Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

I have great respect for Michael Eaton as a person, and I am aware of the good work he has done in Kenya, and that my own "good works" would fall far, far short of his. But I cannot accept the central thesis laid out by him in his book "A Theology of Encouragement" because it flatly contradicts Jesus’ words in the Bible. I hope the following few pages will make it amply clear why I do so, and I am open to correction if clearly shown from Jesus’ words that I am wrong, in which case I would gladly accept my mistake.

Although this essay looks at Michael Eaton’s book "A Theology of Encouragement," its real target is all Paul-based theology and the "easy-believism" school of thought. And its real objective is to build a theology based on Jesus’ words alone which is both a "non-legalistic soteriology" as well as a "harmonistic hermeneutic" (to use Dr. Eaton’s and J.I.Packer’s words on pages 31 and 34 of the book). If Jesus was the biggest non-legalist there ever was, plus the biggest expert-on-salvation there ever was, then logically, the best "non-legalistic soteriology" should come from Jesus’ own words. Grace and truth are supposed to have come through Jesus, not Paul!

So the real target of this essay is all Paul-based theology and the "easy-believism" school of thought. Dr. Eaton’s book has been picked on, because it was there in front of me conveniently available, and it offered a very good example of Paul-centered theology. But the general principles laid out in here are just as applicable to any other Paul-focused theology.

Before we can build up a Jesus-based theology, ground has to be first cleared of the Paul-based theology that has come to occupy so much of the Christian space today. At this stage, right at the beginning, it would be necessary on my part to clarify my stand on Paul. The details are found in The Paul Problem the conclusion is that I no longer consider Paul’s writings authoritative, as I once did. Now for me, only the words of Jesus are authoritative (the words in red in a red-letter Bible, mostly found in the four gospels and the book of Revelation). On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. On the Day of Judgment, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ, not Paul. Our theology, our primary understanding of what is going to happen on Judgment Day, has to be first based on Jesus’ words, and Jesus’ words alone. If Paul’s (or anyone else’s) theology fits into Jesus’ words, fine. If it doesn’t, out it has to go. Tearing down Paul-based theology is an unfortunate but necessary activity that needs to be done before one can build a purely Jesus-based theology. Necessary, because new construction can only be done on clear ground; unfortunate because far too many people’s emotions have got too attached with the house they have got used to living in.

Why do such a thing in the first place and how did I land up here? For more than ten years of my Christian life I operated on the assumption that Paul’s words were in line with Jesus’ words. I can no longer do so. In mid-2004, while collecting material for a study on "justification," I came across stuff that showed how Paul contradicted Jesus. Feeling some substance in it, I shared it with some other Christians whose judgment I respected. But more than three years hence, we were still on square one. By this time I had researched much more, and by end-2007, I had come to see the whole exercise as a big waste of time. Many respected commentators were still arguing about "what Paul meant" when he said so-and-so thing in the book of Romans or in the book of Galatians. There was still no clarity or unanimity on what Paul actually taught! Now if anyway on the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus not Paul, if anyway we are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words and not Paul’s, then why bother with Paul’s writings, whose meanings are still unclear even after almost 2000 years of thrashing about? Why not simply junk them as irrelevant?

Our theology has to be primarily based on Jesus’ words. If any other theology fits into Jesus’ words, fine. Otherwise it has to be rejected. The central thesis laid out by Dr. Eaton in this book flatly contradicts Jesus’ words in the Bible. I hope the following few pages will make it amply clear why I think so, and I am open to correction if clearly shown from Jesus’ words that I am wrong, in which case I would gladly accept my mistake. The central thesis of the book (as spelt out on the back page and worked out through the book) is that

The concept of "salvation by faith" is understood to mean that we will be saved no matter how sinfully we live, if we believe that "Jesus died for our sins." Sure, if we don’t repent of our sins, we will lose our rewards in this life and the next, our present experience of blessing, and usefulness in the Kingdom of God; but we will not lose our salvation. Repentance is considered unnecessary for salvation, only faith is necessary. This, I believe, flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament, and hope to show it in the following pages.

The following pages heavily draw on two other studies. The first is Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible which examines the terms "Being Saved", "Having Salvation", "Entering the Kingdom", "Entering Life", and "Having Eternal Life" in the New Testament and shows how all these are different ways of speaking about the same thing. Dr. Eaton’s book makes a distinction between "being saved" and "entering the kingdom." According to Dr. Eaton, "being saved" is easy, all that you have to do is to believe a few doctrines about Jesus and you will be saved. There is no need for a life of repentance from sins. According to Dr. Eaton, "entering the kingdom" is another thing, a difficult one, for which a godly life is necessary. The study Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible looks at all the usages of these (and related) terms in the New Testament and shows that they are just different waysof talking about the same thing – being saved, which is not easy at all!

The second study the following pages draw from is What does "Salvation by Faith in Jesus" mean Biblically? This is a thorough look at the terms "Faith" and "Believe" in the Bible; the difference between the Jewish-Hebrew (and hence Biblical) understanding of "Faith", and the Greek-Roman-Gentile understanding. And how it is no easy matter to believe or to have "Faith" as the Bible understands it. According to Dr. Eaton, it is an easy matter to have faith, something that can be done in a jiffy, and that we are saved by doing this easy thing once in a lifetime. That this is not so will be amply clear from this study. Secondly, "Faith in Jesus" or "Believing in Jesus" means believing what Jesus said, not what others (including Paul) said about him which find no support in his words.

And of course it is based on the rules laid down under Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says" Some of the rules of objectivity that Dr. Eaton’s thesis does not stick to are –

• "Use all scriptures pertaining to the issue, leave out none": Dr. Eaton ignores a number of verses, especially from Jesus’ own lips, which directly speak on the subject
• "To arrive at what the Bible says about a particular issue, use only the passages that deal directly with that issue": Dr. Eaton extensively uses passages like the example of Abraham to build his case, which are passages that don’t directly speak about salvation on Judgment Day. This is no wonder because Paul himself has used them so. Now why should anyone use a passage which may or may not be speaking directly about the issue of salvation on Judgment Day, when there are plenty of statements from Jesus’ own lips speaking directly about that issue? The reason can only be that there are no such passages for support from Jesus’ own lips! We examine this in detail later on.

Since we would be pointing them out as we go along, it is important to have these rules of objectivity firmly in mind by going through all of them before we begin on Dr. Eaton’s book.

The following pages are planned in three sections. The first two are destructive in nature; they seek to tear down the Paul-based theology of easy-believism. The last section is constructive and seeks to build a theology based purely on Jesus’ words. That this theology naturally ends up being non-legalistic as well as harmonistic is the added bonus so much sought after by the Paul-based theologies. The three sections are:

1. A general look at Dr. Eaton’s book and how its central teaching contradicts Jesus’ teaching,
2. A specific look at some of the statements and points Dr. Eaton makes in his book. These two parts seek to tear down a theology based on Paul’s writings, especially the "easy-believism" school of thought.
3. It would be the greatest disservice if I tear down but don’t build up. This last part is the constructive part, seeking to construct a "non-legalistic soteriology" which is also a "harmonistic hermeneutic" which is based on Jesus’ words alone. The unconscious and unquestioned assumption amongst theologians seems to be that a "non-legalistic soteriology" has to be Pauline. But if Jesus was the biggest non-legalist there ever was, plus the biggest expert-on-salvation there ever was, then logically, the best "non-legalistic soteriology" should come from Jesus’ own words, and Jesus’ own words alone. Grace and truth are supposed to have come through Jesus, not Paul! The soteriology I believe in today is both non-legalistic (I fully agree with Dr. Eaton when he says that ‘the Mosaic law is irrelevant for salvation’) and is also a "harmonistic hermeneutic." It is harmonistic because it does not have any self-contradictory elements. And it is in harmony with the rest of the Bible (i.e. non-Paul portion of the Bible). It is in harmony even with the Old Testament which Jesus authenticated to be the Word of God. And it is hermeneutic because it is also intensely practical. Jesus himself was an intensely practical person and the application of a theology based on his words is bound to be intensely practical too. It may not make you float on cloud nine as Pauline theology might; but it will help you go through this life victoriously as Jesus did. It will most likely end you covered with sweat-and-dust; but then victor’s crowns are generally placed on heads with faces and bodies covered with sweat-and-dust. There is no easy-believism here. And when the rain comes down, the streams rise, and the winds blow and beat against your house; it will not fall because it will have its foundation on the rock of Jesus words.(Mat 7:25)

Thus, although this essay uses Dr. Eaton’s book as a case of Paul-centered theology, it is more than a criticism of Dr. Eaton’s book, it seeks to build a "non-legalistic soteriology" which is also a "harmonistic hermeneutic" which is based on Jesus’ words alone.

--

Interestingly, similar to Dr. Eaton, I too started off as a Calvinist, but got more and more dissatisfied with Calvinism as I began to understand it better. The first thing to put me off about Calvinism was the realization that there is no such thing as "complete assurance of salvation" in Calvinism (something that I had believed in before). As I read more and more, I found the other beliefs of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, Final Perseverence i.e. no loss of salvation no matter how much you sin) also questionable. I also started noticing that there were plenty of verses in the Bible which contradicted these beliefs. In order to understand what the Bible really said about the issue, I drew up a table listing Bible verses which supported the different positions (see Calvinism and Arminianism). This I believe, is the right approach to take – start with the Bible, consider all the passages that deal with the issue, and believe the conclusion that comes out of the whole exercise. Unfortunately, it seems from the first chapter of his book (titled "The Quest for an Encouraging Theology") that Dr. Eaton started off with his desire for "a theology that is encouraging," came up with one, and found Bible verses to support it. I hope I am wrong, but that is the distinct impression that I got on reading the first chapter (and got confirmed through the rest of the book as I found that Dr. Eaton simply ignores the many statements from Jesus contradictory to his thesis). This is a very dangerous approach to take. Because with such an approach, one can come up with any theology one wants, and find enough Bible verses to support it. Your theology has to start and end with the Bible, with only Bible in between. Personal likes and dislikes, inclinations and disinclinations are to have no place in it. The rules listed under Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says", help to be objective in our theology.

However, in this particular case, we have to narrow down the scope of that statement even more. Given my views on Paul, within the scope of "what the Bible says about salvation," I am more particularly interested in "what Jesus says about salvation." On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. On the Day of Judgment, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Our primary understanding of what is going to happen on Judgment Day, has to be first based on Jesus’ words. If anyone else’s soteriology fits into Jesus’ words, fine. If it doesn’t, out it has to go. And this is where the "Paul Problem" comes in. Right from his own time, Paul and his writings have not been universally accepted as being totally in line with Jesus’ words. The issues are too numerous to be detailed here, and some of the more important and interesting ones have been laid out in detail in another article, The Paul Problem. Th conclusion of that is that I no longer consider Paul’s writings authoritative, as I once did. Now for me, only the words of Jesus are authoritative (the words in red in a red-letter Bible, mostly found in the four gospels and the book of Revelation).

It would thus be appropriate for the reader to familiarize himself with the following four studies found on other pages on this site before we start with Dr. Eaton’s book:

• Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says"
• Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible
• What does "Salvation by Faith in Jesus" mean Biblically?
• The Paul Problem

Now to Dr. Eaton’s book.

