Part One [Also a Previous Post I Forgot I Wrote]
Two Religions in the World?
A common modern aphorism, very catchy, you will read from many sources: “There are only two religions in the world.” Men say they are “do” and “done.” That’s what Cary Schmidt says in his book, Done. He’s not the only one or even the first one to say it.
I googled “only two religions in the world” and got 41,900 hits. Then I searched google books and the first find was a book in 1884, The Life of John Calvin, by T. Lawson. Lawson indicates the division between eighteen your old Calvin and his cousin, Olivetan. This takes this language at least to the 16th century. Lawson writes:
“There are two religions in the world,” we hear Olivetan saying. “In the one class invented by men, man saves himself by ceremonies and good works: the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches men to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God.”
At the start of the next chapter, Lawson distinguishes the two religions as “Human Authority or Divine Revelation.” That’s different than “Do” and “Done” and is a little broader, if one would divide everything into two categories only.
More Than Two Religions
I disagree with the two religion adage. Someone could divide into “do” and “done,” but not two religions. Free gracers would agree with Olivetan and Schmidt. Jude called their false gospel (Jude 1:4), “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” This turns religions into at least three different categories, instead of two.
Someone might slot Schmidt into a third category. A person may say it’s just a lacking or wrong definition of “done.” Schmidt would say he is “done.” Someone taking his identical position might agree that he’s done too. According to scripture it’s only done, however, if a person repents and believes in Jesus Christ. If not, it isn’t done yet. He’s not doing for salvation, but neither is he done.
Dividing all religious categories into “human invention” and “divine revelation,” I can agree with that. That’s not how men like Schmidt and others categorize it though. It’s just “do” and “done.” I get the problem between do and done: human effort versus divine grace. Those two contradict each other. But people then also pervert or corrupt grace. They turn grace into something less than saving grace.
Excluding Repentance and Lordship of Christ
Schmidt in his book excludes repentance and lordship of Christ. I would contend that Schmidt’s faith isn’t even true faith. He constructs different prerequisites for salvation, putting the emphasis on a prayer, asking for salvation. This falls short of saving faith. It’s either intellectual or emotional, fitting into a stony ground type of faith (Matthew 13:5-6). It almost might be worldly, where the world swallows up a shallow faith (Matthew 13:7-8).
Part of the attraction of Schmidt’s idea of “done,” which I would call human invention, is someone doesn’t count the cost or give up anything. He can go on his sweet way. Sure, God does everything. A person doesn’t even really believe in Jesus Christ and God still does everything. This really is the broad road that Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:13-14.
No-repentance goes very nicely with American revivalism and evangelicalism. I especially say American, because it relies heavily on fleshly allure and marketing. Barnum and Bailey style. Even the very tidy, Done, goes along with that sentiment. It markets “done” especially to a people that want to keep going the same direction, yet receiving heaven in the end. It’s a very short book for an easy or even easier believism.
Spreading Around the World
The densely marketed Christianity from America reverses truths of scripture. It makes worship palatable and pleasurable to the worshiper. It orchestrates feelings and entertains. The purveyors calculate almost every aspect of the church experience for the attendee. In that way, this is “doing.” The professionals “do” church for those attending, starting with a fleshly or mystical reason to come. So much of everything is a show for churches like these.
In many locations around the globe, this other false religion which I address in this post generates a greater bad influence than the “do” religion. It blinds people especially in a more affluent world. They want a stimulating and thrilling religion that is done for them. Its advocates get the life they want on earth plus eternal life. They really also form or envision a Jesus of their own choosing.
We don’t have two religions in the world. More than two exist. More than three do too. I don’t know how many there are, but “do” and “done” aren’t all of them.
Brother Brandenburg,
Thank you for returning to this. It needs to be said. I wish more people would more carefully consider what you’re saying. It’s difficult because no one wants to accuse someone of teaching a false gospel, but at some point we have to ask if our message looks anything like the biblical message of Christ and the apostles.
Even though our faith is in Christ alone, the Bible doesn’t present Christianity as a “done” religion in the way that the revivalist crowd does. Christ said “If you continue in my words, then are ye my disciples indeed” and “They that hear my words and DO them” are founded upon a rock.
It’s a sly thing and when cornered I’ve seen those guys admit that people have to repent or have a heart willing to change, but then they go right back to their old ways.
Thanks Bro Thompson!
