Talking about them and doubting their salvation isn't one of them.  Casting spiritual doubt on them isn't one of them.  I have doubted certain people's salvation before, but the longer I walk with the Lord, the more I think that isn't right of me.  I can acknowledge that their sin is hurtful to me, but if they are professing Jesus as their Savior, all I can do is pray for them.  First Corinthians 12:3 says, Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.  That's where the rubber meets the road.  It doesn't say an believer won't sin.  It's about what we do with Jesus Christ.  It is by grace through faith, not works.  Believing He is Lord is what determines if we're saved or not.  It's all about Jesus!