We consider Dr. Eaton’s book first generally and then, specifically. This section and the next may seem to have a negative approach, but it is important to first "tear down" (a Paul-based theology) so that we can then "build up" (a Jesus-based theology) on clear ground. The two big subjects of Dr. Eaton’s book are salvation and assurance of salvation, and we first look at them generally, starting with my understanding about salvation, which is based on Jesus’ words alone. As I have described above, Paul really is irrelevant for our understanding of what is going to happen on Judgment Day. We need to base our understanding on Jesus’ words alone. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. (I repeat this again and again to drive in its truth). On the Day of Judgment, we are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. Jesus spoke a lot and in many places about the Day of Judgment, about what is going to happen on that day, about who is going to be saved and who is not, and about what criteria are going to be used to decide our fate. Our beliefs about what is going to happen on the Day of Judgment have to be first based on Jesus’ words, not on the words of a man of questionable character and credentials like Paul.

The first task towards understanding what Jesus actually said about salvation (see Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says"), is to gather all the relevant passages together and in the words of Dr. Eaton himself (pgs. 71 and 72 of his book), "let the passages speak for themselves". The first rule of understanding what the Bible says about a particular subject is "Use all scriptures pertaining to the issue, leave out none. There is to be no picking and choosing of scriptures according to our likes and dislikes, natural inclinations, natural strengths or weaknesses." The following then is a complete list of all the passages where Jesus spoke about the Day of Judgment, and what criteria are going to be used to judge people on that day.

To let the passages speak for themselves, we need to first take off our Paul-colored glasses for a moment, keep our existing beliefs aside and read these passages as they are, without being influenced by our existing beliefs. Read them. Read them again. And again. And again. Read them till you ‘catch’ their spirit and their central message. Read them till you are hit by the full force, the full power of these words. Let the words impact you, let their message sink into you. Read them till they shut you up. Read them till they shut up Paul in you. "Paul said this…, Paul said that…" has to get replaced by "Jesus said this…, Jesus said that…" The following list comprise the most important words on the most important subject ever spoken. Your very salvation is dependent on your understanding these words correctly and living according to them. Here are they, the complete list of Jesus’ own statements regarding what’s going to happen on Judgment Day, and the criteria to be used for judging us:

There they are - the most important words on the most important subject ever spoken, the complete list of Jesus’ own words on salvation. That meets our Rule 1. This I believe, is the complete list of passages in which Jesus spoke about Judgment Day, about what is going to happen on that day, about who is going to be saved and who is not, and about what criteria are going to be used to decide our fate.

Notice particularly three things in these passages which contradict the central thesis of Dr. Eaton’s book, and the general beliefs running through the book. According to Dr. Eaton (and other upholders of the "easy-believism" school of thought), "salvation is wholly of grace, and the admonitions of the New Testament relate rather to present experience of blessing, reward in this life and the next, and usefulness in the Kingdom of God" –

• First, in these passages, when Jesus talks about "entering the kingdom of God" (or the equivalent "kingdom of heaven" in Matthew) or "entering eternal life", he is talking eschatalogically, he is talking about the final Day of Judgment, when people are going to be judged and sent to their eternal destinies – some to eternal destruction in hell and some saved, to be with him forever. He is not talking about the Kingdom of God coming into their lives in the present, as he does in other places like Matthew 12:28 ("But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you") or Luke 17:20-21 ("The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you"). He is talking about the final and complete consummation of the Kingdom of God when he comes again in power and glory, judges the people of this world and decides their eternal destinies. There are both aspects of the kingdom – the final escatalogical aspect, and the temporal experiential aspect, and we need to be clear about which passages speak of which. For a complete study on the terms, see the essay The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible - A thorough look at the terms 'Being Saved', 'Having Salvation', 'Entering the Kingdom', 'Entering Life', 'Having Eternal Life'.
• Second, notice that in all these passages, the decision is going to be based in some way or the other on what they have done, not on the basis of their faith alone! The condition of our hearts and the lifestyle from our actions are going to determine our destiny, not our intellectual assents. For a complete study on what "Salvation by Faith in Jesus" means, see the essay Salvation by Faith in Jesus - A thorough look at the terms 'Faith' and 'Believe' in the New Testament
• Third, notice that Jesus is not talking about rewards here, he is talking about salvation, with a clear possibility of loss of salvation. One of the main points of Dr. Eaton’s thesis is that "most of the passages which talk about ‘loss’ are talking about a loss of rewards and not a loss of salvation.’ But it is plain from the wording of these passages that Jesus is talking about salvation itself, not just about rewards. When Jesus talks about rewards, he does so plainly and uses the appropriate words, as in the following passages:

In this latter group of passages, Jesus does talk about rewards. But in the group of passages quoted before that, Jesus is clearly saying that in some way or the other, whether a person is going to be saved or condemned to hell, is itself in some way going to be determined by his actions and by the way he has lived his life, and not his faith alone. There is another very interesting thing to notice about these passages – in no way is a belief in his atoning sacrifice or in his lordship, a necessary condition for being saved! Nowhere does Jesus make a belief in his lordship or in his vicarious atonement, a deciding criterion for judgment! This means that one person may not believe in Jesus’ vicarious atoning sacrifice, yet get saved because he met the criteria for salvation specified by Jesus (living a godly life of repentance, both in heart and in action). While another person may believe that "Jesus is Lord" and that "Jesus died for his sins," yet not get saved because he did not meet the criteria specified by Jesus for getting saved! Since these are the conclusions that can be drawn from the passages in which Jesus speaks about salvation, and since Dr. Eaton’s thesis unfortunately contradicts them, I have to disagree with his main thesis.

The second general area of disagreement is the area of assurance of salvation. An important objective of Dr. Eaton’s book seems to present a theology which offers assurance of salvation. However it is clear from Jesus’ words, especially what he says in Matt 7:21-23, that we can never have any assurance of salvation! In Mat 7:21-23, Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" How can we ever know while on this earth, whether the assurance we have is a true assurance or a false one? All those who will hear, "I never knew you. Away from me, you lawless ones!" on Judgment Day, all of them had great assurance of their salvation while they were on earth! In fact they were some of those who "prophesied in his name, and in his name drove out demons and performed many miracles." It just turned out that their assurance was nothing but a big self-deception. And no self-deceived person ever knows that he is deceived, while he is under deception. When one thinks it through, one realizes that one can never really have any real assurance of salvation. The statement of the powerful evangelical preacher Asahel Nettleton, which Dr. Eaton starts off his book with – "The most that I have ventured to say respecting myself is, that I think is possible I may get to heaven" is more in line with Jesus’ words, than any theology which provides an assurance of salvation. And it is better to have our understanding in line with Jesus’ words and have no assurance of salvation, than to have an assurance of salvation by believing something that contradicts Jesus’ words.

I believe (from what I have seen in my own life) that the problem really comes more from an inordinate desire, a wrong hankering for an assurance of salvation, rather than due to any real lack of such an assurance. Today I have no assurance of salvation since I take Matt 7:21-23 very seriously. Yet amazingly, I find myself much better off than the time when I did have an assurance of salvation! At that time, I was constantly wondering whether the assurance I had was genuine, or whether I was under self-deception. As Dr. Eaton describes, this is a problem faced by anyone who has wrestled with the issue and with the Scriptures that speak on the matter. Worse, this problem is always going to remain while we are on this earth, and there is no hope of being free from it! Now I reckoned that if one can never have it (an assurance of salvation), why run after it? Once I gave up the inordinate desire, the wrong hankering for an assurance of salvation, the problem was gone! The solution I believe, lies in immersing ourselves so much in doing what Jesus’ wants us to do, that we have no time to bother about whether we ourselves are going to be saved or not! "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it," as Jesus said in Mat 10:39. Like the "faithful and wise servant" in Mat 24:45, whose master found him immersed in doing what he was told to do and not bothering about whether he was going to be commended or not. Just busy yourself in doing what Jesus wants you to do, and leave the matter of your own salvation to him: that’s the spirit one needs to live in.

Having dealt with the two general major areas first, we can now go through Dr. Eaton’s book page by page.

I was pleasantly surprised at an interesting statement he makes in the first chapter on page 7 (starting line 12) – "’Liberal’ commentators who did not feel obliged to accept what Paul taught seemed in some respects to be more accurate and honest than those who, holding a ‘high’ doctrine of Scripture, were anxious to subscribe to Paul’s teaching." As I have described above, now I myself do fall under the category of "people who do not feel obliged to accept what Paul taught, and are in no anxiety to subscribe to Paul’s teaching." I hope I also am more accurate and honest; I certainly feel that I am more accurate and honest than what I was when once I did feel obliged to accept and was anxious to subscribe to Paul’s teaching.

In chapters 2 and 3, Dr. Eaton describes his dissatisfaction with the developed versions of both Calvinism and Arminism. I completely identify and agree with his dissatisfaction; in fact it was the very same dissatisfaction which led me to probe the matter further.

In chapter 4, Dr. Eaton talks about challenging tradition. I am all for challenging tradition; in fact, this essay is in a sense, a challenge to church tradition. Jesus was the biggest tradition-challenger. But like Jesus, in challenging tradition, the challenge has to be a meaningful challenge. A youth wearing long hair and earrings is also challenging tradition. But his challenge serves only to give him a nice ‘kick,’ and is ultimately harmless and can be completely ignored. The challenge to tradition has to be fundamental. Unfortunately, Dr. Eaton has stuck to another tradition – (to use his own words on p. 31), the tradition of "expounding non-legalistic soteriology along Pauline lines." Who says you need to have a "non-legalistic soteriology along Pauline lines?" Why can’t you have a "non-legalistic soteriology along Jesus’ lines?" After all, if Jesus was the biggest non-legalist there ever was, plus the biggest expert-on-salvation there ever was, then logically, the best "non-legalistic soteriology" should come from Jesus’ own words. Grace and truth are supposed to have come through Jesus, not Paul! The soteriology I believe in today is both non-legalistic (I fully agree with Dr. Eaton when he says later on that ‘the law is irrelevant for salvation’) and based solely on Jesus’ own words.

Dr. Eaton’s Paul-centeredness comes through in another statement he makes on the very next page (p. 32) when he asks the question, "How does Jesus’ message fit with Paul’s?" "HOW DOES JESUS’ MESSAGE FIT WITH PAUL’S?" I thought it was Paul’s message that was supposed to fit in with Jesus’, not the other way round! Who is Paul anyway? On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. We are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. On that day, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. Who is Paul, that Jesus’ statements have to fit into his? When Jesus spoke so clearly and in so many places about what’s going to happen on Judgment Day, and it is he who is going to judge us, then why should we base our soteriology on Paul’s words?

Dr. Eaton’s Paul-centeredness is reflected in another statement he makes later on (pg. 119): "Since I have assumed that Paul’s view is to be taken as a norm for the Christian…" PAUL’S VIEW IS TO BE TAKEN AS A NORM FOR THE CHRISTIAN?" I thought it was Jesus’ view that was supposed to be taken as a norm for the Christian! Who is Paul anyway? On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. We are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. But back to page 32.

