CCC #2: The Apostles Only Wrote to Believers
The Corrupt Christian Concepts Series
(All scripture references are BSB unless otherwise noted.)
I had started writing about another corrupt concept, but I quickly realized that this one is foundational to my arguments against many others.
This corrupt concept is the belief that every person to whom the apostles wrote in their epistles was a believer and thus believers were the entirety of their intended audience.
In this mindset, every word in every epistle applies to, describes, and portrays consequences of, believers today.
Another way to put it is that no words within any epistle have evangelistic intent. They all assume the reader has accepted the gospel.
I know this may seem crazy, but I have had folks tell me this and I have read others who say it. And it is clear from the interpretation of many passages that many believe this whether they have pinpointed it or not.
A subset of this belief might not say that all words are for believers, but they will still take words intended for unbelievers and apply them to believers (or vice versa).
As Andrew Farley puts it, this is like reading someone else's mail. It's like a dad is on a trip and sends a letter to each of his children and they swap them. Thus, the personalized messages gets all mixed up.
Now, to be fair, the exact audience is not always easily clarified. However, if you dig deep enough, you can usually figure it out. Just acknowledging that you should try to figure it out is a good start.
And if you can't, then you can always measure a conclusion from scripture by the known aspects of the new covenant gospel of grace.
There are clear new covenant promises of God - these are always true.
Lose Your Salvation?
This CCC greatly impacts how one interprets scripture. I believe it is the root of many corrupt ideas, including that you can 'lose' your salvation.
I might cover this as a CCC eventually, but if you understand that 'salvation' occurs because the old self dies and the Spirit births us as a new creation, then you will know that we simply cannot be aborted.
To even consider this pollutes the very concept of the new birth. Just as we don't birth ourselves by our good works, we cannot abort ourselves by our bad works.
Just as we are physically alive once we are born of water - we are spiritually alive once we are born of the Spirit.
This is John 3 elementary gospel stuff - yet many don't seem to have considered the full depth and impact of the new birth.
Nor is God birthing us, killing us, then re-birthing us, over and over. This is not some kind of spiritual abortion and reincarnation.
Our spiritual birth is just as real as our physical one. Just as we exist physically because we were born physically, we exist spiritually in God's kingdom because we were born of the Spirit.
Picture the angels viewing our activity in the spiritual realm as they shout hallelujah when we finally come to repentance, change our mind about Christ, and enter the Kingdom.
Imagine as they track us on a spiritual radar screen, we are blinking along, then suddenly our light blinks out. One elbows the other and says, “Oops, that one sinned one too many times and God had to kick him out of the family.”
This idea is preposterous. If Christ’s blood and work isn't good enough for our future sins, then it is not good enough for our past sins either.
All of our sins were in the future when He died for them. His is the once for all - and all time - sacrifice.
To think that God births us by grace through faith and then He aborts us because of bad behavior is truly ludicrous. This means that Christ would also have to die and resurrect over and over again.
My main point, however, is that the corrupt idea I am covering today (among others) leads to this mindset.
This is but one of many examples of why it is so harmful.
And as with all corrupt ideas, the main harm is it creates fearful, doubtful Christians. They see dire warnings meant for unbelievers and think it applies to them.
What makes all ideas corrupt is that they undermine the promises of God.
You Cannot Lose Your Salvation?
However, those who claim you can 'lose' your salvation are at least a bit more consistent with this concept than some others!
Some claim that you can't lose your salvation, but they still stick with the corrupt idea that some passages are for believers, and thus some scripture puts them at a loss.
As we will see in a bit, there are clear epistolic passages that portray hell and destruction as consequences for the audience.
If that audience is only believers, then we have a major problem. Maybe we really can lose our salvation? I mean if we aren't saved from fiery destruction, how good can our salvation be?
I hope you can see how both perspectives undermine the gospel. The only answer is to figure out the truly intended audience.
I have experienced this teaching first hand and in discussions with sincere teachers and preachers. I have gone over much of the stuff I will cover here (and in even more detail).