I think you are just finding an issue with his adage about the “do” and “done” concept just to make a point. He isn’t writing this book for theologians to dissect. He is writing it for common man. The average person is trying to “do” to get to heaven. They aren’t aware it (the work) is “done”. I think of John 3:36. There are clearly two kinds of people. Those who “believe” and those who “believe not”. It’s a very simple concept and you are reading into his whole point of the book.
I don’t disagree with your general concern of the gospel being watered down. I just don’t find a reason to object to the do and done concept.
Thanks,
John
Hi John,
Thanks for commenting. I think people should be wary of using a book that has it’s own significant problems. I would rather they would not. It results in a different kind of Christianity, one more in tune with the apostasy of 2 Peter. I’m exposing, “the gospel being watered down.” His gospel is perverted in at least a third way, so there is more than do and done as it relates to religion. I want people to see that so they don’t excuse these other false gospels. I’m saying he’s not on the do or the done side, because it really doesn’t get done with cheap grace, no-repentance, no-lordship. Thanks for the thoughts.
Pastor Bradenburg,
I meant to respond to (Part one) of this post when you posted it, but I didn’t. I am glad that you continued with a (Part two).
I know that you have written much on this, and I am so encouraged by that, because it grieves me greatly to see how much this distortion of the Gospel has spread throughout America, and into other countries as well.
The Do and Done argument as defined by Cary Schmidt is so incredibly shallow and misleading. There is truth in what he is saying to a certain degree, but as you pointed out, the overall effect is misleading and damaging to souls because what is left out in his presentation of the Gospel almost guarantees many false professions of faith to those who believe it.
I just preached a message at our church’s anniversary conference titled: “The reality and danger of believing in vain” from (I Corinthians 15:1-2). How ironic is it that in the clearest Gospel passage in all of Scripture, Paul warns the people of the Corinthian church who professed to be saved about the danger of them having possibly “believed in vain.” Nine out of ten Independent Baptist pastors probably don’t believe that is possible, but Paul clearly did!
It is so easy for people to believe in vain when they are being told everywhere today that mental assent to the historical facts of the Gospel results in salvation, and that repentance is not necessary in order for someone to believe on Christ. It’s bad enough that there are so many leaders in Independent Baptist churches preaching this false gospel advocated by Schmidt, but what is even worse, is to see how widely accepted it now is amongst Independent Baptist churches.
I was recently reading a book by Arthur Pink titled: “Studies on Saving Faith,” and there is one particular chapter in that book titled “The Signs of the Times” that is so telling in regards to what is taking place today relating to the perversion of the Gospel message. The whole book is very beneficial to read, and especially the chapter that I mentioned. When I read the following portion by Pink, I thought about Schmidt’s shallow explanation of how one is to receive salvation in Christ as a free gift (emphasis is mine). Pink said: “The terms of Christ’s salvation are erroneously stated by the present-day evangelist. With very rare exceptions he tells his hearers that salvation is by grace and is received as a free gift, that Christ has done everything for the sinner, and nothing remains but for him to “believe”, to trust in the infinite merits of His blood. And so widely does this conception now prevail in “orthodox” circles, so frequently has it been dinned in their ears, so deeply has it taken root in their minds, that for one to now challenge it and denounce it as being so inadequate and one-sided as to be deceptive and erroneous, is for him to instantly court the stigma of being a heretic, and to be charged with dishonoring the finished work of Christ by inculcating salvation by works. Yet, notwithstanding, this writer is quite prepared to run that risk.”
Pink was not infallible obviously, but he had an almost prophetic insight as to where this thing was headed. He also said in the same chapter: “Those preachers who tell sinners they may be saved without forsaking their idols, without repenting, without surrendering to the Lordship of Christ, are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation is by works and that heaven must be earned by our own efforts.”
We need some preachers who are willing to go out into the streets and market places and preach the truth of the Gospel, because just like when Whitfield was forced to preach the new birth message in the open air because the orthodox churches of his day didn’t want to hear it, I believe that is what will ultimately be the lot of those of us who are determined to hold to and preach only the true Gospel of Christ.
Jason
Thanks Jason! I’ll come back to comment more, Lord-willing.
Quote from Pink. “salvation is by grace and is received as a free gift, that Christ has done everything for the sinner, and nothing remains but for him to “believe”, to trust in the infinite merits of His blood.”
Sounds like Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 16:31 and John 3 to me.