Next, Dr. Eaton’s comments on pg. 34 show the inherent problems and difficulties in the attempt to reconcile Paul’s doctrines with the rest of the Bible’s. To quote him,

I became all the more sure about my position regarding Paul after reading these words! "More than one expositor has thought his teaching incoherent!" Dr. Eaton concludes –

Sure, it should not be lightly abandoned. I myself have struggled with it for more than 15 years and drawn a blank. People far more intelligent and worthier than I have tried it for more than 200 years. If after all this, we are still at square one, shouldn’t we be asking a far more fundamental question which J.I,.Packer hints at – are Paul’s teachings actually contradictory to Jesus’ and the rest of the Bible’s. I have struggled with this question too, which drove me to an even more fundamental question – have I really even understood some of Paul’s teachings that I can even compare them with Jesus’ teachings and the rest of the Bible’s? And the answer was a clear "No!" In frustration and despair I threw up my hands. And that lead me to ask an even more fundamental question – Why bother with Paul anyway? Why am I wasting so much time on Paul and his writings? Who is Paul anyway? On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. We are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. On that day, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. Paul was a person who never knew Jesus, had never even met him personally, never spent a single minute with him. All he had was this "experience" of Jesus (an experience similar to Constantine’s and Mohammad’s), on the basis of which he preached "his gospel," which brought him into constant conflict with the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus, men who had spent years with him, hearing words from his lips, learning constantly from him, being influenced by his lifestyle. When I have the words of Jesus to guide me, and they are enough, why do I need Paul’s words?

Once I gave up trying to understand Paul, I felt a tremendous release within me. The burden was off! And I was free to follow Jesus! Truly, Jesus’ yoke is easy and his burden is light!

Next, in pages 37-39, Dr. Eaton lays out the statement of his thesis. I like his statement on pg. 37, "he who never made a mistake never made anything." It encouraged me to go ahead and do this essay, knowing that even if finally I am proved wrong, this essay would still be an important step in my being proved wrong!

Unfortunately, Dr. Eaton’s desire to be loyal to Paul shows through the following statements on pg. 38:

Why this great desire for one’s theology to be Pauline? Shouldn’t our theology be first based on Jesus’ words alone? Why this inordinate desire to conform to the theology of a person who had not even met Jesus personally, and whose teachings are difficult to understand, open to distortion, and have a question mark hanging over them?

Pages 40-45 deal with the subject of Limited vs. Universal Atonement. There are scripture verses to support both positions and one can go on for donkey’s years arguing over them. It’s a waste of time; we will know the truth on Judgment Day. (And even if we don’t, so what?) The important thing to be clear about while we are on this earth is – our salvation or our rewards are not dependent on what we believe about this issue. Jesus spoke a lot and in many places about what is going to happen on Judgment Day, and what criteria are going to be used to judge us. The complete list has been given above. Nowhere did Jesus say that our salvation or our rewards are going to be dependent on whether we believe in Limited or Universal Atonement. In fact, nowhere did Jesus even say that our salvation or our rewards are going to be dependent on whether we believe in the Atonement itself! In other words, one person may not believe in Jesus’ vicarious atoning sacrifice, yet get saved because he met the criteria for salvation specified by Jesus (living a godly life of repentance, both in heart and in action). While another person may believe, truly believe with all his heart, that "Jesus died for his sins," yet not get saved because he did not meet the criteria specified by Jesus for getting saved!

Furthermore, even if Universal Atonement is true, it automatically does not mean Universal Salvation. It is amply clear from the Bible, and more so from Jesus’ own words, that there are going to be plenty of people who are not going to be saved. Universal Atonement would only mean that God has made provision for everyone’s salvation, not that the benefits of it are going to flow to all. In light of this, I fail to see how a belief in the universal atonement of Christ (pg. 44) can be the ground for assurance of salvation. Let’s not fool ourselves – in light of what Jesus said in Mt. 7:22-23, any "assurance" we have here on this earth can be an exercise in self-deception. The point has already been made in detail before.

With Chapter 7, Dr. Eaton starts off the support for his thesis with Gal 3:19 which says that that law was a temporary measure till Jesus was to come. Since this belief flies in the face of Jesus’ own clear statements in Mat 5:18 ("I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished") and Luke 16:17 ("It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law"), I have to reject it.

We move on to the example of Abraham (pg 50) as a person who was chosen by God to be saved without any consideration for his worthiness. Now is that really so? Was Abraham chosen by God for salvation with complete disregard to what he had done or how he had lived his life? There are three reasons why I don’t think so.

Firstly, how right is it of Paul to use Gen 15:6 as a "definitive statement of his gospel," to use Dr. Eaton’s words on pg 50? How right is it of Paul to use Gen 15:6 as a proof of his doctrine of "salvation by faith?" Is Gen 15:6 clearly and unequivocally talking about salvation on the final Day of Judgment? In the Old Testament, the concept of a final judgment of God, with the consequent dispatch to either heaven or hell, was not clearly defined. It was there, but it was first clearly and sharply defined only by Jesus. So in the Old Testament, we do not find references to heaven or hell, eternal fire or eternal life. Now when there are many places in which Jesus himself clearly spoke about what is going to happen on Judgment Day and what criteria are going to be used to judge people, why use a verse which dies not directly address the issue? According to our rule 14 mentioned in Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says", to arrive at what the Bible says about a particular issue, we use only the passages that deal directly with that issue, much more so when such verses are copiously present! The very exercise of using of Gen 15:6 as the key verse to build one’s case upon, throws questions on the foundations of Paul’s theology (whatever it is). Gen 15:6 doesn’t deal directly with salvation on Judgment Day. There are plenty of passages in the New Testament, many of them from Jesus’ lips, which deal directly with the issue of salvation on Judgment Day. Now when would a person ignore the many statements directly dealing with final salvation and spoken by Jesus himself, and latch on to one statement which may or may not be talking about final salvation? Only when he does not find support in the many statements which directly deal with the issue of salvation! Paul has reached the definite conclusion that Gen 15:6 is talking about Abraham’s final salvation. This is a clear case of the "is-so / maybe-so" fallacy which is a result of ignoring our Rule 7 in Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says" (the fallacy of thinking that a statement definitely is saying something when at the most that one can say is that the statement might mean it). At the most that one can say about Gen 15:6 is that it may be talking about Abraham’s final salvation, when Paul has concluded that it is definitely talking about Abraham’s final salvation. This is too big a conclusion drawn on too flimsy grounds on too important a subject.

Secondly, even if the "righteousness" of Gen 15:6 is assumed to be a final judgment of Abraham’s salvation, what support is there for the definite conclusion that this declaration of righteousness-and-salvation had nothing to do with Abraham’s worthiness? The Bible says nothing about Abraham’s worthiness, and Dr. Eaton does admit on pg 50 that arguments from silence are notoriously insecure. Is Gen 15:6 really made with complete disregard to what Abraham had done in the past or how he had lived his life till then? Is the Bible really completely silent about Abraham’s life before that? No! Besides Abraham’s obedience in leaving Ur, Joshua makes an interesting statement in Josh 24:2: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods." Joshua pointedly includes Terah and pointedly excludes Abraham amongst "those who worshipped other gods." Wasn’t there radical obedience from Abraham to God’s direct dealing on his heart? Where did this conviction come from? The devil? Obviously not. It came from God. And Abraham obeyed God there. In fact, even if the "righteousness" of Gen 15:6 is assumed to be a final judgment of Abraham’s salvation, this information provided by Joshua gives more support to the belief that Abraham’s past obedience had a role to play in him being declared righteous. If there are thousands of people in a society, and all "worship other gods" except one person, and only that very one person is declared righteous, then it stands to reason that his not worshiping other gods had a definite connection with his getting declared righteous. Noah’s is another very similar example. Dr. Eaton makes much of the belief that (pg 50) at the stage of Gen 12:1-3 "no ethical demands are made on Abraham that would clear the way to God’s activity in his life." This ignores the (quite good) possibility that Abraham’s obedience in not worshiping other gods could have had a role to play.

Thirdly, Gen 15:6 declares Abraham righteous at that point and specifically for that point, for doing what he was expected to do at that point specifically about God’s statement in Gen 15:5. How right is it to assume that it is a statement of general and final righteousness? In Gen 15:5, God had said to him, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them. So shall your offspring be." The only thing that was expected of Abraham at that point was to believe God. What else was Abraham expected to do at that point? Certainly not rush in and have sexual intercourse with his wife immediately – God did not ask him to do that, and he had already done that enough number of times and failed to produce an offspring. Abraham knew at that point that only an extraordinary act from God would now be needed to produce an offspring through Sarah. All that God expected him to do at that point was to believe him on that, and Abraham did it. Now when it comes to our salvation on Judgment Day, from the many clear statements from Jesus, we are expected to repent of our sins and live godly lives to be saved. And so, we will be saved if we repent of our sins and live godly lives. Not if we only "believe Jesus" and do nothing about it.

The picture that seems to emerge from Abraham’s life (and indeed the lives of others in the Bible) is that God reveals himself more and more to people who obey him. Continued obedience leads to further revelation, obedience to this further revelation leads to even more revelation. This upward spiral ultimately ends in final salvation. On the other hand, continued disobedience leads to a progressive stoppage in revelation until finally God "gives a person over" to do whatever he wants to do. The person "falls away," and the downward spiral finally ends in his destruction. This seems to be the whole argument of the book of Hebrews, but it is beyond the scope of this essay. Since I base my understanding of salvation primarily on Jesus’ words, I would look at the book of Hebrews as I look at Paul’s letters – fine if it’s arguments fit in with Jesus’ words, not acceptable if it doesn’t.

How justified is the statement on pg. 51 that "God simply steps into Abraham’s life. Neither worthiness nor unworthiness is considered"? Would not being the only one person amongst thousands who "did not worship other gods" be considered "worthiness?" In the very next paragraph,, Dr. Eaton makes two statements one after the other – "In accordance with the command to leave family, Abraham and Lot separate" and "There is still no mention of any kind of worthiness." If obedience to God doesn’t constitute worthiness, what does?

All this does not mean that I am touting Abraham’s example as of a person who was justified because of his obedience. That would be equally wrong since it would also be violating some of the rules mentioned in Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says", especially rule 14 which states that "To arrive at what the Bible says about a particular issue, use only the passages that deal directly with that issue." Abraham’s example is not dealing with the issue of Abraham’s salvation on Judgment Day. When there are plenty of other passages which deal directly with the issue of salvation on Judgment Day, it would be wrong of me to use Abraham’s example. The only reason for using Abraham’s example to prove a point on either side, would be that the user does not find anything in Jesus’ copious words on the particular topic of salvation on Judgment Day to support his position! This can only be dishonest and I have no qualms of accusing Paul of probable dishonesty. And more than deceivingothers, such an exercise would be an exercise in self-deception.

The following point of there not being any reference to any kind of law is bang on. A similar point, again bang on, is repeated on pg. 53 that "In the unfolding of the narrative any mention of law is significantly absent. Faith results in obedience but the obedience concerned is not mediated by law. Rather, it is obedience of faith."

We now come to the interim conclusions stated on pg 66. The only problem is in point (i) that Dr. Eaton does not take into account Abraham’s obedience in Ur in not worshiping other gods. (The other three points are bang on). My belief is that Abraham’s obedience started long before God gave him the promises in Gen 12:1-3. God convicted him in Ur itself and he obeyed God in not worshiping other gods. My personal belief is that God is always at work in everyone’s life showing them what is right and what is wrong, right from their childhood. A few obey, the vast majority don’t. Continued obedience leads to further revelation, obedience to this further revelation leads to even more revelation, finally ending in salvation. On the other hand, continued disobedience leads to a progressive stoppage in revelation, finally ending in damnation. This will be expounded with Scriptural support in part 3 when we develop a positive theology based on Jesus’ words.