Yet, they refuse to repent of this idea.
In scripture, unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say salvation saves us from hell and judgment, and then say passages that express hell and judgment are for believers.
I have had them confide to me their frustration with scripture that does not fit the gospel and this corrupt idea, yet they still do not change their mind.
It is truly baffling.
Some stretch the limits of logic in interpreting scripture rather than abandon this position. This is something I find hard to understand or explain.
It is particularly ironic that the book of Hebrews, with such a laser focus on clarifying the new covenant, is abused by this concept to undermine the new covenant!
Yet, people hold to this idea without exception. And this truly puts them into a bind with some scripture.
There are several reasons they believe this, but I hope to argue today that the reasons are shallow and easily disproved.
I also hope to persuade that in order to truly interpret scripture properly, you must rid yourself of this corrupt mindset.
Repentance
I will be covering repentance next.
Being willing to change your mind is so essential to the Christian life. It is required to become a Christian in the first place! But this essential Christian concept can become corrupted too.
Perhaps that is why so many struggle to accomplish it, especially in regard to my subject matter today.
One Example From Scripture
Hebrews 10:26-27:
“26-If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains,
27- but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume all adversaries.”
This is similar to Hebrews 6 where the author uses an analogy of a plant that produces thorns and thistles and ground that is burned.
I covered the idea that “receiving knowledge of the truth” doesn't equal salvation in my last article briefly. Any human can receive gospel knowledge and still reject it.
Receiving the knowledge of the truth is hearing and understanding the gospel.
Not everyone who hears the gospel obeys it. Period. Full stop. This should be evident even in personal experience.
I cannot believe many would argue this point.
Not everyone who has knowledge of the gospel gets saved. This should not be controversial for most.
Thus, it is unreasonable that some would take this phrase in Hebrews 10:26 and say this is believers with an absolute certainty. Or that the apostles wouldn't be concerned for those who have heard but not obeyed yet, even in a church.
The parable of the sower has four soils: only one is believers. The other three have a knowledge of the Word of Truth but end up rejecting it for various reasons. They had to hear the Word somewhere, why not in church?
The epistolic writers understood this quite well and they often wrote in such a way to include all human 'soils'. Yes, some instruction is written to the good soil, absolutely.
Yet, until they are gone from the earth, there is still hope for the other soils. If anything, the Father pursues them even more!
His children are snug and safe inside the house, secure in the spiritual lineage He has gifted them. The Father knows this better than any of us!
Yet, His heart is for all to believe. And He never stops pursuing until it is too late. The apostles writing on His behalf did not stop pursuing either.
For Believers or Unbelievers?
We must conclude which audience Hebrews 10:26-27 is primarily for: unbelievers or believers. There are radically different impacts of these words on these two groups.
Clearly I am arguing that having a knowledge of the gospel does not automatically indicate believers, but are there other indications?
If the author is pointing these words at believers, and by 'sinning' he means all sins, then, as believers, we are up a creek. Christ's sacrifice no longer works for us.
Have you sinned lately? Answer honestly! So, thus, as a believer, are you subject to the consequences of this passage? Is this the gospel?
The author doesn't mince words, and we cannot water them down. If we keep sinning, meaning even one more sin after we are saved, then bad stuff happens. The same stuff that happens to God's enemies!
NOTE: Some take the word willful or deliberate and try to excuse themselves with that. I guess they didn't really mean to sin! Laugh out loud. For a believer, every sin is deliberate.
As we will see, there is only one sin that involves a deliberate choice that does result in these consequences. In other scripture this sin is called “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”.
It is the only sin that fits this passage. And we don't have to water it down or create special categories for our sin so we have an excuse.
The Consequences are Clear
Read the passage - the consequences of “going on sinning” are three-fold if we interpret this as for believers:
The final sacrifice for sin (Christ's sacrifice) stops working
We become enemies of God
We face the judgment and raging fire reserved for enemies of God
There is really no other conclusion if that is the lens through which you are viewing this verse. So, is this true?
