God does not accept everyone who wants to go to heaven. If he did, everyone would go to heaven. Every person I have ever met likes the thought of heaven. Every person would love to ‘do what you want’ and be eternally ‘happy.’ Obviously they have a very wrong view of heaven, but that is another post at another time.
“If everyone just believes something in their heart God will accept them.” I almost collapsed, but I had to hold it together. A lady that I used to work with said this to me right after she told me how much she was encouraged from Joel Osteen’s books. We discussed further and after we talked my mind wouldn’t stop. It is impossible to deny that people can only go to heaven by the person and work of Jesus and be a Christian. That might seem like a strong statement, but to say someone can go to heaven and not believe in Jesus shows that there is no understanding of the gospel.
I see the sad state that the American Church is in when ‘Christians’ are swayed by self-help Oprah and other spiritualities. But doesn’t it sound so nice… ‘God accepts everyone, just the way they are.’ I have often heard the objection that Christianity is too easy and convenient. I think it is most certainly the other way around. In Christianity it took a Person of glory to humiliate himself by becoming man, be scorned, hated, beaten, cursed, mocked, and hung on a tree. In other so-called spiritualities it takes ‘believe something in your heart.’ Lets answer the question:
Does God accept everyone? Can God accept everyone? Will God accept everyone?
No. If you were hoping for a different answer I am sorry. God will never look at you, smile, and say welcome to heaven, ever. He will not accept Mother Teresa, me, or my sweet old grandmother.
God only accepts one person, Jesus. Only on the merit of Jesus does God accept anyone and he isn’t really accepting us, but rather his Son on our behalf. It is sad to me that every believer does not grasp this concept for it is the foundation of the gospel. God does not, will not, and cannot accept us. It is against his holy love, his righteousness. God can and does accept Jesus. He accepts Jesus and all those who have been united with him. It is not enough to ‘believe something in your heart.’ You have to believe in Jesus. Your faith has to be in spirit and in truth, only in that way are we true worshippers of God. The book of Hebrews exhaustively makes this clear. No matter how nice, kind, or innocent a person seems God will not accept them on there own merit.
The exclusivity of Christ is not only important for Christians to affirm. The exclusivity of Christ is the reason for missions. It is because we know that God does not, cannot, and will not accept any person except Jesus. It is our mission to reconcile the world to Him.
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but for heavens sake. Theology such as Joel Osteen’s and those who don’t go deeper in theology than Joel are often sadly mistaken. I took no pleasure in hearing my co-worker say what she did. I take great pleasure in people understanding that Jesus is the only person God will accept and for this reason we worship Him in spirit and in truth. Jesus is the perfect mediator. He is the only sufficient, acceptable sacrifice that God will ever accept. It is by his wounds that we are healed.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
People are so sensitive in this area too. For many O’Steen is the only “spiritual” thing that’s ever clicked for them. They’re proud to have a “Christian” book to read, and they feel like they’re growing in the faith because they’ve been doing a little extra reading up on it. It’s so sad. Gentle, but truthful, is the best approach. I’ve had people tell me of their affinity for O’Steen only to be dissappointed when I did not share the same appreciation. Some have taken my correction well. Others, however, unfortunately have not.
Matt, I might nuance the “accept” language a little by saying God does love everyone, which is why God did send Jesus, his only Son to live, die and rise, again. I understand what you’re saying, which takes substitutionary atonement into account, but if I were trying to offer a reply to the lady you mentioned, I might start with love, and then move to our need for forgiveness, etc. I realize that you aren’t trying to present this post as a reply to her, but if you were to ask me how I would reply to her, that’s my take. I would welcome her interest in spiritual matters, and find out what draws her to Joel Osteen’s approach. Then, I would seek to find some bridge from her new-found enthusiasm for spiritual things to the gospel story. Just kind of following up on what Deek said about gentle and truthful. That has merit. Thanks.
Chuck Warnocks last blog post..What If Clergy Were Supported, Not Paid?
There is a great gap between these two, but let me try to fill it in a bit. Most people don’t believe Jesus is the perfect mediator, nor that his active obedience and righteousness are the only acceptable sacrifice. I think this is especially true of those who comprise the majority of the SBC.
This Saturday on the “Religion” page of our local news paper was an article by a retired SBC pastor from First Baptist here in Cheyenne. He said that all that one needed to do was believe in Jesus and the gift of faith would be given to him. This we might recognize as grace by merit. Or, more to the point Romanism, not Protestantism.
What he was commenting on was the lamentable fact that so few (some studies >1%) of those who sign follow-up cards at Billy Graham crusades are active members of churches. Also, the fact that most in the pews are just like the non-committed.
