I do not judge who is saved and who is not saved. No man has that competence, I think. I can read in scripture what one must do to be saved. The application to individual cases is not my assignment.
God may very well save many who have less information than we have about HIm or about what He requires. Old Testament saints had very little knowledge about God, compared to ourselves. They knew nothing about a God who would deign to live and die for them, as a mortal Himself, among men. It may be that most knew too little to be expected to respond to Him without personal advantage playing a significant role. However, even in those benighted times, it was not impossible for one to love God for Himself—as David illustrates.
The gospel tells us much more about the love and loveliness of God than was ever demonstrated in Old Testament times. Paul said He was constrained by the love of God, and John said we love [Him] because He first loved us. We may find it convenient to scare people into some kind of decision for Christ—and, if these candidates know no more than Old Testament believers did about the nature of God, then God may well (for all any of us can conjecture) accept that lower level of light and love from them as a starting point.
Unfortunately, if our converts know no more about God than the Old Testament saints knew, that will probably be because, instead of correctly representing Him to them, we will have instead appealed to their carnal self love. This starting point, for many, will be one from which they never progress. Amazingly, God may manage to actually save some people
genuinely despite inadequate presentations of the gospel—so that, even though they were appealed to on the basis of fear, they will nonetheless get a revelation from God Himself of His love, which thoroughly converts them.
I think I would say this was my own experience. I was saved (I think) under preaching that was heavily weighted with threats of hell and promises of a heaven of personal gratification. Heck, I was even appealed to on the basis of escaping a future tribulation period. Yet, despite all this unscriptural information, I really encountered God, so that, when I was confronted for the first time, at age 18, with the same question I asked John316yes, it took only a moment's contemplation before could honestly affirm the right answer. Of course, I would serve Christ with or without postmortem promises. That is because I had met Him (something more common in those days than it seems to be now) and I knew Him. The thought of living outside a relationship with Him, even if this was the only life I were to have, was unthinkable. I was not a man of
superior piety! My impression is that I was no different from most of the Jesus People I knew. In fact, I believe it is the normal mindset of a completely converted person.
So am I in danger of stumbling the "little ones" by advocating only the same gospel Jesus and the apostles preached? I guess I'll take my chances. I had rather have someone who is really saved re-examine himself because my teaching raised doubts in his mind (no harm in that!), than to preach a different gospel from that found in the New Testament, with the result of filling the church with people who only
think they are saved, but who will be among the "many" to whom Christ will say "I never knew you." You may preach whatever gospel comforts as many people as you wish, but we will all answer to God for whether we preached Christ's gospel, or the American Evangelical culture's (or our denomination's) gospel.
So what if my message should cause some to re-examine themselves to see if they are in the faith? Didn't Paul give us all that very exhortation (2 Cor.3:5)? How could that possibly hurt anyone? If Christians should look into their hearts and find that they do not love God (the first and great commandment), and that they are only living as Christians to placate His wrath, what would I say to such? I would say, Get to know Jesus better, because God is quite like Him. If you can get to know Him without the result being actual love for Him (which casts out fear), then there is a deficiency in your conversion.
This is not a condemnation, but a redirection. If someone who once thought he was saved should conclude, after self-examination, that this probably is not the case, well, then getting really saved remains an option—and one that will probably be neglected by those who have been fooled by modern preachers into thinking that they already are saved and secure.
Those who are truly saved will have the evidences of this, and nothing I say will ultimately hurt their assurance. God Himself will give such assurance. Those who currently have only a false assurance may be benefitted by being told the gospel as it is given in scripture.
Is it your contention that a person must totally deny all self interest prior to conversion (i. e. escape from hell/hope of heaven)? Perhaps you can elaborate on what this looks like. Seems to me self denial is required whenever our desires conflict with Christ's commands, and the demand for self denial has nothing to do with our hope of reward.
No, I don't think that denial of self precedes conversion, I believe that denial of self
is conversion. Your description of denial of self sounds like merely denying your sinful desires on a case-by-case basis. This is a secular sort of self-denial (such as a dieter or an alcoholic on the wagon engages in). There is a good chance that most such "self-denial" is done with self-serving ends in view.
By contrast, the convert's "denial of self" is the denial of the reign, or lordship, of self in favor of the lordship of Christ. This is not anecdotal in the life merely, but it is the reorientation of the whole life: "No longer I, but Christ." In scripture, this is the very description of being converted. Anything less is playing at religion.
P.S. By the way, even if we should allow that Luke has only recorded a synopsis of the apostolic sermons, rather than their complete texts, we still should assume that what he records is a
true synopsis of their content, and should not assume that they included threats and other specific content that are nowhere recorded in them. If Luke was writing a synopsis of modern evangelistic sermons, it would definitely be a very different synopsis than the ones we find in Acts. Did Peter say anything to scare the audience, you ask? Well, it seems to me that announcing the fact that God raised from the dead and set on the throne of the universe the very man that the audience had earlier crucified might tend to have a chilling effect.