You can understand why people believe you constantly lose and gain salvation. If this is about believers, it is a more consistent interpretation.
However, besides what I wrote above, there is still a big problem with interpreting this way. It still doesn't make sense within the Greek wording of the passage!
The word translated “no further” in the Greek means it no longer exists. And “remains” means forsakes or abandons.
Essentially the author is saying that continuing in this sin leaves no hope of redemption at all. Forgiveness no longer exists as Christ's sacrifice abandons us forever.
The author is strongly making the point that whatever this sinning is, it leaves no hope at all. Rather than being redeemed for all time, this action is portraying being lost for all time.
The idea that we can just keep asking for forgiveness and recover our redemption is not possible based on this passage.
If this means you can lose your salvation, then there is no way to regain it. Not if you understand what the author is truly saying.
Also, when does this destruction happen? Clearly all believers have sinned and not been immediately destroyed!
So, is there some timing to it? If we deliberately sin right before we get hit by a bus, are we destroyed at that time?
You see how ludicrous the path is that this idea takes you down.
Sadly, many believers live lives full of fear that this is true. That they must shape up or God will smite them…or worse abort or disinherit them, and make them an enemy so they are destroyed.
Makes one wonder how effective Christ's finished work really was?
Clearly those who live in fear don't believe it was effective. Is this truly faith?
Fear of Fiery Destruction to Motivate Believer Behavior?
Some would use these consequences to try and force believers to behave better.
This motivation for good behavior pushes them directly into flesh power, and they ride that roller coaster of failure and success until they start pretending or just give up hope.
Again, in the epistles like Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, etc., where the audience is clearly believers, does Paul motivate with fear of fiery destruction?
Even in Corinth, the worst behaved church in the NT, does Paul motivate in this way? Of course not. He calls them saints and shows them they have been justified, sanctified, and cleansed.
He motivates from the gift of their salvation in Christ. He does not cause them to have less faith in the gift by acting as if the consequences are the same.
But what if believers are not the intended audience of these words in Hebrews? Could this be considered?
And if that is the case, how does this change the meaning of the passage?
What is Sin For a Devout Jew like Saul of Tarsus?
I want to remind you of how Paul describes his flesh powered life as Saul of Tarsus in Philippians 3 (before he was saved and became the apostle Paul.)
Here are bits from verses 5 and 6:
Phil. 3:5b and 6b: “5b…as to the law, a Pharisee; 6b…as to righteousness in the law, faultless.” Was Paul stealing his neighbors food (or wife)? Was he lying? Was he eating shrimp?
No. He says he was faultless in keeping the Law (meaning no one else could find fault with him - though he admits in Romans 7 that he coveted - but that was hidden from others.)
My point is that the primary sin that a devout Jew struggles with is not “Torah breaking” like lying and stealing. This was more of a Gentile problem (as Paul often addresses in his epistles.)
Of course, as Christ pointed out, the Hebrew attempt at 'obedience' to the law was only outward, not of the heart, so they weren't really keeping it. That is why He had to come.
But still, for the most part they did obey outwardly. They had to…the consequences were dire if they did not.
It was a struggle to convince them that they were never going to keep it well enough. Most of the sermon on the mount was Christ attempting to show them this truth.
Their primary sin was an internal issue - it was a mindset of unbelief.
The Sin of Unbelief
The Hebrew sin struggle was primarily a mindset of unbelief in Christ, the true Messiah. Nearly the entire book of Hebrews is written to address this sin.
Until Hebrews 12, no other sin is mentioned.
Paul dedicated Romans 9-11 to this Jewish struggle and poured out his anguish over it. Their problem was not as much outward morality as it was struggling to believe the gospel.
I mean, even today with people who are not Jewish, how often do we hear the excuse for not accepting Christ: “Well, I'm a good person, I don't kill anyone, I keep the rules.” Etc.
How much more is this a temptation for a devout Jew? Their religion was given to them by God Himself. They were God's chosen special people. Someone like Saul of Tarsus kept the Law “faultlessly”. Isn't that enough?