And I would add to that: almost 60% of SBC baptisms are rededications, and the fact that the SBC has lost over 50% of its baptized members since the great commission push of the ’50’s, and currently two-thirds are missing of the other half and only ten percent of those can barely be called active disciples…
… the gap begins to fill with a lot of bodies.
What the SBC retired pastor was saying is what Osteen was saying. Osteen undoubtedly learned well from his father a former SBC’er. It is slightly different, but only in the window dressing. Where Osteen’s universalism is easily recognizable heresy, as is shared by the SBC giant Billy Graham, the implicit faith of “believing in Jesus” so that one can be given the gift of faith is no different. In both, the means of salvation resides in what one believes, and consequently in the “believer” and not in Christ.
I contend this: Osteen is the end product of the implicit faith of the SBC mainstream, a kind of positive confessionalism; believe this do this and you’re in God’s grace. He was infected by his father and his father by the teachings central to the SBC Arminian mainstream. Billy Graham held exactly the same “believism” message and held precisely to Osteen’s ecumenism. Just as the retired SBC pastor here. And this goes to explain why Osteen is so wildly popular in SBC circles.
I know people who have been Christians for a half century who don’t find Osteen remarkably different than the rest of the SBC’s teachers. So, filling the gap is not hard. Osteen is the SBC’s heart, and that heart is a heart of works righteousness, of believism and not that of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.
As the local SBC pastor stated, what is necessary to effect the sacrifice of Christ, is your belief. Unfortunately, just believing in Jesus results in what the devils do also and tremble. The retiree was saying that committment, that is, really really really really really really believing really really really really really hard will please God. So what is the difference between the semi-Pelagianism of believism and the semi-Pelagianism of Osteen? It is after all the Pelagian in him that says his works can merit God’s favor. That, however, is the central message of the “non-Calvinists” in the SBC.
We can focus on Osteen, but he is the symptom, and not the disease.
Thomas Twitchells last blog post..Obama: Killer Of Black Children, Killer of Women
Thomas,
Your post was quite insightful; more troubling, though, is that you may be right. I have been pastor of an SBC church for a little over five years now and I have encountered the heresy of “easy believism.” Call it “Osteenism” or “ask-Jesus-into-your-heart-ism,” the decline of biblical salvation being thundered from our pulpits is evident. I have detected slight entrées of universalism into the church and do all I can to offer a biblical corrective, the success of which I cannot currently assess. Though the post-baptism skid in the SBC cannot be attributed to one thing over another, I think that an overall biblical ignorance and its progeny of lifestyle of those in the pew and the pulpit have plagued the convention and the church in general.
Jason Gardners last blog post..Another book giveaway
One thing that I want to be careful of Jason, is that neither I nor anyone else does know the hearts of others, and truly none of us can rightly judge another man’s servant.
I’ve known many who spent decades in the SBC who only in the past few years have become aware of the shallowness their understanding. They were my deacons (my elders) who I respected for their spirituality and faithfulness. And they have been some of the most committed. But even they were not as knowledgeable as they should have been. Social organizations will have this phenomenon of many members but they operate upon that small margin of involvement and committment and often support by those who have very little knowledge of the true object of affection of those organizations. The small percentage of “active disciples” can often provide the properous comfort margin necessary to satisfy the local leadership. That then tends to establish a threshold of necessary levels of discipleship, which are generally low. By all appearances the local assembly is healthy, stable, and perhaps even growing.
As a seminarian, Jason, you have a developed academic scholarship. It is this which I think we fail at the local level to inculcate in converts. We tend to separate the higher academic calling from the local church and concentrate and sequester it in formal education enterprize. But if the excellence of knowledge rather than its avoidance were to be emphsized, the sheep would be more well equipped to handle the likes of Osteen. Complacency is not an option and Hebrews poses the curious question after chiding the readers about their failure to mature. “Are you ready to progress?” Well, if God permits. Yet he commands us to follow and in the Great Commission, to teach, learn and keep all that he has taught. That high calling, all that he has taught, we like to speak of in glowing terms but rarely do we see it the central mission of the church.
Thomas Twitchells last blog post..Obama: Killer Of Black Children, Killer of Women
A thought. In light of this post and Thomas’ words, why are we so afraid of using biblical language? We believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. So let’s call people to what we believe is biblical teaching.
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Bodies The Exhibition Visit
Matt, Let’s clarify:
“If everyone just believes something in their heart God will accept them.” This was said by your friend, NOT Joel Osteen. You’re projecting what was said by your friend as an emphatic belief of Osteen.