I agree with a number of the things Kent and Jason are arguing for. I agree and am burdened with the way the gospel is handled in many situations. One thing though I would caution Kent, Jason and those from a similar vain, is to not error on the side of making the Gospel harder than it is. The gospel is simple. Even a child can receive it. “For of such is the kingdom of God.” If you make it too intellectual, which I fear Kent and Jason have the tendency to do, you make the gospel something it isn’t. Making the gospel harder than it is is just as bad as making it easier than it is.
This is not an attack on any one. So much of theology today is reactionary. I have seen people react into easy believism because they here unbiblical demands put on sinners that corrupts the gospel. Then the hyper-repentance/Lordship guys react to the Easy believism. The balance doesn’t necessarily mean the Biblical spot but often when reactions are driving the positions it drives people to unbalanced extremes. I believe I have seen this to be true.
John
John,
I tend to agree with you that a lot of theology is reactionary today. I also agree with you that Christians can often be given to extremes when it comes to biblical doctrines. My pastor often said that only the Holy Spirit can keep us from gravitating from one doctrinal extreme to the other, and I know that to be true.
I am glad that you are burdened as well with the way that the Gospel is handled in many situations. That makes me more at ease then if you would have said that there is no issue at all.
You quoted Pink in a way to almost invalidate the lengthy quotations that I gave from him. I am not here to defend Pink, because even though I think he had a very good understanding of the doctrine of soteriology (except when his Calvinism got in the way), there are a number of areas where I would strongly disagree with him, mainly his Calvinism. Having said that, I have read enough of him to know that the statement that you quoted from him cannot be taken at face value, without examining it in the broader context of his writings. I think the lengthy quotation that I gave from him proves what I am saying.
The main thing that I would take issue with in regards to your comments John, is where you said in respect to the Gospel: “One thing though I would caution Kent, Jason and those from a similar vain, is to not error on the side of making the Gospel harder than it is. The gospel is simple. Even a child can receive it. “For of such is the kingdom of God.” If you make it too intellectual, which I fear Kent and Jason have the tendency to do, you make the gospel something it isn’t. Making the gospel harder than it is is just as bad as making it easier than it is.”
Let me say this John, and I will try to be as concise as I can:
*How am I making the Gospel harder and too intellectual to understand, if I am just using Biblical terminology, like what it means to repent, and that Jesus is Lord? That sounds similar to a modern version argument of why we shouldn’t use the KJB anymore; ‘it’s too hard for people to understand; it’s “too intellectual” in the archaic old English.’
I also find it interesting, that those people who often bring up the simplicity of the Gospel and the verses about how we must receive it as a child, are usually the ones who are most guilty of watering down the Gospel message in such a way that Christ and the apostles would most certainly recognize as another gospel. From what you have written I don’t think that you do that, but many do. This is why when you see VBS (vacation bible school) conducted in most IFB churches, the Gospel presentations are so watered down, because like you suggested John, many of the adults probably think that the true Gospel is just too intellectual and hard for children to understand, so they just give them a counterfeit on what they deem to be on their level, and ultimately make them two-fold more the children of hell (Matthew 23:15).
To be honest with you John, I believe that a child can understand what the basic meaning of the word repent means. I also believe that once you explain to a child that Jesus Christ is God, a child will instinctively understand that if He is God, then He must be Lord as well! I think that adults need to stop using the children as an excuse to cover up the issues that they have with the true Gospel. When I explained to my children these things, they didn’t say that it was too hard for them to understand. The adult professing Christians have come forth with this too intellectual, too hard argument, oftentimes I believe, to hide the real issue, which is that they want a gospel that is more conformed to the worldly lifestyle that they want to live {“turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4).} So, just make it “simple,” and say that repent simply means a change of mind and nothing else, and that Jesus Christ must be received as Savior, but receiving him as Lord is just optional. Again, I am not directing this at you personally John, but from your comment I think you must understand what I am saying
Honestly John, I wish that someone in the Baptist church that I attended as a child growing up would have been honest enough with me to present the Gospel and Christ for what the Scriptures declare them to be. Perhaps I would not have made the false profession of faith that I did at age seven and would have been born again before the age of twenty-five if someone would have not over simplified the Gospel like they did and make me think that I was saved, when my life clearly evidenced that I was not born again (II Corinthians 5:17). For the record, this is not me being reactionary, this is just the sad reality of what happens in the lives of multitudes of children who are being cheapened from hearing the truth because of the duplicitous evangelism of adults who ought to know better.
Having said all if that, I think that I am probably closer to you John on the issue of the Gospel then I would be to someone like Cary Schmidt. I have a big problem with those will write books about the Gospel and promulgate them widely, all the while not even mentioning repentance, or drastically changing its meaning. That just seems very disingenuous to me.
Jason
I agree with you Jason. Thanks. I don’t think the changing of the gospel is intellectual. It is volitional. People like Jesus as Savior, but they don’t like Him as Lord. When someone believes in Jesus Christ, he doesn’t get to pick what He likes about Jesus, like a buffet. He believes in Jesus Christ or He doesn’t. Leaving out Lordship, I believe, is a different Jesus.
What is simplicity to little children is not understanding the gospel at all and just praying a prayer usually. It’s simple to repeat a prayer after someone and then later tell a child as he gets older that he was saved as a little child, because he asked Jesus to save Him.
Pastor Bradenburg,
Have you read the book titled: “Lordship Salvation” (Some crucial questions and answers) by Robert Lescelius?
I got it through “Challenge Press” in Lehigh Valley, PA and it is a very helpful book on the subject. It deals with the issues relating to repentance, discipleship, and he deals with the many questions and criticisms of those who hold to a non-Lordship position of salvation.
I especially like the fact that it is made clear that Lordship is not something that simply came out of Reformed theology/Calvinism, but was held to by many not even within that movement.
He also answers two books by two prominent so-called “Free grace” teachers: Charles C. Ryrie and his book “So Great A Salvation,” and Zane C. Hodges and his book “Absolutely Free!”
It is definitely a worthy book for those on both sides to read and prayerfully consider.
Jason
Hi Jason.
No, I haven’t read the book. I’ve read a lot about the subject, but not that one. I’ve read critiques of Lordship Salvation and proclamations of it. I think that some Lordship proponents say it in at least a confusing way. I don’t think I do, but maybe some think I do. When I explain it at the door, I never have someone tell me, that’s not the truth. I don’t get how someone thinks that Lordship arose out of Calvinism. I don’t see anywhere that Calvinism reflects Lordship in some unique way, just like there are Dispensational Calvinists and Dispensational Non-Calvinists, dispensationalism doesn’t mark necessarily soteriology.
We actually have a book on the gospel almost done from our Word of Truth Conference years. I hope it gets out. It might get out as written just by me, which I’m fine doing. I’ve written maybe 7 or 8 chapters of it already. I wrote the chapters on that subject.
Is there anything that I’ve written that concerns you?
Pastor Bradenburg,
I agree that there are men who confuse a lot of people with their version of “Lordship salvation” that is not biblical, and they cause great harm. I knew a particular IFB pastor who had such an unbiblical view of salvation, that he ripped (Hebrews 10:23-31) that talks about not forsaking the assembly completely out of context, and taught that it meant that people who were not 100% committed to the (local) church (meaning all the meetings and occasions when they assembled together) were lost. It was heretical on so many levels because it made him to be a dictator and the people thinking that their salvation was completely tied to their obedience to him and the church, and not in Christ. Sadly, that church has completely dissolved.
I hear IFB preachers who are anti-Lordship in their salvation views rip Paul Washer, who even though I would strongly disagree with a lot of his Calvinist theology (like I mentioned with Pink), his doctrine of soteriology is far more biblical, I believe, than many IFB preachers. Guys will say, ‘yeah, but he’s Sothern Baptist.’ My reply would be: “Better to be Southern Baptist with a True Gospel than an IFB Baptist with a false gospel.”
Even though I agree with you that Lordship teaching did not arise out of Calvinism, there is definitely a far greater emphasis in the Reformed community on this than in dispensational circles, which should not be surprising when one considers that most dispensationalists treat the Gospels as having very little bearing and authority in the lives of Christians. An exception would have been the Anabaptists, who took the teachings of Christ in the Gospels as if they were written directly to them, and consequently they literally turned the world upside down for Christ.
After I read some of the comments posted to these articles on “Done” that you wrote, I went back and read many of your other articles on “Lordship salvation.” I believe that your views on this are consistent, and not difficult to understand to those who are willing to be taught by others. I certainly hope that you continue to write on the subject of salvation as the Lord leads, because I fear that things are only going to get worse in our churches, primarily because of the false views being promulgated from the pulpits pertaining to salvation.
As I have said before, most of the problems in churches (even IFB churches) pertaining to CCM, immodesty, worldliness, a craving for entertaining preaching rather than faithful expositional preaching with application, and a general lack of reverence for the things of God, are often symptoms of a damaging root cause, which is that there are most likely far more church members who are lost than we would want to admit, due to a great deception about how someone can pass from death to life in Christ by being born again.
Articles that you have written on this subject Pastor Bradenburg should be generating a lot more responses in the comments section from those in support and against, and the fact that so many choose to remain silent and neutral is not a good sign.
Jason
Jason,
I agree with everything that you have said here. For awhile, I have not thought that the gospel is important enough to people. I even see that in my gospel preaching on a regular basis. People are ho-hum and aloof, basically.
In his book for young adults called “Discover Your Destiny; making right choices in a world full of wrong,” Cary Schmidt has this to say at the very beginning regarding salvation:
“Everything you are about to read in this book is based upon the assumption that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and that you believe the Bible to be God’s perfect Word to mankind. In these pages we’re going to explore your life and your future. Yet, there’s a bigger concept that you may need to explore first – eternity. The single most important question that you will ever answer is this – “If I were to die today, would I spend eternity in Heaven with God?”
The Bible tells us in 1 John 5:13, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life….” The simple truth is God wants you to know where you’re going! So, let me give it to you in a nutshell:
First, you must understand your need for a personal Saviour. The Bible is very clear that we all have a huge problem called sin. Romans 3:23 says it this way, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” This verse simply means that none of us are perfect. Are you willing to admit that?
The problem is this – sin has a high price tag. Romans 6:23a says, “the wages of sin is death.” In other words, the price for sin is eternal death apart from God in a place called Hell – not a good thing! Because of our sin, none of us can make it into Heaven alone.
Here’s the good news – God sent help! The rest of Romans 6:23 says, “but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Again in Romans 5:8 God says, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”! This leads us to the second step:
You must believe that Jesus Christ wants to be your Saviour! Jesus Christ came to Earth as God in the flesh, lived a perfect life, and then voluntarily died on a cross because He loves you. On that cross He literally paid for all of your sins. He took your blame! He punished Himself for your wrong doings. What a great gift!
John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” God, in His awesome love, came to Earth to make a way for you to be forgiven of your sins and given eternal life!
Finally, you must place your full trust in Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour. Romans 10:13 says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” In verse ten of that same chapter God says, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” He says it’s as simple as believing and receiving! It’s as simple as asking!
If you’ve never asked Jesus Christ to be your personal Saviour, I encourage you to do that before you read any further! With Him in your heart, this book will make a lot more sense. You could stop right now and sincerely pray something like this:
Lord Jesus, I believe that you are God, that you died for my sin, and that you rose again from the dead. I know that I am a sinner, and I ask you now to be my personal Saviour. I’m placing my full trust in you alone, and I now accept your gift of eternal life. Thank you for keeping your promise! Amen.
You’ll never regret that decision! Let’s move on…” (pages ix-x)
Notably absent is any refence to repentance, any clear definition of sin and how offensive it is to a Holy God, and the notion that Jesus Christ must be received not only as Saviour, but also as Lord. Almost everyone will admit they are not perfect (paragraph 3), but most would still maintain that they are basically a good person, rather than a wretched, ungodly, rebellious, undone, spiritually dead, Hell-deserving sinner entirely dependent on God’s mercy, grace and love. Almost everyone would accept a free ticket to Heaven with no strings attached, but few are willing to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their lives, which is absolutely necessary in receiving Him for who He is.
“They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)
“Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Romans 7:13)
Thanks anonymous. It doesn’t surprise me. It leaves out everything from the Bible about salvation that the lost would not want to hear.
“Because of our sin, none of us can make it into Heaven alone.
Here’s the good news – God sent help!”
I have a big problem with this ^^. I think it speaks to the heart of the problem. He seems to be saying, “Because of sin we just aren’t quite enough to do it alone, so God makes up the difference. He sent help!”
We don’t just not “make it into heaven alone”. We can’t make into heaven at all! If our merit was any part of the consideration, we would end up in Hell. It’s not man + God’s help. It’s Christ alone!
In order to make salvation to be something that can happen without turning from sin, they must make sin something that isn’t quite so big of a deal. But you do have to say the magic prayer.
Mat Dvorachek