Christ is the Final “Promised Land”
In Hebrews 3, the author is warning them to heed the call of Christ and not harden their hearts. He uses how their ancestors did not believe God and enter the promised land as a analogy.
The new covenant offers us a spiritual “promised land” whereby we become new creations and abide in Christ. He is our “promised land”.
The physical promised land for the Israelites was only a shadow or picture of this permanent spiritual one (most of the old testament foreshadows the promises of God fulfilled in Christ.)
He finishes the chapter with this thought: Hebrews 3:19 - “So we see that it was because of their unbelief that they were unable to enter.”
The lack of faith of the Israelites to enter the symbolic “promised land” is being used as an analogy for those who lack the faith to “enter Christ” by grace through faith and live in Him spiritually.
Just as some ancient Israelites refused to enter the physical promised land, now some current ones were refusing to enter the spiritual promised land.
And both were because of unbelief.
What is ironic is that the original Israelites refused because it was too hard; now they are refusing Christ because it is too easy!
Goes to show that no matter the circumstances, how easy or hard, it is faith that is the biggest struggle.
Deliberately Contiuing in Unbelief - Makes You an Unbeliever!
It is this sin of “unbelief in Christ” that is in focus in chapter 10. Of course, someone who continues in the sin of unbelief in Christ is…ta-da…wait for it…an unbeliever! Hmm, strange how that fits together.
And this is a sin you must continue in: deliberately choosing to reject Christ once you have heard and understood the gospel. The minute you stop this sin, boom, you get saved.
Let me repeat that for clarity. The reason you must willfully continue in the sin of unbelief in Christ is because once you stop, then you start believing, and are saved!
This is so simple. Only scholars can mess this up.
So, you can see how ridiculous the argument is that this applies to believers and to all sinning. That would make Christianity impossible and the gospel not true!
So, let me paraphrase Hebrews 10:26-27:
“If any human continues to deliberately reject believing in the once for all sacrifice of Christ for their sins, no other sacrifice will work. They will remain dead, living in Adam and in their sins, by default enemies of God, and will face the fiery judgment that comes from being an enemy of God.”
This interpretation perfectly fits with the new covenant gospel. Christ is the only sacrifice that works to forgive us, cleanse us, and make us alive because we live in Christ and Him in us.
And it doesn't matter if this person rejecting Christ sits in church for 20 years. Until they have true faith, until they genuinely respond and have their spiritual heart replaced, these stern warnings will apply.
Anyone who rejects this sacrifice remains an enemy of God with all that entails and it's consequences. And if we keep rejecting it (ie. deliberate or willfully) then nothing will ever prevent this.
(Note my use of 'we' above for later.)
There is too much clear scripture that proves that as believers we will not be facing the fiery judgment of the adversaries of God. We are family! This passage cannot be about us.
To make this about believers is a faith sapping idea - it tacitly concludes that God isn't trustworthy - the promises He has given us in the new covenant gospel aren't real.
It is basically saying we can ruin Christ's work in us. Once again, it becomes about us, not Christ. God promises everything is a gift, not based on our works.
How can we trust the gift if teachers use scripture itself to undermine the gift? Does that build faith?
So, you can see how damaging this concept can be, and this is only one example! But let's move on to the reasons some give for believing in this corrupt concept…
Reason 1: The Epistles are Written to Churches
The first reason is they claim that because the epistles were sent to church congregations this implies believers automatically.
By church, I mean a physical location where people gather together, not the body of Christ made up of believers.
Now, let me say upfront, I am not claiming that believers were not in the audience and that some or even much of the epistolic writing is intended for them.
That would be making the same mistake in reverse.
However, that is not always the case, as I illustrated above. We must learn to distinguish the difference or we will get all sorts of corrupt ideas from scripture.
Unbelievers in the Church
My first argument against a church being only believers is simply “real life” logic. Church is often a place where unbelievers come to visit and where they become believers.
There are many stories out there of someone attending church and hearing the gospel for years and years, with everyone around them assuming they were a believer, when suddenly the light finally comes on for them. Even pastors!