Thomas,
” But if the excellence of knowledge rather than its avoidance were to be emphsized, the sheep would be more well equipped to handle the likes of Osteen. ”
I offer a hearty “Amen!” to your thoughts here. I am convinced that a believer’s lack of zeal for the things of God begins and ends with a lack of love for his word. So many people in the church can rattle off a slew of verses one after another, but I find that many of them have little or no idea what those verses mean. Perhaps we are guilty of measuring our spirituality and maturity in Christ with how many verses of the Bible we know. Like sleeping on the lawn to admire the beautiful house it adorns.
Jason Gardners last blog post..Pastoral Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:1-5
Maria, surely you don’t think that Osteen is not complicitous in spreading a universalistic message, do you?
NOT Joel Osteen
Hey Mark, if we use words and define them we kind of wedge the donkey in a tight place
Thomas Twitchells last blog post..Obama: Killer Of Black Children, Killer of Women
The Bible does say, Roms.9:13, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Yrs. ago, after I had read Dr, Eusden’s Intro. to his translation of William Ames’ Marrow of Divinity, and had reflected on the issue of predestination as an invitation, it hit me. God hated Esau, but how did God treat Esau? Esau could have said, “With an enemy like God, who needs any friends?” As Dr. John Gill said, God treats the wicked so well that no one in his right mind would condemn God for sending them to Hell. The real issue is how do they respond to the good which they receive. And if God calls them a dog or says I hate all workers of iniquity, how do they respond to His negative message? The really hard part of Roms.9:13 i to explain how could God love Jacob. After all, when you look at Esau and how he profaned the good God did for him, trampled it under foot, well….None of this is as simple as it seems. When I was converted, a weight that I did not even know I had was lifted off of my heart. Was that the wrath of God that abides on the one who is not believing (Jn.3:36)? The wonder of it all is that God should love any of us. The Bible teachings are weird. Consider how David said, “Forgive my iniquity, for it is great.” Who ever heard of arguing your one reason for God to forgive is that your sin is great? How would you like to be called depraved, reprobate and unclean? The woman of Canaan was. Jesus, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs.” The woman agreed to what He said about her. She was willing to look on herself as unclean, depraved, polluted, helpless to do anything other than be a dog, and yet she said, “True, Lord, but even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”(Mt.15:21-28).I think Jesus was mentoring his teachings in that remarkable passage as an example of how to use particular redemption (Not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel) and total depravity, reprobation, pollution, (children’s bread cast to dogs). O yes, unconditional election, predestination, and limited atonement/particular redemption were set forth. Her response was worship. He did the same thing with His fellow Nazarites (Lk.4:18-30), but He never got past election, particular redemption, and predestination. They did not let him get to the depravity and reprobation part as they started displaying those truths by their action. All He had said was, Elijah was not sent to any widow in Israel, but to a widow of Sarepta a city of Sidon (same area as the woman in Mt.15). And Elisha did not heal any leper in Israel, but he did heal Naaman the Syrian. Here we have the same truths presented to gentiles and jews. Evidently the truths received as truth and accepted are really invitations to be saved, to take God on His terms. The woman did and was saved. The Jews of Nazarite did not. Any comments. O yes, do we appeal to God’s sovereignty for acceptance. Did not the leper say, “Lord, if you will (if you please), you can heal me.” Paradoxical interventions have a way of bringing reality home to us, and in a way they really bring control back into our lives that our lived like the wild asses mentioned in the Bible. Can such teachings be the explanation for the humility that the woman displayed along with our forebearers who had accepted such views? Today, we find little real humility. Could it be because few really know and accepted the teachings of Sovereign Grace, like predestination, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, and reprobation?
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation
Dr. Willingham,
Good assessment. Though I would not consider myself a five-pointer, I certainly affirm TUP, the L and I with certain caveats. That aside, I think you’re right on in drawing the connection between the doctrines of grace and humility. If there is one thing that my understanding of election/predestination has borne out, it’s humility before an almighty Father. The wonder of grace is not just that some go to heaven, but that all are not separated from God for eternity.
Jason Gardners last blog post..Digital or print?