Abraham’s story is in fact very similar to mine! I was born in a Hindu family and we had the usual pujas in the house in which idols were worshiped. Besides the annual celebrations, the weekly puja used to be on Thursday evenings. Every Thursday evening we all were supposed to gather as a family for the puja. At the age of twelve, I was convinced that these gods were no gods and to bow down before a stone idol was the height of foolishness. A few Thursdays passed and one Thursday I mustered up the courage and skip the puja and see what happens, whether dad would get furious. Well, nothing much happened, and I felt strengthened to skip it the next Thursday too. And soon I was skipping all the pujas, including the annual ones.

This was long before I knew anything about the anti-idolatry beliefs of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. At that time, Hinduism and idol-worship was all I knew. Who convicted me that these gods were no gods and to bow down before a stone idol was the height of foolishness? The devil? Obviously not. It was obviously God who convicted me. Who strengthened me after that? Obviously it was God. Since I am personally aware of what it takes for a little child to stand up to the entire society in lonely defiance, I give tremendous importance to Joshua’s statement in 24:2 as a pointer to Abraham’s radical obedience.

So what comes first – God speaking to us, or our obedience? Obviously God speaking to us, for without that there can be no obedience – obedience to what if God has not spoken to us? My point is that it was not limited to Abraham alone. God would have tried to convict all others in Ur that idol-worship was wrong, but only Abraham acted on that conviction. The miniscule proportion (one in thousands) of people who actually obey God is nothing strange. According to Jesus, if very few even find the small gate to life (Mt. 7:14), how fewer would be those entering it! Today also, God is continuously convicting people, only that a very few - very, very few obey Him. That Abraham’s continued obedience after Gen 12:3 was simply a continuation of a life of obedience till then is obvious from the ease with which he obeyed in 12:4-5, a difficult command that required him to be uprooted from a well-settled life at the age of seventy-five, with all the possessions he had accumulated and the people he had acquired in Haran. God giving all those promises in Gen 12:1-3 was not after a random-picking of Abraham. If one person out of thousands is chosen, and that one person happens to be the only one who has obeyed God in not worshiping other gods, then the choosing of Abraham in 12:1-3 for giving the promises can hardly be considered random. Anyway, all this discussion is meaningless since it centers around Paul’s statements which find no support from Jesus’ words. Since it is Jesus who is going to judge us, and he is going to judge us according to his words and not Paul’s words, Paul is to be considered irrelevant for our understanding of what criteria are going to be used to judge people.

We can rush through chapter 8 of Dr. Eaton’s book; I am not in disagreement with most of it, except the points in the paragraphs in the sections titled "The Abrahamic and Sinai covenants contrasted" (pgs. 77 and 78) and "The Covenants Contrasted" (pg 91). The negative outlook regarding the law of Moses, common amongst many Christians, is characteristic of people who look at only the letter of the law and not its spirit. Jesus never had such a negative view of the law, nor did any of the prophets or the godly men of the Old Testament, who Jesus vindicated as men of God. The big difference is in whether you have got the spirit of the law right, and are trying to live by that spirit, or you are trying to live only by the letter of the law without having got its spirit. This is a huge subject, and is dealt with in detail in The place of the Law in Salvation.

We can also rush through chapter 9 of Dr. Eaton’s book, since it deals mostly with the book of Galatians which was written by Paul. I repeat here what I have said before. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. On the Day of Judgment, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ, not Paul. Both Paul’s character and his credentials are questionable and over the past, many people have indeed questioned them. Who was Paul anyway? A person who never knew Jesus, had never even met him personally, never spent a single minute with him, never heard him speak first hand! Today we have the four gospels and the book of Revelation, which contain Jesus’ actual words on the basis of which we are going to be judged on Judgment Day. And they are adequate to convey what God wants conveyed. Paul doesn’t add anything to them. Galatians is irrelevant for understanding how we are going to be judged.

Page 117 provides a good example of the sheer amount of time and effort that has got wasted over some words written by an irrelevant person (read Paul). One can go on and on debating these questions for years (as indeed many do) and still not be nearer to seeing any light on them. Dr. Eaton himself says something like that in the last paragraph on pg. 117:

"Did Paul contradict Paul?" Or is he just being "all things to all people" (1 Cor 9:22)? Imagine the time and effort wasted on studying and debating the issue, in attacking Paul on one side and defending him on the other! Wouldn’t it have been better utilized in simply ignoring Paul as irrelevant and putting into practice some of Jesus’ commands? What a heavy and totally unnecessary burden this Paul has laid on people’s backs! Oh that people would throw it off and run freely behind Jesus!

It was in chapter 10, titled "Matthew’s gospel and the Mosaic law", that I naturally started looking for what I was most interested in – how does Dr. Eaton deal with the many statements of Jesus which contradict his thesis? And this is where I ended up being profoundly disappointed – Dr. Eaton deals with them by simply ignoring them! Dr. Eaton focuses on the Mosaic law (which is irrelevant for salvation anyway), not on Jesus’ many statements on what is going to happen on Judgment Day. The closest that Dr. Eaton comes to dealing with the crucial question is on pgs. 143-144. On pg 143 he says that "eternal life" should be understood to mean "reaping the blessings of salvation and its consequent reward" (also on pg 133 in the paragraph starting ‘Our third…’) rather than salvation itself and gives four reasons for that, three of which are questionable:

1. The first reason he gives is that the verb ‘inherit’ never refers to initial salvation. Sure it doesn’t. But that’s because there is no such thing as ‘initial salvation!’ Who is going to be saved will be decided on Judgment Day on the basis of how the entire life has been lived. Who knows the results of an examination before the examination is even held? But even if we ignore the word ‘initial’, what about Heb 1:14 which says, "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" Dr. Eaton further says that "inheritance" always speaks of rewards. Does it? When one draws up a complete list (see the study on Inherit and Inheritance), one finds that the words "inherit" and "inheritance" are used in a wide variety of ways and generally have the sense of the word "receive" (in any way). In many places we find that they are used to say "receive salvation" or "receive eternal life" or "receive the kingdom", such as the following:

Matt 5:5	Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Matt 19:29	And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Matt 25:34	"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
Rom 8:17	Now if we are children, then we are heirs-- heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
1 Cor 15:50	I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (Both the previous and the next verse are eschatalogical)
Heb 1:14	Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
Rev 21:7	He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

2. The second reason Dr. Eaton gives on pg 143 is that ‘Entering the Kingdom’ in Matthew does not refer to initial salvation but is generally connected to one’s regular manner of living. Does it? What about the following, which are clearly eschatalogical (leaving out the word ‘initial’):

Mt 5:19	Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 7:21-23	"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Mt 13:41	The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
Mt 13:43	Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
Mt 25:34-40	"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

A complete study of the terms show the falseness of the belief that "entering the kingdom" has to do only with one’s regular manner of living and which has no connection with "getting saved" or "having salvation" or "having eternal life" or "entering life." For such a study, see the essay The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible - A thorough look at the terms 'Being Saved', 'Having Salvation', 'Entering the Kingdom', 'Entering Life', 'Having Eternal Life'. The conclusion from such a thorough study is that these terms are used interchangeably and are used to mean both things – our regular manner of living in this life, and what’s going to happen on Judgment Day. And let alone having no connection, one’s regular manner of living is in fact going to be the deciding factor on Judgment Day for deciding whether we are going to be saved or not. A godly manner of ongoing daily living (=entering the kingdom daily) finally leads to aneschatalogical "entering the kingdom in the future." Those who have made a habit of "entering the kingdom" daily (in this life) will "enter the kingdom" on Judgment Day (eschatalogically).

3. The third point (pg. 144) is okay; but the reason is different. Dr. Eaton is right in saying that there is no clear example in the synoptic gospels of initial conversion being referred to in terms of ‘entering the kingdom.’ That’s true, but the reason is that ‘initial conversion’ just does not mean ‘entering the kingdom.’ John 3:3 ("I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.") makes it clear that being born again is just one step, an initial step, into entering the kingdom (and it is not even a sufficient step!) In fact Jesus is saying that unless one is born again, one cannot even see that there is a Kingdom of God, let alone enter it (one can take that either in the present-life sense or on the eschatalogical sense). In the next statement too, Dr. Eaton is right, but the reason is different and the exact opposite of what he makes of it. He says, "Matthew’s language of the kingdom either refers to ongoing daily living (as in the references cited) or (as in 8:11, 25:34) to something future. That is because the same term ("entering the kingdom") is used for both purposes, and the sense of usage is clear from the context; not because they are separate and unconnected things! Let alone being unconnected, the two are intimately connected – one leads to the other! A godly manner of ongoing daily living (=entering the kingdom daily) finally leads to an eschatalogical "entering the kingdom in the future." Those who make a habit of "entering the kingdom" daily and continuously in this life (in a present-experiential sense) will finally "enter the kingdom" (in an eschatological sense) on Judgment Day.
4. The general thrust of Mt. 19 may refer to rewards, but I can quote plenty of other passages where the general thrust is salvation on Judgment Day, and the words used are ‘eternal life.’ The truth is that when one makes a thorough study of the way the words "salvation", "Entering the Kingdom", "Entering Life" and "Having Eternal Life" are used in the New Testament, one finds that these are used quite interchangeably. (Dr. Eaton himself says something similar on pg. 146 in the paragraph beginning ‘The only possible…’) They are used both to refer to the present in some passages, and to the future in others (in an eschatalogical sense). It is not good exegesis to pick up one set of passages to make one’s point and ignore the contradictory ones. For a complete study, see The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible - A thorough look at the terms 'Being Saved', 'Having Salvation', 'Entering the Kingdom', 'Entering Life', 'Having Eternal Life'

What about Mt. 19:25 where the word "saved" is used? Dr. Eaton concludes (on pg 146) that "The passage does not contain a two-tier ethic, as if the law represented a level of godliness for ‘ordinary’ disciples with ‘perfection’ available for the elite. Nor is it a two-stage way of leading a person to initial salvation, with the law preparing the way for submission to Jesus. Rather it is a two-stage way of reaching the higher level required for all disciples." This does not adequately explain the disciples’ use of the term ‘saved’ in 19:25 or their astonishment. If Dr. Eaton’s explanation is what it is, there was no need for the disciples’ getting astonished – it is a perfectly logical belief that to get saved, there were certain minimum requirements; but to get higher rewards, there should be greater requirements. What is not logical is that there be different requirements for different people to be saved. It is this realization that makes the disciples astonished. It may be astonishing, yet we have to take it as the truth since all through the gospels, Jesus makes it clear that there are different standards of judgment for different people:

So if there are different standards for different people, why should there not be a different standard for the rich, young man to be saved? Since the rich young man was given much more, why should not more be demanded from him? For a complete handling of Mt 19:16-30 see The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible - A thorough look at the terms 'Being Saved', 'Having Salvation', 'Entering the Kingdom', 'Entering Life', 'Having Eternal Life' This shows clearly that Dr. Eaton’s understanding of this crucial passage (Mt 19:16-30) which speaks about salvation on Judgment Day, is quite wrong!

In the section "Not to destroy but to fulfil" (pg 126-131), Dr. Eaton takes the meaning of "pleeroosai" in Mt. 5:17 to mean "fulfil" whereas a better fit is "to make complete." This meaning fits better in Mt. 5:17-48, because "make complete" is precisely what Jesus does in the examples which follow 5:17. "The glass that Moses gave was half-full, I am now making it completely full," is the sense of pleerosai. Dr. Eaton himself says something similar on pg. 135 (‘It is notable however, that what Jesus requires is not less than the law but something higher than the law. In this sense one cannot say that the standard of the law is actually abrogated, as though sin were given more scope. This is a forward step, not a retrograde lessening of the standard of the Torah.’) Why not then simply translate "pleeroosai" in Mt. 5:17 as "make complete?"

Chapter 11 provides further example of the waste of time that goes on in debating terms like "faith of Christ" and "faith in Christ" and "faithfulness of Christ," most of it centered on Paul’s usage of the terms, time that could have been much better utilized obeying Jesus’ direct words. The problems it creates for assurance of salvation are obvious from the paragraph starting "A particular point…" on pg. 162.

Dr. Eaton’s Paul-centeredness slips through once again in chapter 12, on page 164 where he says, "However when the differences are taken into account Luther remains remarkably faithful to Paul." FAITHFUL TO PAUL? I thought we were supposed to remain faithful to Jesus! The whole Pauline idea of justification (=being considered righteous by God) by faith as distinct from sanctification (=progressive growth in holiness and godly living) has no support at all from Jesus’ words. Dr. Eaton says so himself on page 164, where he says, "After Paul and before Augustine the Crhistian life was generally not conceived in terms of ‘justification.’ Augustine himself did not hold to a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification." It’s only later on, after Luther and Melanchthon, that a forensic doctrine of justification emerged and it was based mainly on Paul’s writings. This theology subscribes to "Justification" leading to "Sanctification." Theology based only on Jesus’ words subscribes to "Being born again" leading to "Seeing the Kingdom of God" leading to "Progressively entering the Kingdom of God in daily life" leading to "Finally entering the Kingdom of God eschatalogically" (=being saved =entering eternal life). None of these steps automatically follow from the previous one. Life is a partnership between God and man, and much depends on man’s response to God’s dealings with him. According to Jesus, there are very few who even find the narrow gate (Mt 7:14), so imagine how few are the ones who enter it!

In point (i) on page 165, Dr. Eaton makes a questionable statement without any supporting evidence: He says that "In a non-legalistic theology the doctrine of assurance is heightened and protected… Freedom from Mosaic law will lead to a heightened doctrine of assurance." How? Dr. Eaton answers by saying that it releases the believer from doing works as a means of salvation, and from a need of self-examination. I would give far more weightage to Jesus’ words spoken directly on the issue than to years of discussions by the theologians. And Jesus’ words in Mat 7:22-23 ("Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'") make it abundantly clear that there can be no such thing as assurance of salvation while we are on this earth; anyone believing that he has assurance of salvation on any ground whatsoever is merely deceiving himself. If even those who prophesied in his name, and in his name drove out demons and perform many miracles, if even such people may hear the words, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" then what about anyone else?

Dr. Eaton quotes J.R.W.Stott in the "Roman Catholic questions" on page 166. Protestant Christians like to paint everything coming from the Roman Catholic Church with the same brush. But in this particular case, I would definitely side with the Roman Catholic Church! Let me quote the full paragraph:

In view of the fact that nowhere in Jesus’ words do we find the concept of purely legal justification as apart from real sanctification, I would answer, "Yes, justification in the Pauline sense is indeed a legal fiction, a giant hoax, a phoney transaction external to yourself, which leaves you inwardly unrenewed." It is indeed ‘claiming to be changed when in fact you are not changed’ and Jesus had some very strong words to say against such hypocrisy. The only righteousness that Jesus knows is an imparted (or infused, if you like) righteousness which he talks about in Mt. 5:6, which God fills with, those who hunger and thirst for it (see notes later in part 3). It is a real, experiential righteousness, not a phoney, forensic righteousness.

Pages 167 to 171 can be skipped over straightaway because they deal with the relationship between justification and sanctification and is based mainly on Paul’s letters. In the theology based on Jesus’ words alone, since there is no such thing as the Pauline idea of forensic justification (apart from sanctification) while we are here on this earth, there can be no relationship between them!

Chapter 13 deals with the subject of motivation and Dr. Eaton looks at it from the point of view of ‘inheritance.’ According to Dr. Eaton ‘inheritance’ refers more to rewards rather than to salvation, and so is dependent on our ‘good works.’ He is right in saying that ‘inheritance’ depends on our good works, but wrong in saying that inheritance refers to rewards and not salvation itself. A full word-study of inheritance shows that it is a general word used with the meaning of ‘receive,’ and that receiving can be anything, even the receiving of salvation. There are five Greek words - kleronomeo (2816), kleeronomian (2817), kleronomos (2818), kleerou (2819) and katekleeronomeesen (2624), which are so translated. The words are used in a wide variety of ways: to inheriting salvation, to inheriting something on earth, to inheriting rewards in heaven. All of them have the sense of ‘receive’ or ‘receiving.’

We will skip through the Pauline portions of pages 175 to 185, and also the Abrahamic portions since they do not directly relate to salvation on Judgment Day but have been forcibly pressed in to serve a theology for which no support is found in Jesus’ words; a theology which is actually contradicted by Jesus’ words. Remember that one of our rules of objectively arriving at what the Bible says about a particular topic is to use only those passages which directly speak on the issue, not those which may (or may not) indirectly relate to it (see Objectively arriving at "What the Bible says") . Dr Eaton himself subscribes to this rule of objectivity when he says later on (on pg. 189) while speaking about passages which relate to Christians not losing their salvation no matter what, that "they are not passages dealing with something else and awkwardly dragged in to prove a controversial point." Now when there are plenty, plenty of passages from Jesus’ own lips that speak directly on the issue of what’s going to happen on Judgment Day, the only reason to use the Abrahamic passages would be a dishonest one. (That accusation is directed at Paul himself, and is not original. It was first made by the church father Jerome, who having translated the Bible into Latin, knew a thing or two about the right handling of the Word – see quote at the end of Paul's Teachings).

So we come to page 178, where Dr. Eaton says that "Nowhere in the New Testament is ‘inheritance’ dependent merely on justification. It is not received by faith only" and that "inheritance is reward" (pg 179) and he is absolutely right on these. However that’s precisely my point and it flies in the face of Dr. Eaton’s central thesis: If these things are so, if inheritance is reward and not a free gift (we need to overcome the English language meaning of the word ‘inheritance’), and if ‘inheritance’ is also used with the meaning of ‘inheriting salvation’ then is not salvation itself a reward for the kind of life lived on earth? Sure there are passages that refer to ‘inheriting rewards in heaven’ but there are also passages that speak of ‘inheriting salvation’ (see the word-study on inherit). How can we understand these passages if we limit ‘inheritance’ to ‘inheriting rewards in heaven’ only?

Chapter 14 deals with "Security and the Interpretation of Warnings" and Dr. Eaton’s position is that "warnings of loss refer to the loss of present-day experience of the Kingdom, and usefulness to God, not a loss of salvation." We will skip through the section "Security in Romans" on pages 190-194 since Romans was written by Paul, and we need to derive our primary understanding on Jesus’ words alone.

The major section we have to look at is the section on "Security in John" (pages 194-202). Dr. Eaton uses the many statements in John which say that "salvation is dependent on faith," statements such as John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" and John 6:40 "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The study on the words 'Faith' and 'Believe' clearly shows that "Faith" according to the New Testament is not the easy-believism kind of faith. It means "faith seen in the life of a person" and is in fact very difficult. Frankly, if I were to choose between "salvation by (the New Testament meaning of) faith" and "salvation by works" I would rather choose the latter! The New Testament kind of faith is the kind of faith shown by the heroes of Hebrews 12:33-38, "who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-- the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground."

This is what is meant when the New Testament uses the word "faith" or "believe" (see What does "Salvation by Faith in Jesus" mean Biblically?) and is no easy-believism kind of faith. It is to people who exercise such faith that Jesus says, "I will never cast him away." Let’s not forget the peer pressure that "the few who believed in Jesus" would face from the "many who didn’t believe in Jesus" in John 6, and the societal pressure that the man who was healed in John 9 faced when he testified to Jesus (even his own parents didn’t stand by him – 9:21).

The second major topic in this section is the issue of pre-destination. This is a big subject by itself and one can find verses in the Bible in support of both the sides. Our first rule of objectivity is to take into account all verses which speak on the issue. The study Calvinism and Arminianism gives a complete list of verses which support and which contradict the idea of pre-destination (under "Unconditional election"). Since we cannot pick only one group of verses supporting our position and ignore the verses contradicting it, I cannot go along with Dr. Eaton’s method of using the verses in John (which I agree do seem to support the idea of pre-destination). In any case our belief regarding pre-destination is not going to be a determining factor on Judgment Day in deciding who is going to be saved and who is not. What’s my position? Frankly, I don’t know. And I don’t care either. We will know when we get to heaven, and even if we don’t, so what? The important thing is to get to heaven. I have left the study on Calvinism and Arminism in a state of limbo for more than four years because it doesn’t really matter. We can study the subject for years and not have any more light on it. Plus the conclusions, whatever they may be, don’t affect our salvation. So we will have to keep any discussion on the subject of pre-destination aside. So easily can we get carried away by irrelevant topics and go off on a tangent!

The section on "Conditionality, Reward, and Loss" (pgs 202-207) lists a number of passages which warn Christians of loss. Unfortunately it does not do justice to the many passages from Jesus’ own lips cited above. Dr. Eaton simply makes the generalized statement that Christians who tolerate such sins fail to experience in the here-and-now the blessings of God’s kingdom. That certainly is true, but it is equally true that a lifestyle of such continuous failures to ‘enter the kingdom daily’ will ultimately end up in their failure to ‘enter the kingdom eschatalogically.’

We can skip over the entire chapter 15 which deals with the warnings in the book of Hebrews. One can debate for donkey’s years what ‘falling away’ means in the book of Hebrews generating far more heat than light. I prefer to have my theology based primarily on Jesus’ words, not on words in an anonymous letter.

We now come to the final chapter 16 in which Dr. Eaton summarizes his position and arguments laid out in his book. So I too take the opportunity to summarize my position and arguments, and why I cannot accept the central thesis of his book. These are:

1. The thesis is heavily Paul-centered. Paul is going to be irrelevant on the Day of Judgment. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to face Jesus, not Paul. On the Day of Judgment, we are going to be judged according to Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. On the Day of Judgment, it is Jesus who can help us, not Paul. God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ, not Paul. Our theology, our primary understanding of what is going to happen on Judgment Day, has to be first based on Jesus’ words, and Jesus’ words alone. If Paul’s (or anyone else’s) theology fits into Jesus’ words, fine. If it doesn’t, out it has to go.
2. The central thesis contradicts the many statements from Jesus own lips as to what criteria are going to be used on Judgment Day to judge people. From the main list of passages quoted above, it is clear that people who live a life of repentance regularly, both in heart and in action, are the ones who are going to be saved. It is those who have made a habit of ‘entering the kingdom daily/ regularly’ will finally ‘enter the kingdom eschatalogically.’
3. Dr. Eaton’s thesis makes ‘being saved’ as being different from ‘entering the kingdom’ and ‘entering life’ without showing how. My study Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible which examines the terms "Being Saved", "Having Salvation", "Entering the Kingdom", "Entering Life", and "Having Eternal Life" in the New Testament shows how all these are different ways of speaking about the same thing. Dr. Eaton’s book makes a distinction between "being saved" and "entering the kingdom." According to Dr. Eaton, "being saved" is easy, all that you have to do is to believe a few doctrines about Jesus and you will be saved. There is no need for a life of repentance from sins. But "entering the kingdom" is another thing, a difficult one, for which a godly life is necessary. My study looks at all the usages of these (and related) terms in the New Testament and shows that they are just different ways of talking about the same thing – being saved, which is not easy at all!
4. According to Dr. Eaton, ‘believing’ or ‘having faith’ are easy things and ‘saving faith’ can be had in a jiffy. The study What does "Salvation by Faith in Jesus" mean Biblically? is a thorough look at the terms "Faith" and "Believe" in the Bible; the difference between the Jewish-Hebrew (and hence Biblical) understanding of "Faith", and the Greek-Roman-Gentile understanding. It shows how it is no easy matter to believe or to have "Faith" as the Bible understands it. According to Dr. Eaton, it is an easy matter to have faith, something that can be done in a jiffy, and that we are saved by doing this easy thing once in a lifetime. That this is not so will be amply clear from this study.

That summarizes why I cannot accept the central thesis of Dr. Eaton’s book. But perhaps I have got too specific with Dr. Eaton’s book in these two sections. I am really more concerned with the whole ‘easy-believism’ school of thought, of which Dr. Eaton’s thesis is but an example. It’s now time to get general and build a theology which does away with the minus points of the whole ‘easy-believism’ school of thought. It’s now time to come to the most important part of this essay, the constructive part, in which we seek to construct a theology of salvation based on Jesus’ words alone. It would be the greatest disservice if I tear down but don’t build up. This last part is the constructive part, seeking to construct a theology based on Jesus’ words alone. Plus it has the added advantage of being non-legalistic as well as harmonistic (with the non-Pauline part of the Bible). The unconscious and unquestioned assumption amongst theologians seems to be that a "non-legalistic soteriology" has to be Pauline. But if Jesus was the biggest non-legalist there ever was, plus the biggest expert-on-salvation there ever was, then logically, the best "non-legalistic soteriology" should come from Jesus’ own words, and Jesus’ own words alone. Grace and truth are supposed to have come through Jesus, not Paul! The soteriology I believe in today is both non-legalistic (meaning ‘the Mosaic law is irrelevant for salvation’) and based solely on Jesus’ own words. Plus it is also a "harmonistic hermeneutic." It is harmonistic because it does not have any self-contradictory elements. And it is in harmony with the rest of the Bible (i.e. non-Pauline portion of the Bible). It is in harmony even with the Old Testament which Jesus authenticated to be the Word of God. And it is hermeneutic because it is also intensely practical. Jesus himself was an intensely practical person and the application of a theology based on his words is bound to be intensely practical too. It may not make you float on cloud nine as Pauline theology might; but it will help you go through this life victoriously as Jesus did. It will most likely end you covered with sweat-and-dust; but then victor’s crowns are generally placed on heads with faces and bodies covered with sweat-and-dust. There is no easy-believism here. And when the rain comes down, the streams rise, and the winds blow and beat against your house; it will not fall because it will have its foundation on the rock of Jesus words.(Mat 7:25)

In the last few years, after I have made my differences with church theology known, many a times I have been asked whether I believe in "salvation by faith" or "salvation by works," obviously referring to the two broad belief systems. The two are understood to be in contradiction to each other; "salvation by works" meaning that you are saved by self-effort, "salvation by faith" meaning that there is nothing that you can do to influence your salvation, everything that is needed is done by God and God alone, you just have to receive it by faith. Forced to think about it, I would now answer: "Neither and both. What I really believe in is what I would call salvation by repentance." That of course needs clarification. In what sense is "salvation by repentance" neither "salvation by faith" nor "salvation by works?" And in what sense is it both "salvation by faith" and "salvation by works?"

Answer: "Salvation by repentance" is not just salvation by faith because there is an element of works involved – clearly from the list of words from Jesus’ lips as to what criteria are to be used on Judgment Day for separating the sheep from the goats, there is a clear element of how a person has lived his life practically and what he has done with what has been given to him. However it is also not just "salvation by works" because clearly, the kind of life the Jesus requires for salvation cannot be lived by self-effort. It can only be lived by continuously drawing strength from God, which can only be done by faith in God and faith in Jesus. "Salvation by repentance" thus includes both faith and works, and both are dependent on each other and co-related with each other. You cannot have works without faith, and faith without works is dead (and dead faith cannot save a person – James 2:14, 17, 26). To make them exclusive of each other seems to go against Biblical teaching. Both are needed, and both are needed to be working together in a person for him to be saved.

Why do I call it "Salvation by repentance?" Because that is what Jesus constantly preached. The central message that Jesus preached was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." The "good news" that Jesus preached was "the Kingdom of God is near" and to enter it, the thing that the hearers needed to do was to "repent of their sinful lives," both in heart and in action. That "salvation" is the same as "entering the kingdom eschatalogically", and that it requires all three – faith, repentance and works, are clear from the studies Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible, and What does "Salvation by Faith in Jesus" mean Biblically?

This repentance covers both, a change of heart and a change of lifestyle. That a change of heart is required and necessary, that mere external actions are not enough is clear from Jesus’ many statements to the effect. "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven," said Jesus (Mat 5:20). Did not the Pharisees and the teachers of the law have ‘righteousness.’ They did, but it was all an external one, merely conforming to the letter of the law, not its spirit. Their hearts were corrupt, they had no inner righteousness. Jesus laid great emphasis on purity of heart, as is clear not only from the Sermon on the Mount, but from many other passages like the following:

This purity of heart is of great importance for being saved i.e. for entering the kingdom of God eschatalogically. But how does one achieve this purity of heart? The outline of the inner process is laid down in the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:3-12), and perfectly exemplified by Psalm 51. The steps, as laid down in Mt 5:3-12 are:

Step 1: Becoming "poor in spirit" (Mt 5:3): This is what happens to man when he comes face-to-face with God’s standards of righteousness and realizes how far short of those standards he is. When Isaiah saw the vision of God (Isa 6:1-4), his immediate reaction was to say, "Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." (Isa 6:5) When Ezekiel saw the vision of God, he fell face down (Eze 1:28 and 3:23). In Gen 17:3, when Abraham met God, he fell face down. Daniel’s experience was similar (Dan 8:17, 10:7-9, 10:16-17). Few of us are granted such visions of God, but all of us are to know something of this sense of utter sinfulness in our spirits when we meet God and see that vast gap between not just God and us, but between what God expects us to be and what we are. When Peter got a sense of this, his reaction was to fall at Jesus' knees and say, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5:8) We get this sense when we read in passages like the Sermon on the Mount, what kind of life God expects us to live, and the vast gap between that and what we really are. The tax collector in Luke 18:10-14 had this sense of sinfulness and unworthiness, the self-righteous Pharisee didn’t. Now strange as it may seem, this very sense of utter sinfulness is the starting-point of the process of "salvation by repentance." This is the very thing that leads to the next step, which is "mourning" (Mt. 5:4).

Step 2: "Mourning": But mourning for what? Not for things of the world, not that you don’t have as much money as the other person, not that your car is not as good as the other person’s, but over your own sinfulness in God’s sight! "Oh how sinful I am" has been the heart-cry of God’s saints through the ages.

Step 3: Becoming "meek": Meekness is not "weakness." Jesus described himself as meek (Mt. 11:29 KJV and 21:15 KJV). It means "humble" (as the NIV translates Mt. 11:29). After seeing the high standards of God’s righteousness, and the vast gap that there is between himself and that standard, and after mourning for that vast gap, a person necessarily becomes humble! No pride is left, no sense of self-righteousness is left. All our righteous acts look like filthy rags (Isa 64:6).

Step 4: Hungering and thirsting for righteousness: This is perhaps the most crucial step (if one can say so) because it is in response to this that Jesus says that they will be "filled". Filled with what? Filled with exactly what they were hungering and thirsting for – the inner righteousness, that God desires. It is here that God cleanses the heart by his spirit. There are two important things to note here: This hungering and thirsting comes only after one recognizes that no amount of self-effort can cleanse one’s heart. If a man is hungry and thirsty for food and water and can get them by his own self-effort, he does so. It is only the man who is in a situation that he cannot get them by his own self-effort no matter how much he tries, who will cry out to God to supply his need. So also, it is also when a man realizes that no amount of self-effort will cleanse his own heart, that he cries out to God for the cleansing of his heart. Secondly, this is an intense thing. It is not the mere repeating of prayers. It is an intense cry from the heart, as if his whole life depended on it. It is like the cry of a person who has not had food or water for days, like a person lost in a desert! His very life depends on it. The thought consumes him; he is not interested in anything else. Gold, silver and diamonds are no longer of any value to him. To a person who sees the blackness of his heart and who realizes that no amount of self-effort can cleanse it, and to whom this heart-righteousness is more precious than gold, silver and precious stones, and who cries out to God out of this hunger and thirst, does God fill his heart with righteousness.

Step 5: "Becoming merciful." The external actions start here. Only a person who knows that it is only because God has shown him mercy that his heart has been cleansed, only such a person can show mercy to others. This is beautifully illustrated in the parable related by Jesus in Mt. 18:23-35, wherein the servant who had been forgiven a very large debt was not willing to forgive even a small debt of another servant to him. Why was he not willing to do so? Because his own pleading before the king for mercy was a mere external act, it had not come from his heart. Christians who claim to have been forgiven by God, yet refuse to forgive others are in exactly the same situation. And their result is going to be the same as that of the wicked servant’s. In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." (Matt 18:34-35)

Step 6: "The pure in heart seeing God": This will happen eschatalogically in the future when God brings in His Kingdom on earth; it happens in the spirit now. This is what Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones calls the "summom bonum" of religion in his excellent "Studies in the Sermon on the Mount." It’s only the pure in heart who do this, not those who have mere external righteousness. It’s easy to apply this to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, because they are so far removed from us, but I fear that many Christians today are in the same boat – doing all the "right" things externally – attending church meetings regularly, reading and studying their Bibles regularly, praying regularly, evangelizing regularly etc., but inwardly are full of dead man’s bones.

Step 7: "Becoming peacemakers:" Not only between man-and-man which may be so only sometimes (as Jesus himself said in Mat 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"), but between man and God, as Jesus always did. This is the second external effect.

Step 8: "Being persecuted because of righteousness": The third external effect. Note some very important points here. Firstly it is persecution because of righteousness, not just persecution because of preaching the gospel which is a different thing. The inner righteousness that the person has cultivated is now being seen and sensed outside and has started having its effect there. It has started affecting others’ lives negatively enough for them to start persecuting him. Nobody persecutes another because of petty matters, persecution starts only when the Kingdom of God is making such inroads into the dominion of darkness that the darkness starts feeling that it has to do something about it. Also, man’s religiosity is such that if it could gain this righteousness by self-effort it will first try to do so. The darkness outside in others also senses that this righteousness, which is flowing from the inside-out, is a righteousness which cannot be had by any amount of self-effort! And so out of frustration, it does the only thing left in its hands to do – persecute!

This process, carried out repeatedly over a lifetime, leads to a deeper and deeper cleansing of the heart. These steps are beautifully exemplified in Psalm 51:

• Becoming "poor in spirit": For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. (v.3) Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (v.5), Surely you desire truth in the inner parts; you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. (v.6)
• "Mourning": Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. (v.4)
• Becoming "meek" : Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions (v.1) Save me from bloodguilt, O God, the God who saves me, and my tongue will sing of your righteousness. (v.14) You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. (v.16) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (v.17)
• Hungering and thirsting for righteousness: Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. (v.2), Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. (v.7-12)
• "The pure in heart seeing God": Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. (v.11)
• "Becoming peacemakers:" Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you. (v.13) O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. (v.15) Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar. (v.19)

These then are the steps in cultivating the inner purity of heart. Obviously it cannot be done by self-effort alone. Neither is it done by God’s spirit alone, against man’s will. This inner purity of heart is achieved only in a spirit of partnership with God. There is a God’s part, and there is a man’s part. Both are necessary. Man alone can’t do it. God alone can do it but chooses not to do it. He does His part of convicting man of his sin, and then waits for man’s response, man’s co-operation, and only when that comes in the form of mourning over his sins, becoming humble before God, hungering and thirsting for righteousness and asking for it, does God fill man’s heart with the righteousness that He alone can fill. There is no ‘imputed’ righteousness here, no legal forensic righteousness in Pauline terms. There is only an ‘imparted’ (or ‘infused’) righteousness.

This inner purity of heart is however, only one aspect of the kind of life that God requires us to live for being saved. The second aspect, the outer or external aspect, is the way we live with other people, and comes out most clearly in the complete list of Jesus’ own statements regarding what’s going to happen on Judgment Day, and the criteria to be used for judging us, which has been presented earlier. From that list, clearly, what we do in life also has got a major role to play in the decision to be made on Judgment Day. Clearly there is an important element of self-discipline and moving in faith on Jesus words. But this is not self-discipline alone. It is self-discipline in partnership with God, and here, the initiative can come from either side. If God takes the initiative (Heb 12:5-10), we are to respond positively by obeying; if we take the initiative (Heb 12:1-3) for the various commands and encouragements mentioned specifically in the Bible, we submit them in prayer to God and ask God to bless our efforts. Both are valid and in order. And here too, it’s neither God alone nor we alone who do it all. There is a "God’s part" and there is an "our part." God provides the direction, the motivation, and the energy and we move our hands and legs. Both are necessary. It’s a partnership, and a most wonderful partnership, I add.

This soteriology based on Jesus’ words alone, says: When a person lives like this regularly, cultivating both inner and outer righteousness in partnership with God, he "enters the kingdom" accordingly in day-to-day life. A person who has made this his lifestyle and is continually growing in the knowledge of God while here on earth i.e. who is ‘entering the kingdom daily/ regularly’, will finally "enter the kingdom eschatalogically" on Judgment Day.

Now, how is this soteriology non-legalistic? It is non-legalistic because it has no reference to the Mosaic law; it treats the Mosaic law as irrelevant. Not because "Jesus has done away with it" as many Christians believe, but because Jesus has laid down standards which are far higher than the standards laid down in the Mosaic law, and it is these standards which are now applicable, not the standards of the Mosaic law. Jesus made it absolutely clear that he had not come to do away with the law: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to make them complete. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Mat 5:17-18). The Greek word "pleroosai" at the end of Matt 5:17 is generally translated "fulfil" in most English translations. That is a mistranslation. The Strong’s definition of "pleroosai" (4137) is "to make replete i.e. literally to cram (a net), level up (a hollow)." To make complete what was incomplete. To fill to the full. This meaning also fits in beautifully into the context – "make complete what was incomplete" is precisely what Jesus does in the six examples in Matt 5:21-48. In effect, Jesus is saying, "The law that Moses gave was incomplete, appropriate for that time. I am now making it complete. What you received was like a glass half-full of water. I am now filling it up to the brim and giving you the full glass." It’s like saying "Earlier the standard of passing in the examination was that you should get 35% marks. Now I am making it 100%!"

Now in that sense, Jesus actually makes it more difficult to be saved, and not more easy! The study Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible shows how the disciples clearly understood that Jesus was making it more difficult to be saved, and that Jesus made no effort to correct this impression. When he said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For 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," (Mat 7:13-14), he was speaking in the context of righteous living, in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. If very few even find the narrow road and the small gate that lead to life, imagine how few are the ones who actually walk along the narrow road and enter the small gate! My personal belief is that the second coming of Christ has tarried so long (when clearly he himself expected it within a generation of his ascension), is that very few, very, very few, actually follow Jesus. By and large, the Jews rejected him outright, and the Gentiles corrupted the purity of his teachings by adding to them all kinds of irrelevant stuff (including Paul’s letters), made a god out of him and made him fundamentally different from man, so that they could put him on a pedestal and free themselves from having to obey him, just similar to what has happened with others like Buddha and Sai Baba. God is looking for a certain number of people who would follow Jesus whole-heartedly, in spirit as well as in actions, and that certain number has not got built up even 2000 years after Jesus! If there are not going to be enough people to get into the Kingdom, what’s the point of bringing in the Kingdom anyway? This of course is my personal opinion, I have no Biblical support for it and I wouldn’t press it, but it offers a good explanation why God has tarried so long for the second coming of Christ. But back to our discussion.

So Jesus has made it even more difficult to be saved. Why has he done so? He has done so because the standard that God desires for people to be admitted into the eschatalogical Kingdom was simply not there in the Mosaic law. He had to give the complete standard, and He gave it through Jesus in moral and ethical teachings like the Sermon on the Mount. This is what Jesus meant when he said that he had come to make the Mosaic law complete.

Now the question arises: If Jesus has made it more difficult to be saved by specifying higher standards, then how is it that he expected the eschatalogical coming of the Kingdom so soon? It took more than 2000 years for the Israelites to even come to the standard of the Mosaic law. It was only about 500 years before Christ that the Israelites were free even from idolatry! So how did Jesus expect people to live by these higher standards in the short period of one generation (30 years)? Answer: Sure, Jesus has upped the standard, but with Jesus’ ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, God has provided even greater resources for man to live by those standards. The Holy Spirit is now poured out in full measure. His presence was only partial before, and he came in full measure only on a certain limited number of people, but now his presence is freely available to all who desire. To all who desire to live by these standards and are willing to pay the necessary price, more than enough help is available from the Holy Spirit to make it possible. The problem is that there are so few who really desire and ask. The vast majority are satisfied with their religious life. Yes, Jesus has indeed made the standards higher, but God has provided gar greater resources for us to meet those higher standards.

Another question arises: Who is capable of completely living by these standards? Nobody can live such perfect lives. The above passages make it clear that those who live godly lives, repenting of their sins and putting their faith in practical actions, are the ones who will be saved. Unfortunately at this point, the devil comes right in and makes us think perfectionism. Many of the statements above give an impression that perfection is needed to be saved. However, if we think perfectionism, we get caught not only in obvious hermeneutical difficulties, but also exegetical ones! Let’s take the passage Matt 25:31-46 to illustrate the exegetical difficulties one gets into if one thinks perfectionism.

Here Jesus makes salvation dependent on feeding the hungry, offering water to the thirsty, being hospitable to strangers, clothing the needy, and visiting the sick and those in prison. According to these words, those who do such things will enter the kingdom eschatalogically, to eternal life; those who do not do such things to eternal punishment. Now none of us are perfect and none of us have done these things perfectly. Suppose God puts us in ten situations where we have opportunities to do these things. Thinking in purely exegetical terms, what happens if we are obedient in five and disobedient in the other five? Will we be saved because we obeyed in five cases? Or will we be destroyed because we disobeyed in the other five? If we say that perfect obedience is required for salvation according to verses 34-36, then by the same logic, perfect disobedience would be required to be sent into eternal fire according to verses 41-43! Since we have shown neither perfect obedience nor perfect disobedience, what is Jesus to do? If he invites us to eternal life, then he would be negating his own words in verses 41-43 (after all we did disobey him 5 times out of 10). And if he sends us to eternal fire, then he would be negating his own words in verses 34-36 (after all we did obey him 5 times out of 10). And what if 10 times out of 10 we have fed the hungry and quenched the thirst of the thirsty, but only once out of 10 times visited those in prison? What is Jesus to do then? The exegetical difficulties are obvious! We just cannot take such passages in the perfectionist sense.

Nobody is talking perfectionism here; such passages have to be taken to mean "the temper of our minds and the tenor of our lives" (to use Matthew Henry’s words in his commentary on James 2:14-26). What is our reaction and what do we do 8 times out of 10 when God puts us in these situations? Do we grumble and disobey? Do we grumble but finally obey grumbling? Do we don’t grumble but joyfully disobey, praying in our comfortable chairs, "Thank you Lord for the opportunity you have given them to be witnesses in prison. Use them to expand your kingdom in prison." Or do we joyfully obey and visit them? 8 times out of 10, do we recognize it as an opportunity to serve Jesus and visit the brother? We may fail a few times, but what is the general temper of our minds and the tenor of our lives? What do we generally do?

Plus there is the question of "what and how much has been given to whom." The study Salvation: The Lie of Easy-Believism and the Truth of the Bible shows how standards are going to be relative and not absolute, quoting many passages from Jesus’ own lips that judgment is going to be on relative terms and not absolute (Mt 10:14-15, Mt 11:21-24, Mt 12:41-42, Mt 25:14-30, Mk 12:38-40, Mk 12:41-44, Lk 10:10-12, Lk 10:13-14, Lk 12:47-48, Lk 20:45-47, Lk 21:1-4). Five times out of ten may be an ‘excellent’ result for a person who comes from a troubled family background and has hardly had any Christian training, it may not be even passing grade for another who has been raised in a Christian pastor’s home right from his childhood where the Bible was read daily, and who is financially well-off enough not to have the burden of earning his day-to-day bread. Frankly, we are in no position to judge at all, and we have to leave all judgment to God.

With this soteriology, even if we do commit a sin inadvertently, we don’t get worked up about it, since we know that perfectionism is not what is required of us. We can simply repent of our sin and move on. But this is not the only salutary effect it has on us. What if we start using this as an excuse and say that, "Since perfectionism is not required, I can continue in sin and repent later." This doesn’t work (I have tried it!) because you soon realize that although God gives you more chances, He doesn’t give you chances ad infinitum. If you continue this way, there may come a time when there may be no more chances available to you! And with each passing indulgence, it gets more difficult for you the next time. So might as well repent right away!

Thus this soteriology is non-legalistic because it treats the Mosaic law as irrelevant. When a person lives by Jesus’ standards, he automatically ends up living by the Mosaic law. When with the help of the spirit, he has disciplined himself to not even look lustfully at a woman, where is the question of his committing adultery? When with the help of the spirit, he has disciplined himself to not even harbor resentment or anger, where is the question of his committing murder? These things are far, far away from his mind. Not committing murder, not committing adultery get automatically fulfilled when he has learnt to live by Jesus’ standards. However it is important to note that "do not commit murder" and "do not commit adultery" are still applicable to him! He cannot commit murder or adultery saying that the Mosaic law is irrelevant for him. Jesus has not abolished the Mosaic law. "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" (Mat 5:18) He has only made it irrelevant for practical day-to-day living by setting far higher standards, not irrelevant for Judgment!

But this soteriology is not only non-legalistic, it is also in harmony with the rest of the (non-Pauline) Scripture, even in harmony with the Old Testament which Jesus authenticated to be the Word-of-God. Not only the method (salvation by repentance) the same, but even the both heart-and-life purity required by God is the same (only the standards are higher). And even the "higher" standards set by Jesus were recognized by some men of God. When Job said "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl" (Job 31:1), what standard was he following – the OT standard of "Do not commit adultery" (Exo 20:14) or the New Testament standard of "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mat 5:28) as made complete by Jesus? When Joseph resisted the advances of Potiphar’s wife, what standards was he following? In fact he didn’t even have the Old Testament law to guide him by.

Christians love to believe that in the Old Testament, God required only an external purity, and it was only after Jesus that God focused on heart-purity. How wrong this belief is, can be seen from the following passages:

So God desired heart purity even in the Old Testament. Next, even the method of attaining this purity was the same (repentance). We have already seen how Psalm 51 beautifully illustrates the steps of the Sermon on the Mount. But there are other passages too which illustrate that a simple, genuine repentance is all that God desires to accept a sinner

Thus we see that this theology of salvation is in harmony even with the Old Testament, authenticated as the Word-of-God by Jesus (unlike the Pauline epistles). Just like in the Old Testament, it requires a simple heart-and-action repentance from sins to be accepted by God. The only difference now is that the standards are higher.

And yet by one sweeping "But now!," Paul casts aside 4000 years of Biblical Truth upheld by Jesus in the experience of a number of people whom he considered as "men of God". Moses (the Law) and Prophets NEVER taught that obedience to God’s laws and simple repentance from sins did not justify, in fact it was just the opposite they taught; namely, that obedience to the laws of God and simple repentance from sins does justify (brought righteousness). Paul discounts what Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus all taught and held in common, and substitutes his own theology that replaces 4000 years of Biblical Truth with a "BUT NOW" theology of justification before God through belief in Jesus’ substitutionary death and resurrection, without any requirement of repentance from sins or obedience to God. For 4000 years, righteousness in God’s eyes was gained by repentance from sins and obeying the law. This was upheld by Jesus as right as his central message was always, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God as at hand" (is near/ is available easily/ is within your grasp). Now suddenly and without any support from Jesus, Paul says that repentance from sins and obedience to God are not necessary, all one needs to do is "believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will be saved."

Now the fact that the soteriology described above is in harmony with the rest of the (non-Pauline) Scripture has tremendous positive practical implications. According to this theology, Jesus has in one sense, actually made it more difficult to be saved, by presenting a higher mountain and saying, "You HAVE to climb this to be saved, you MUST climb this, to be saved. If you don’t, and remain stuck at the base of this mountain, you will not be saved." That makes it seem that it’s going to be more difficult to be saved. In fact this theology seems first DISCOURAGING.

Yet amazingly, in practice however, it is actually easier to climb this higher mountain! And there are two reasons for that. Firstly as I have said before, God has given us even greater resources by pouring out the Holy Spirit in full measure. But secondly, there are also no self-contradictory elements in this theology to pull you in the opposite direction. It’s as if there is no burden on your back to weigh you down, or no rope tied to your legs to pull you down when you start climbing the (higher) mountain. With Pauline theology mixed with theology based on Jesus’ words, you become like the double-minded man James talks about in James 1:8. Dr. Eaton’s (Paul-based) theology says, "Here is the high mountain in front of you. You need not climb it to be saved, you can comfortably set up camp at its base and remain there. You will be saved even if you do that. Only those who want to make further progress with God need to climb it." This of course contradicts many of Jesus’ statements and you are caught in the double-mind, not knowing which of the beliefs are true. If you do start climbing, you come across difficulties as you are bound to, and you come back down. However, in the theology based on Jesus’ words alone, once you become clear that you HAVE to climb the mountain to be saved, that there is no alternative, that there are no two ways about it, you simply brace yourself, pick up your bags and start climbing! And you don’t come back down even when the going becomes difficult, you simply press on. There is no turning back, because there is nothing to turn back to! There is no Pauline theology to fall back on! There is no saying, "Okay, so what if I continue sinning? Jesus is there. Okay, so what if I continue disobeying God, Jesus is there. I believe that he died for my sins, so I will be saved." There is none of this. You might take breathers from time to time, but you don’t come back to base-camp, you keep on moving up and forward. The lack of self-contradictory elements lead to a single-mindedness, and has a most positive effect on the progress you make in climbing the mountain. You do end up climbing the mountain, and then you realize that what you thought at first to be discouraging was actually the really ENCOURAGING theology. People who have lived truly godly lives have maintained that the true gospel first casts you down and only then lifts you up. "Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:14) Any theology that offers encouragement first, without going through the process described in the beatitudes – without becoming poor in spirit, without mourning for their own sins, without becoming meek and humble, without hungering and thirsting for righteousness, is like the "power of positive thinking" kind of books available on the roadside. True encouragement comes from God and God alone after going through the humbling process.

I would go ahead and even dare to call someone who preaches easy-believism as a false prophet. Since this is a big statement, I need to explain it. On what basis do I dare to do so? On the basis of what Jesus said exactly about false prophets in Mt. 7:15, its immediate context (Mt. 7:13-7:20), and its broader context (Mt. 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount). Let’s start with the broader context first – that it occurs in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is primarily an eschatalogical passage, dealing with the coming Kingdom of God. Jesus begins the entire teaching with the beatitudes in 5:3-10, the process by which if we live our lives, the kingdom of heaven will be ours, ending the first and last verses with ‘for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’ In Mat 5:19-20, he says, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." The second most important petition in our prayers (after the desire that His Name be hallowed) as according to the model prayer he taught, is to be that "His kingdom would come" (6:10). And of course we cannot have that high in our prayer priorities, if it is not actually high in our priorities in our lives, if we are to pray with integrity. The coming kingdom has to be high in our priorities. That is also what we are to seek first, according to 6:33. And Jesus rounds off the entire section with a dire warning in 7:21-23 that mere lip-service won’t do for us to enter the kingdom, our obedience to God will be the determining factor. That’s the broader context – the coming Kingdom of God.

In between these statements, Jesus describes what kind of life we are to live generally, while we are on this earth, if we are to have the basic qualifications for entering the kingdom i.e. for getting saved. This includes cultivating an inner heart-righteousness that goes beyond the Mosaic law (5:21-48), to do our acts of righteousness to be seen only by God, and not by man (6:1-18), to have our eyes fixed on things in heaven and not on earth (6:19-24), to trust in God for our daily needs (6:25-34), to not judge others (7:1-6), to ask God for strength and wisdom in living this way while on earth (7:7-12). And then, Jesus ends the section with important warnings – to enter (the kingdom of heaven) through the narrow gate only (7:13-14), and to build their lives on his words by putting them into practice (7:24-27). Implicit in all this is the belief that "those who don’t live like this will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now sandwiched between the warnings of 7:13-14 and 7:24-27 is the warning about false prophets. "Prophets" are those who speak in the name of God, who claim that they are bringing God’s message. "False prophets" are those who make such a claim, but are actually not from God, are actually not bringing God’s message. "Sheep" in the Bible are generally referred to those who follow God, and in the New Testament, to those who follow Jesus. "False prophets in sheep’s clothing" would mean those who have the outward appearance of people who follow God and Jesus, and who are claiming to bring God’s message but are actually not doing so. "Ferocious wolves" are those who seek to devour and destroy the sheep (=people who genuinely follow God). And we are to "watch out" for these kind of false prophets, says Jesus.

Note a very important point. Jesus says to "watch out" for false prophets immediately after saying, "Enter through the narrow gate. For 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." (Mat 7:13-14). In effect he is saying: "You must enter through the narrow gate. People will try to mislead you and lead you to go through the wide gate and the broad path because many go through it, and it is easy. In your endeavour to enter through the narrow gate, you must especially watch out for ‘false prophets’ that is, people who appear to be following God, who claim to be following God, who claim to be bringing God’s message to you, but are actually people who seek to devour and destroy the simple, genuine followers of God. The way to do this is to check their fruit. Does their teaching actually produce a life of the kind I have just described in the Sermon on the Mount? Since they themselves do not believe it is necessary to lead this kind of lifestyle to be saved, they will by themselves not practice it wholeheartedly in their own lives. Since they do not do that, they will not encourage others to do so either, and they will have no moral authority to preach it. So their followers too will not live this kind of lifestyle. The end result will be no fruit like this, because neither they, nor their followers believe that living this kind of lifestyle is necessary to be saved; and who does difficult things which are not considered necessary?"

Now note a very interesting aspect of this theology, one that is sure to raise the hackles of many Christians: a belief in Jesus’ vicarious atonement or his lordship is not a necessary condition for salvation. This may come as a surprise to many Christians who have been taught to "believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will be saved." But nowhere did Jesus make a belief in his vicarious atonement a necessary (let alone sufficient) condition for salvation. This means that one person may not believe in Jesus’ lordship or in his vicarious atoning sacrifice, yet get saved because he met the criteria for salvation specified by Jesus (living a godly life of repentance, both in heart and in action). While another person may believe, truly believe with all his heart, that "Jesus is Lord" and that "Jesus died for his sins," yet not get saved because he did not meet the criteria specified by Jesus for getting saved! We cannot expect Jesus to act according to our fancies; we can expect Jesus to do only what he has committed to do, what he has said he would do.

We have thus constructed a "non-legalistic soteriology" which is also a "harmonistic hermeneutic" and which is based on Jesus’ words alone. It is far more motivating since it takes away all complacency. Sure it has the fear element of possibly not being ultimately saved, but as the Bible says, in Ps 111:10 and in Prov 9:10, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." The love of the Lord may be the endpoint of wisdom, but there can be no proper endpoint without a proper beginning. It is only right fear of the Lord that can lead to a right love for the Lord. A wrong, craven fear may actually lead to a hatred for the Lord, no fear can lead to a wrong love which takes the Lord for granted and treats the Lord as our equal or even our servant. Just hear some of the prayers Christians make and the tone in which they make them and you start wondering whether they are talking to their servants. Zecharias Tanee Fomum of Cameroon, known for his prayer and fasting – filled lifestyle says, "You cannot shout at the Lord in prayer. The Lord is your superior. You don’t shout at your superiors in office do you?" A right fear of the Lord in necessary in a right relationship with the Lord. The right fear of the Lord ensures that we have a right attitude towards the Lord.

Next, since there are no self-contradictory elements in this soteriology, you are no longer a double-minded person being tossed this way and that, and you can single-mindedly follow Jesus with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength. And since.this soteriology removes the unnecessary burden of Pauline theology, you are no longer burdened with the task of trying to understand some of the things Paul said, of trying to reconcile them to Jesus’ teachings, and of having to defend them – first to yourselves and then to others. You can treat them simply as irrelevant, ignore them completely, and run behind (the real) Jesus with all freedom and abandonment.

May this joy be yours as soon as possible.