If everyone in church is a believer, then why ever preach an evangelistic sermon?
No one actually believes this concept or acts on it in real life, only when they need it as an excuse to interpret scripture improperly, and try to scare believers straight!
Further, this is especially true in the early church. Christianity was new - in its infancy. This attracted many new people interested in this new message.
For some, they only came because it was the 'new' thing. And they soon lost interest. But not before they heard the gospel and gained knowledge of it.
And some hung around because they enjoyed the social aspect or many other potential reasons. But they still had not fully bought into the gospel yet.
Thus, they are deliberately rejecting the gospel, as Hebrews 10:26, and many other places, warns.
False Teachers in the Church
I argue below that this phrase “false teachers” is often overused; however, this does not mean they don't exist in churches.
The epistles are constantly warning of false teachers with doctrine of demons in the church. In most cases, it is clear these are “enemy agents” - seeking to harm the name of Christ and the gospel.
Often these were intimate participants in the church. Sometimes they were leaders - able orators with many credentials. Paul often defended his ministry against these people.
Most often they were indicated in scripture to be the Judaizers. These were people teaching that the gospel was fine, but you still needed to keep the Torah or Law to be saved.
“Sure, believe in Christ, but that is not enough. You need the Law too.”, they might say.
So, to suggest that everyone in a church is saved simply defies both real world logic and the conclusions of scripture.
There are quite simply many unbelievers who participate in a physical church, whether as seekers of the gospel or false teachers.
Of course the real church is spiritual, and it is within every believer. And those people do not have to worry about fiery judgment.
Reason #2: Sometimes the Word 'We' is used
The other reason some claim the apostles were writing only believers is because they often use the word 'we' to describe their audience.
In this reasoning, 'we' implies the authors are categorizing the people in the same group as themselves, and the only category is believers.
This seems like a reasonable claim, but there are multiple arguments against it.
The most broad argument is that we are all humans. As a rhetorical flourish, the author could be including themselves as humans in a hypothetical manner.
I asked you to note how I used 'we' in this way above. This is a common way of writing. No one would question this rhetoric in other literature.
This rhetorical use of 'we' includes anyone who is participating in the activity, even hypothetically the author, but it only includes the author if they actually are participating.
A good example of this is 1 John 1:8 - “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
Was John really saying that he personally was saying this? That he was deceived? Of course not. He was teaching against it.
Yet, he used ‘we’ as a hypothetical: any human who claimed to have never sinned, to not be impacted by sin, is deceived and does have have the “Way, the Truth, and the Life” living in them.
In other words, Christ was not in them.
They were not believers. “Christ in you” is the only test of a believer. There were actually specific people in the church he was referencing who were teaching a doctrine that sin wasn't real.
But I will get to that later also.
Including Yourself is Polite
Perhaps John was being ‘nice’ by using the hypothetical 'we', not singling the exact people out, only their corrupt ideas. (Though Paul certainly did not hesitate to name names!)
This may not be the strongest reason that the word 'we' is used, but it is still legitimate. And combined with these other reasons, we cannot conclude that using the word 'we' automatically means believers.
Also, there are other more specific categories of people besides believers and humans that the authors could be using the word 'we' for, but my next section covers that.
Sometimes the Author calls his Audience 'brothers' or 'brethren'
In other places, especially the books written directly to a Hebrew audience, the author is writing to fellow Hebrews and calls them brothers.
Some say that the apostles would only call ‘believers’ brothers (or sisters).
While it is true that calling one another brother or sister is common for believers since we are all children of God - and this was used extensively in the epistles - audience and context are key.
If you have ever heard the phrase the “brotherhood of man”, then as I mentioned in my last point, you could even use this for fellow humans.
But there is a more specific usage in scripture, so we don't have to rely on that broad usage to prove my point.
Hebrew Brothers (and Sisters)
In the book of Hebrews, there is a place where the author refers to the old testament Hebrews as 'brothers'. This verse is clearly not referencing the believers in his current audience.
This is because this was a common way the Hebrews addressed each other. They were the people of God. So, by itself, this term does not mean the author considered them believers.
Hebrews 7:5-”Now the law commands the sons of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their brothers—though they too are descended from Abraham.”
This was old testament Hebrews - not related to Christianity or the church at all. And he calls them brothers.
This verse makes clear that the Hebrew author often used the term 'brothers' to reference fellow Hebrews, whether they are believers or not, since he uses the same term for old testament Hebrews.
Again, this cannot be used to prove that the intended audience of every word was believers. We must leave open the very real possibility that a Hebrew author would call his fellow Hebrews brothers.
Does the Interpretation Go Against Clear Gospel Teaching?
The main guidance in interpreting scripture is always the clear truth we know about the gospel of grace from other less questionable passages.
Interpret the less clear with the more clear.
If a verse is threatening hell or punishment for believers, or seems to be pushing self-effort or works for salvation or to maintain salvation, then clearly it has an unbeliever in view, no matter whether 'we' or 'brother' is used.
Ultimately, all interpretations must be consistent with the good news. If it is not, then we need to dig deeper.
By default, any interpretation that presents bad news for a believer is suspect.
Side Note: Consequences
I have covered this before, but it bears repeating, as I don't want to be misunderstood and/or misconstrued.
Yes, scripture does warn believers of consequences of sin. Galatians 5 and 6 is a great example: “you reap what you sow.” You sow to the flesh, you reap corruption.
Yet, despite this truth, it is not “bad news”, because the good news says God provides a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). The good news says we are slaves of righteousness, we can say no to a fleshly mindset (Romans 6).
Ultimately, because He loves us, God wants His children to avoid these earthly or temporal consequences, and He has gifted us with the ability to avoid them.
This is why there is instruction in the epistles for believers. If you steal, you could go to jail. That is no less true for believers. Yet, when tempted to steal, we can say no through the power of the Holy Spirit.
This is simply an example. I realize that many people do not steal without the Holy Spirit, but for some this is an addictive thing. For some, Holy Spirit power is is required for them to stop.
This can apply to any struggle with the flesh. God promises we are not slaves to sin, thus we have hope that enables us to stop.
Bad News Gives No Hope
“Bad news” gives no hope, or bases any hope in our own effort and works (which ultimately gives no hope).
Promising ultimate punishment by God and the destruction He has reserved for His enemies is bad news. It is not the gospel. That is to what I am referring.
Warning of the default consequences of walking by the flesh is not bad news, because it is ultimately overcome by the good news. The same good news that saved us in the first place!
So yes, it is good that scripture warns us of the consequences of sin, both for the unbeliever and the believer.
One will spur believers to learn to trust the gospel more and more, walk by the Spirit, and grow their faith; while the other will spur the unbeliever to have faith in the first place.
However, to ascribe the same consequences to both groups takes away the very goodness that makes the good news good! It corrupts it.
Why would an unbeliever put faith in a gospel that still requires their good works to maintain it? They can go to any religion for that.
Ultimately, the good news is that everything from God is a gift because He loves us and the gift ultimately saves us from all consequences of sin.
And we must trust that gift, both at the beginning to become new creations; and going forward so that we know we are free from sin and slaves of righteousness.
Ultimately it is the same message. The good news helps us avoid all consequences from sin, both eternally and temporally.
But if the eternal consequences are dependent on our own behavior, then we are truly without hope. And that is the definition of “bad news”.
Bad news leaves us with no real hope.
Evangelistic Tone or Context
The reasons mentioned above are some specific ones I have read or been told as to why some believe the epistolic audience is only believers.
I pray I have concisely but thoroughly shown why I think their arguments are weak at best.
Now, I will get into some other reasons why I believe much of the epistles has an evangelistic focus.
The first is because the manner of writing, the tone, and/or the context is evangelistic.
As an example, what do we make of Romans 10:8-10:
“8-But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:
9-that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10-For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved.”
This was written to the “church at Rome”. So, it was a church.
NOTE: I won't get into this extensively, but much like 'we', Paul uses 'you' here. This indicates he was singling out the individuals in his audience. Does this mean they all need to do this (at the moment and time he wrote it)? Much like 'we', the word 'you' can be used rhetorically.
Now again, unlike these other folks, I am not claiming that none of the audience were saved. Many, if not most, were.
My point is that every audience of the apostles was mixed, they realized this, and they wrote or spoke to them all. They did not know every person's heart condition who would be reading their letters.
As encouraging as it is to read these verses as a believer…since you have already done this, you don't need to know to do it again…since you have already done this (repeat)!
It is always exciting to read these words as believers since it reminds us of the basics and how grateful we can be that we have already believed.
And of course, believers need to dig deeper and deeper into the new covenant gospel and what it means so that our faith in the finished work of Christ grows.
That is the purpose of my writing - my audience is believers. I want to clarify false or corrupt ideas that hinder faith and the work of the gospel, both for myself and my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
But you cannot deny that verses like this and many others present the fundamental and elementary beginning steps of the gospel. In other words: they are evangelistic.
To declare that the apostles wrote these things with only an audience of believers in mind is preposterous.
Yet, listen to most sermons or read most books about Hebrews and/or James. Whether they explicitly state it or not, they most likely interpret many evangelistic passages as being for or about believers.
I believe the Apostles (much like Christ in His earthly teaching) had an attitude of “if the shoe fits wear it”.
In other words, if an unbeliever hears or reads evangelical words, then it pricks them and motivates them to heed them and call on the name of Christ.
If a believer hears or reads these words then it motivates them to gratitude that they have already heeded them.
But it would be foolish for believers to think that they need to believe again and again, and get saved again and again. As I covered above, this would be akin to spiritual abortion or some kind of reincarnation.
Yet, by applying this corrupt concept universally to every word in every epistle, there are many passages where the interpretation is just as foolish as thinking you must get saved over and over again.
All Scripture is Inspired and Useful - But Not Always Directed at You
All scripture is useful for any human, believer or unbeliever. (2 Timothy 3:16)
However, not every scripture is meant to be acted on by a believer, or is demonstrating consequences for a believer.
Sometimes it is someone else's mail or it is their prescription, not yours.
In particular, passages promising hell, punishment, or destruction for believers cannot be intended for them or to describe them.
Contrast these two verses (using the same Greek word translated punishment):
Matthew 25:46 (describing unbelievers and then believers): “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Again, how do we become righteous? By good works or as a gift of God by faith? Thus, “the righteous” are always believers.
Describing believers: 1 John 4:18 - “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.”
Even this can be twisted to make it seem like if we ever have any fear then we are not believers. That is not the context of this verse…but that is for another day.
The gospel 101 is that Christ took the punishment and condemnation we deserved and there is no punishment left. This verse illustrates this.
In the most famous John 3 passage, from Christ's very lips:
John 3:18 - “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
And then Paul confirms it in Romans 8:1 - “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Those who would use the very words of scripture to preach judgment and condemnation for believers need to figure out who the audience really is in these passages.
Only then can we encourage believers as scripture intended: from love and not fear. There truly is no fear in love.
False Teachers in the Church
My second reason is that the Apostles often addressed false teachers or false prophets in the church. And they did not consider them to be believers. I touched on this above.
There is a vast difference between what scripture calls a false teacher or false prophet and a sincere believer who is teaching false things. We should not construe these two.
Mainly this would imply that we never teach false things. That is the ultimate in hubris! It is always the 'other' person who is the false teacher, right? Of course, we never get anything wrong (sarcasm).
This terminology is thrown about way too much today. Often it is used in a fleshly way to attack those who disagree with us on topics of minor importance, at least compared to the central priority of the gospel.
Perhaps I will cover this more extensively as it's own corrupt concept, but scripture does not use these terms lightly. These describe true enemies of God seeking to destroy Christ's name and the reputation of the gospel.
This does not describe doctrinal disagreements between fellow children of God. These are hard core enemies of God motivated by demonic ideas and forces.
Yes, these folks exist in the church. And sometimes they are quite subtle and hard to pick out. Rarely did the Apostles call out these people individually for this very reason.
Only God can judge the heart.
But the Apostles do often address them as a group and attack their corrupt teaching. And those passages, which are many, cannot be said to describe true believers.
The book of Jude is mostly about these people. Paul says they “deny Jesus Christ”, they are “designated for condemnation”, then he compares their punishment to Sodom, calls it “the punishment of eternal fire”.
He further describes them as “fruitless trees, twice dead, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved”. He says they are “of the world, cause divisions, and are devoid of the Spirit”. Are these believers? Of course not.
Any one of these clearly describe unbelievers, but if you are devoid of or without the Spirit, you cannot be saved. That is the clincher.
To take passages describing the enemies of God and apply them to ourselves as believers is ripe with faith destructive consequences. We must avoid this as much as possible.
And those who teach this nonsense are either enemy agents themselves or, if they are believers, then they should learn to walk by the Spirit better so they are more easily able to change their mind or repent.
Either way, be wary of this corrupt concept, either in your own study or as you take in teaching from others.
Conclusion
I could go on and on with specific illustrations, etc. But I believe there will be sufficient demonstration of this concept in the rest of this series, and for time sake I will leave it here.
I hope and pray, if this is a concept you believe or have heard and never considered its impact on teaching you are listening to, that I have given you food for thought.
Another concern is not even that you believe it, but that you are hearing or reading teaching impacted by those who do believe it.
Taking words from scripture that were never intended for you and applying them to yourself is quite harmful. It is like taking the wrong medicine.
All scripture is good and useful for it's intended purpose. Just like medicine. But taking the wrong pill for the wrong thing can kill you. And the same goes for scripture.
Taking in the wrong scripture that doesn't apply to you, and letting it impact your mind and actions, can easily kill your faith and walk.
Do not allow scripture to be used as a weapon of the enemy to destroy your faith or growth. If a condemning and discouraging interpretation is not sitting well with your spirit then perhaps it is because it is wrong!
If an interpretation is causing fear in your soul and a mindset of self-effort and self-improvement to gain blessings from God then perhaps it is wrong!
What we accept into our mind matters.
Test everything against the gospel.
Question all that doesn't truly match up to the gospel or makes you question the goodness or promises of God.
Context and audience matters. A lot.
And I hope to show in my upcoming articles many corrupt ideas where the root of it is this idea that all epistolic instruction has believers in view.
That could not be further from the truth! The apostles were very evangelistic in intent. They were the first evangelists of this new covenant gospel!
How could they not have a thread of evangelism in everything they wrote. They knew that a review of the gospel would help believers and unbelievers alike, but in different ways.
But clearly they considered some of their audience to be unbelievers. This is simply the truth.
Final Note
It just occurred to me that I barely mentioned the idea that some could do the opposite of this. Meaning that they take scripture intended for believers and apply it to unbelievers.
I believe this is more rare, so I won't cover it extensively, but I wanted to bring it up as an idea because it would be just as harmful.
Those who teach universalism, where all people are saved against their will and despite their own rejection of Christ, could possibly do this.
This is basically the opposite of the lose your salvation crowd. Both are based in taking the wrong scriptural medicine.
The enemy loves to encourage this mindset of taking the wrong scriptural medicine because it is a double whammy.
The believer becomes discouraged, fearful, and bogged down; while the unbeliever has an unrealistic confidence in their condition- especially the religious or churched unbelievers.
Either way, in our study of scripture, or as we absorb teaching, let's ask God for wisdom and endeavor to use it so we understand the audience and context.
I beg you to do this especially with my writing! I never want to steer anyone away from the gospel or diminish faith in the finished work of Christ, but I'm not perfect.
Only with God's wisdom will the study of scripture become proper food and medicine for our minds so they are open to be renewed by Christ through the Holy Spirit.
And that is the vital thing we are called to do. As we will see in my next article, changing our minds is an essential tool gifted to us by God, but this can also be corrupted.
Until then, have a great week!