Thank you Jason for your kind response. What everyone, practically speaking, fails to realize is that the TULIP doctrines are the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions (as Dr. Latuorette sp? , called it). If we are to have another awakening, which is what I pray try to pray for every day and even more than once a day. then we need to have some insight into the theology, the message of God, in such event. These truths must be handled for what they are, mysteries, inexplicable in a sense, attended with wonder in any case. My researches suggest to me that prayer, knowledge of the presence, theology, and the attendant humility in such a visitation will, likely, lead to another Awakening. The works of Jonathan Edwards among others will provide some help in the process. On June 6, d.v., I hope to preach the ordination sermon fora gentlement at a small church in the Sandy Creek Assn. I ask for prayer as I hope to make it a major statement on the theology, etc. It will be a reply to the present situation as well. Again, I say, deo volente, God willing. My strength is small, indeed. Thankfully, I had done most of the research on the texts before I ever knew or was invited to preach the ordination and before the heart attack. Also this Sun (5/31), d.v., I will preach our son’s 10th anniversary service by invitation of his church where he has been serving since 99. He was 11 yrs old, when Gum Springs had a 10th anniversary service for us in our service there. And now I have lived to see and be part of his 10th yr. of service. I feel humbled into the dust by such privilege.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation
Matt,
Great title and solid post. Thanks again for all you’re doing here on SBC voices.
Tony Kummers last blog post..Welcome New Writers!
Matt,
Great to see that you aren’t just giving us the whole “Jesus loves/accepts everybody” cliche, and that you are trying to balance out the love of God with the justice of God.
You said God 1) only accepts Jesus, and that 2) God also accepts people who are united to Jesus. But if 2 is true, 1 cannot be true. If God doesn’t only accept Jesus, but also people who have the kind of faith in Christ that demonstrates itself with good deeds, God accepts many people, not just one. I think you would agree, but propositions 1 and 2 are contradictory.
You said: 3) God only accepts people on the basis of Christ’s merit, and that 4) God will not accept people on their own merit. But … why do you not consider Christ’s merit as actually belonging to those with the kind of faith that works through love? As Christians, is Christ’s merit not “our own”? If it’s not, we are in big trouble, aren’t we?
Also … what do you meant by “merit”?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
By merit I mean the work he accomplished in his life and on the cross.. i.e. Being the perfect sacrifice.
I think the rest of your comment could come down to us arguing over use of wording, while we still agree on the substance. God does only accept the life/person of Jesus and because of that those who are in union with Jesus get the free gift of eternal life. But that ‘acceptance’ is still not them being accepted on there own, but on the behalf os Jesus. It is an important distinction. The last thing we want is what we have: a lot of people that think God will accept them because they are ‘good people.’
Matt,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I understand that you desire to make the point that apart from Christ, we are not accepted before God. Also, it seems we may agree in substance while disagreeing over wording.
At any rate, it still seems that grounds for being accepted by God (i.e. Christ’s perfect sacrifice) and quantity of persons being accepted by God (all who repent and believe) is easily confused by your language. I’m curious (this really isn’t a challenge, I’m just curious): Does the Bible ever say it the way your saying it? I know the Bible repeatedly assures believers of their acceptance before God, but I’m not immediately aware of any passage that says Jesus is the only one accepted or that nobody but Jesus is accepted before God.
Maybe you can point some biblical passage out to me that speak this way? I would then be more open to your language (even if it did confuse grounds and quantity).
Also … what do you mean by “merit” in the following phrase: “God will not accept them on their own merit”?
Of course, I know when you use the word “merit” about the “merit of Christ” that you mean his perfect sacrifice, but I’m not sure what you mean by it when you use it of persons other than Christ.
Thanks for your clarifications.
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Bradley,
I would say the entire book of Hebrews uses the language that only by faith in Christs sacrifice can we be accepted with God. Therefore, if it were not for the sacrifice of Christ no man would be accepted by God on his own merit.
***merit meaning all that a person has accomplished on his own accord.
Yes, bad definition and possibly bad use of the word merit.
Matt,
Thanks Matt. Hebrews teaches exactly that. But … maybe I was unclear in my question.
I’m very aware that Hebrews and the New Testament in general teach that we are not accepted by God on the basis of anything done on our own accord apart from God’s grace (specifically the sacrifice of Christ). But what I was hoping you could provide was a passage that teaches that Christ is the ONLY ONE accepted, not the only grounds by which sinners are accpted.
In other words, because of the preferred language you use in your post, I’m looking not just for passages that say we are accepted only through Christ, but that only Christ is accepted. The former is compatible with scripture, the latter does not appear to me to be compatible with scripture (although you may be able to show me a passage that speaks this way).
Demonstrating that the Bible teaches that the exclusive grounds of our acceptance is Christ vs. demonstrating that the Bible teaches that Christ is himself the ONLY ONE accepted are two different things. I was hoping, given the preferred language of your post, that you would know of a passage that would allow you to demonstrate the latter.
Do you know of any?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak
Oh, also … based on YOUR definition of merit, St. Augustine and the Roman Catholics don’t believe it’s possible to be saved by one’s own merit in any way shape or form. Happy thought huh?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak