Why Many Believers Are Not Saved - Glenn Conjurske

Why Many Believers Are Not Saved

by Glenn Conjurske

I say many believers are not saved, and I speak advisedly. I believe indeed that the majority of the believers in many Evangelical and Fundamental churches, and in many Brethren assemblies, are not saved. The proportion may vary a great deal from one church to another, but taking the modern church as a whole, I believe it safe to say that a large proportion of those who make it up are not saved. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and many of them are so little different from the world that an angel could not tell the difference.

Nor do I speak without the Lord, nor without the Bible. The Lord says, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Now it goes without saying that these many believed in him, who prophesied in his name, and in his name did many wonderful works. Yet all who insist upon the doctrine of justification by faith alone are obliged to contend that these many did not believe in him—-or something which amounts to the same thing. They will tell us that these “many” did not really believe in him—-whatever that may mean. Or they will tell us that their faith was deficient or defective—-that it was not real faith. But all such explanations are devised solely to maintain their theology, with not a word of Scripture to support them. What saith the Scripture? Does the Lord say to these “many,” “Depart from me, ye who did not really believe in me”? Does he say, “Depart from me, ye whose faith was defective”? Not a word of it. Neither does he say, as some modern preachers would have it, “Depart from me, ye that trust in your own wonderful works to save you.” Not a word of that either. What he says is, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” They are lost because they work iniquity, and they work iniquity in spite of the fact that they believe in Christ, and do many wonderful works in his name.

Now God has a directive for those who work iniquity, and that directive is not that they believe, but that they repent. “Now God commandeth all men every where to repent, because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained.” (Acts 17:30-31). Why does he not command all men everywhere to believe, if that is the only condition of salvation? Is God less intelligent, less consistent, than the modern preachers of Antinomianism? Some of those preachers tell us that repentance is unnecessary to salvation. And why then does God command all men everywhere—-all the lost sinners on the face of the globe—-to repent? Does he set the whole race of men to do mere needless busy-work, in place of the one thing needful?

But other preachers of salvation by faith only will agree that repentance is necessary to salvation, and yet affirm that we need not preach it, as it is a necessary part of saving faith. So speaks William Pettingill, a disciple of C. I. Scofield, in answer to the questions, “What place has repentance in salvation? Should we tell people to repent of their sins to be saved?” Pettingill replies, “The Gospel of John is the Holy Spirit’s Gospel Tract, written that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and that believing they might have life through His name (20:31). And it does not mention the word ‘repentance.’ But that is only because repentance is a necessary part of saving faith. Strictly speaking, the word repentance means ‘a change of mind.’ It is by no means the same thing as sorrow (II Cor. 7:10). Since it is not possible for an unbeliever to become a believer without changing his mind, it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it. The only thing for a man to do in order to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

This is at any rate plain speaking. But query: if “repentance is a necessary part of saving faith,” and if “it is therefore unnecessary to say anything about it,” why did the apostles of Christ constantly preach it? Why did the Lord commission them to preach “repentance and the remission of sins” among all nations? Nay, why does God himself command all men everywhere to repent? Are the disciples of C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer wiser than the apostles of Christ? Are the preachers of “salvation by faith alone” wiser than God?

But there are many who define repentance more soundly than Pettingill does—-who define repentance as the forsaking of sin—-whose minds are yet befuddled by the false notion that repentance is a necessary part of faith. That notion is certainly not derived from the Bible. It is rather a classic example of getting our theology from our theology, instead of from the Bible. That repentance is a necessary part of saving faith is a simple theological necessity for those who preach faith as the only condition of salvation, and to this theological necessity they tenaciously cling—-and tamely bow—-though it requires them to make void many plain scriptures. To make repentance a necessary part of faith shows no more sense than to make faith a necessary part of patience, or love a necessary part of marriage. The two things are diverse, and easily distinguished.

We realize that the language which is usually employed by these preachers makes repentance “a necessary part of saving faith,” but the very terminology is a mere necessity of their theological system, and serves only to perpetuate the error. Though the Bible speaks constantly of faith, it never in a single instance speaks of saving faith—-as distinguished from a non-saving kind—-and the necessity to use unscriptural terminology is a certain indication that there is something unscriptural in the theology which requires it. Indeed, to those whose eyes are open, the unscriptural terminology is a trusty signal, pointing directly to where and what the error is. The error here is that there are two kinds of faith, saving faith, and faith which does not save, but there is not one word in the Bible of such a distinction. Some, we know, will press the book of James into their service to maintain this distinction, but James is as much against them as are Jesus and Peter and Paul. More on that in its place.

Meanwhile, we do not wish to speak with too much dogmatism on the other side. We do not pretend to know everything, and we are quite well aware that most error contains at least a grain of truth, and maybe a dozen grains. We grant—-we preach—-that the faith of many is defective. They fail to trust that God is better than the devil, or more willing to make them happy than the devil is. They trust God for the life to come, and trust the world for the life that now is. They trust God for eternity, but follow the devil for time. This is defective faith, certainly. Their faith does not proceed so far as to believe that the ways of God are better than their own, or that holiness is therefore better than sin. We grant all that, and preach it too, and yet are not sure that such defects may not consist with the faith of the gospel. The faith of the gospel is a trust in the grace and mercy of God, through the cross and blood of Christ, and we suppose such faith may exist in the presence of a great deal of unbelief—-unbelief in the wisdom and goodness of God, unbelief in the superiority of his ways over those of the world, the flesh, and the devil, unbelief in his ability or willingness to care for our interests or secure our happiness, and unbelief of a dozen sorts besides. We may trust God for eternity, and fail to trust him for tomorrow. It is a plain fact that faith comes in many degrees. The Lord speaks of “little faith” and “great faith,” and it is to saved men that he says, “O ye of little faith.” There is no perfect faith under the sun, and there may be a good deal of unbelief mixed with the best faith of the best of men. All our faith is defective, and yet if we have faith as a grain of mustard seed—-the least of all seeds—-nothing shall be impossible to us. Such faith, defective as it is, will move mountains, and save our souls also. All our faith is defective, yet the Bible does not trouble us therefor, nor ever, anywhere teach us to doubt our salvation on that account. It does not teach us, that is, to have less faith, because we have little, nor does it anywhere set us upon finding genuine faith, supposing what we have to be false, nor ever require anybody for any reason to believe after any other manner than they have done already. All our faith is defective, yet it is saving faith for all that—-unless it be alone, for faith alone will save no one, as James plainly teaches. The Bible teaches us indeed to doubt our salvation if we continue in sin, without repentance, but never for failing to believe aright.

We suggest that those who insist upon the distinction between saving and non-saving faith will do the theological world a favor by attempting to define what non-saving faith is. We strongly suspect that if they would seriously attempt to define what it is, they would find themselves describing nothing other than what the Bible presents to us as the faith of the gospel—-as believing the record that God gave of his Son, believing in the heart that God hath raised him from the dead, etc. Yet myriads believe all this who are not saved.

But I return to the many which the Bible says believe, and yet are not saved. In John 1:12 we read, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” but in John 2:23-25 we are told that “many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” Some modern Antinomians, we know, are sunk so low in theologically-dictated nonsense as to affirm that these “many” were all saved. A fine salvation this must be, in which the Saviour will not commit himself to the saved. We do not trouble ourselves to refute such stuff. We hold it to be self-evident that these “many,” to whom Jesus would not commit himself, were not saved.

But why not? The text tells us they “believed in his name,” and though there is a slight variation in the English version, the expression is the same in the Greek in John 2:23 as it is in John 1:12. Regardless of what our theology is, we must all account for the fact that these many, who “believed in his name,” were not saved. All the preachers of salvation by faith alone—-if they are aware of the existence of this text—-will come forward with one voice to affirm that they did not really believe, though the Bible says they did, or that they believed with the wrong kind of faith, though the Bible says nothing of that. Such explanations are dictated by the necessities of their theology, and not by anything whatsoever in the Bible. Others of them affirm that their faith was false, or non-saving, because it was the result of “seeing the miracles which he did,” and faith which is based upon miracles can never save. Harry Ironside, for example, says, “A faith that rests upon miracles is not a saving faith. A faith that rests upon signs and wonders does not bring salvation to anyone.” —-and this directly in the teeth of John’s explicit statement at the close of this book, “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Ironside’s assertion demonstrates to what shifts men will resort in order to maintain a theological dogma which is false, and all who maintain the modern dogma of salvation “by faith plus nothing” must resort to one such shift or another, to account for the fact that these “many” who “believed in his name” were not saved, but they all bark up the wrong tree. They all tell us, in one way or another, that their faith was defective. I say, on the contrary, that what they lacked was repentance. The Bible plainly teaches us that we are saved by “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Christ and his apostles preached, “Repent, and believe the gospel.” Why this, if faith is the only condition of salvation? Why this, if repentance is a necessary part of faith? If a mother tells her daughter to fill the sink with soap and water, will anybody be found so senseless as to contend that the soap is a necessary part of the water? If the Bible admonishes us to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who will be found to contend that the grace is a necessary part of the knowledge? If God exhorts us to faith and patience, who will maintain that the faith is a necessary part of the patience? If the Bible directs us to repent and be baptized, who will pretend that repentance is a necessary part of baptism, and that every man therefore who has been baptized has also repented? And just as foolish as all these is the assertion that repentance is a necessary part of faith, and that all therefore who have believed—-or who have believed aright—-have repented. This assertion does not arise from common sense or sound reason or Holy Scripture, but is directly in the teeth of all three. It is dictated by the necessities of a theological dogma, and that dogma is false.

We must account somehow for the fact that the “many” who “believed in his name” were not saved. We may do this two ways. We may affirm, as most do, that the faith itself was defective, or we may affirm that something else besides faith was necessary. From the standpoint of pure reason, either of these explanations is equally acceptable. Modern theology necessitates the former explanation. But what saith the Scripture? If the modern theological dogma is true, that faith is the only condition of salvation, and if the conclusion which is derived from that dogma is also true, that there are two kinds of faith, saving faith and non-saving faith, then surely the Bible ought to have something to say on the matter. But we look in vain. Never does the Bible admonish us to be sure we have real faith. Never does it exhort us to make sure we have the right kind of faith. Where in all the Bible is there a single hint in that direction?

On the other hand, the Bible does command us to “repent and believe.” The Bible does admonish us to “add to” our faith virtue, and knowledge, and temperance, etc., that we may make our calling and election sure.

Ah, but James speaks of dead faith, and this of course implies that there is such a thing as living faith. We know it well, but we shall hardly consent to have our firm ally James turned against us, by preachers who can scarce brook his strawy epistle at all, except when they think they can use him to make a point for their own mistaken notions. But they use him amiss. They use him only to misuse him. Read on.

What is the point of James’s strawy second chapter? What is it that he labors to prove? Precisely this, “that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24). What right have they, then, who contend for justification by faith only, to resort to the second chapter of James for an argument? Had they not better steer clear of him? Do they suppose that James, by the Spirit of God, penned plain inconsistencies, inadvertently building up the very dogma which he aimed to tear down? If not, surely they will find no countenance for their notions here.

Well, what is it that James says concerning this dead faith, which cannot save? “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so, faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being ALONE.” James speaks not one word about faith being unreal, or defective, or deficient. His whole complaint is that it is alone—-and he speaks so for the express purpose of establishing the doctrine that faith alone cannot justify. Paul concludes “that a man is justified by faith without the deeds OF THE LAW,” but he never preaches salvation without repentance, or without works meet for repentance. Quite the contrary. The equating of the works of the law with works meet for repentance has caused endless confusion in modern theology—-with little excuse, however, for repentance belongs entirely to the gospel, and has nothing to do with the law. The law requires perfect obedience, and in its very nature allows no room for repentance.

“Can faith save him?” James asks, and answers that it cannot, if it be alone. We know that our modern preachers must frame the question, “Can that faith save him?” pressing the Greek article into their service, and stretching it a little too. We only tell them to consistently do so with the Greek article, and they will make nonsense of the New Testament. The article is used with “faith” eight times in the passage, as it is times innumerable with abstract nouns throughout the New Testament. It means nothing other than “faith,” as the English Bible translates it throughout the passage. Some stretch the Greek article so far as to put the question, “Can that kind of faith save him?” but this is nothing other than a typical example of getting our Bible from our theology, instead of our theology from our Bible. The Bible never anywhere else distinguishes different kinds of faith, nor here either, unless we wrest the language of the text.

Again, “Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest well. The devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” Now it is perfectly plain that the faith of which he speaks here is dead faith, which cannot save. Yet observe what he says concerning it. “Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest well.” “Thou doest well,” to have a dead faith which cannot save thee! Why does he not say, “Thou doest ill,” if that faith is not real, or if it is defective? “Thou doest well,” so far as the faith is concerned, but something else is wanting. His complaint is not that the faith is not real, but that it is alone—-that it is without works. Men will say that if it were real, it would not be alone, but this they say only because their theology requires it. The Bible says nothing of the sort.

Once more, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. … For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Now there is no difference between a dead body and a living one. The difference lies wholly in the fact that the dead body is alone—-being “without the spirit.” And “as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” It is not said that the body is defective, or not real, but that it is alone, that it is without the spirit. The fact is, a body may be very defective, and yet alive. It may lack arms and legs and ears, it may be diseased with cancer or leprosy, and be alive. And so may defective faith be alive also. We cannot give life to a dead body by curing its defects, nor can we to a dead faith either. We cannot give life to a dead body by any surgical operations upon it, by pouring medicines down its throat, by altering its constitution in any manner whatsoever, but only by adding to it a spirit. Adam’s perfect body, newly created by God, was as dead before God added a spirit to it as our diseased and crippled bodies are after the spirit departs. And as it is with a dead body, so it is also with a dead faith. “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Reason would suggest, then, that the cure is not to alter the nature of the faith, but to add to it the missing works.

And this is precisely what Peter admonishes us to do. “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (II Peter 1:5-11).

We of course expect that some of our modern Fundamentalists will come forward to assert that this scripture has nothing to do with salvation—-as they commonly say of all the Scriptures which require anything of us but bare believing—-but we cannot stay to argue with them. That salvation is the only issue in the passage is transparent on its face.

Now observe what it is that Peter exhorts us to. He writes to those who have faith. It would be without sense to admonish them to add to their faith the other things mentioned, if they had no faith to which to add them. Neither does he tell them to believe, nor to get faith. Faith they had. He exhorts them to add to it this host of other virtues, that by this means they may be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, but that “so” (by adding these virtues) an entrance may be abundantly ministered to them into the everlasting kingdom of Christ, and thus are they to make their calling and election sure.

That the passage stands directly against the antinomian orthodoxy of modern times there is not the slightest doubt. That it stands against the modern dogma of salvation “by faith plus nothing” is equally certain. The perfectly plain—-the only possible—-sense of the passage is that we must add to our faith these other things, and so make our calling sure. And I say that our modern antinomian preachers know very well that this is the only possible sense of the passage, however they may endeavor to wrest it. Which one of all the modern preachers of salvation by faith alone would ever have penned such a passage as this, from their heart, and with the full consent of their mind? Who that preaches salvation “by faith plus nothing” would dare instruct men to add to their faith, that so an abundant entrance might be ministered to them into the kingdom of Christ? The thing is utterly impossible. Though they may endeavor to wrest it from its plain meaning, and tell us, as usual, that it is mistranslated, and that the Greek means something other than the English, yet they know very well that the passage as it stands, in Greek and every other language, is a thorn in their flesh. It is such a scripture as they cannot be comfortable with, and would not have penned if the matter had been left to them. No man who believes that faith is the only condition of salvation ever could pen such words as these.

But further, if the passage is plain proof that we are not saved “by faith plus nothing,” it is also proof that these virtues are not the inevitable fruit of faith. We are to add them to our faith, and this we are to do by “giving all diligence.” Peter speaks forcefully also of the awful condition of those who fail to add these things to their faith, which certainly proves that a man may have faith and not works, as it also does that he may have faith and be lost.

Ah, but we shall be told that these folks do not have true faith. They do not have saving faith. The faith which they have is deficient, defective, notional, intellectual, unreal. They have only a false and worthless faith, a non-saving faith. Very well—-but mark the consequence. Peter comes forward to exhort all these mere nominal professors, who have no genuine or saving faith, to take such steps as will make them real Christians. And what does he tell them? To believe? Not a word of it. To be diligent to get a better, truer, sounder faith than that which they have? Not a breath of it. What he tells them is to ADD TO their worthless, non-saving faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity. “For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”—-in spite of the fact that your faith is false and non-saving. “If ye do these things ye shall never fall,” though your faith is dead and empty. By means of adding these virtues “to your faith,” an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, though the faith to which you add them is worthless. To such absurdities are they reduced whose doctrine requires them to wrest the Scriptures, but who fail to think in the process.

The real difficulty is that our modern preachers do not trust the Scriptures. In their own false theology they have unbounded confidence, and whenever that theology comes into collision with the Scriptures—-which it does very often—-it is always the Scriptures which suffer for it. The word of truth must always yield to the false theology. We must therefore have endless wresting of the precious book, and continual skirting and evading of its contents. For all their preaching of faith, they have but little faith in many of the plainest statements of the Bible.

And those who preach this easy salvation by faith only set men practically upon a course of making bricks without straw. Those honest, earnest souls who seek to make their calling and election sure are set upon the impossible task of believing aright, where they may have failed to do so before, though a college of theologians cannot tell them how to go about it. On this plan many have repeated their “salvation experience” a dozen or a score of times, and remain as uncertain of their salvation as ever. What they need is not some different kind of faith, but repentance.

The great evangelist Sam Jones laid hold of this, and set men upon the possible—-and extremely simple—-course of repenting. Says he, “If you are doing wrong, quit it.” This is repentance, and you need no faculty of theologians to define what it means. He continues, “About twelve years ago the grace of God came gushing into my heart, and I knew that I was a sinner and ought to quit sinning. That lesson has lingered with me from that hour to this. The poorest, weakest man in this city may decide to-night, and God will help him to the point where he will never need help. The devil tempted me sometimes till my knees got weak. But God’s grace is sufficient to make you quit doing wrong and go to doing right, in the name of Christ. That is my religion.

“What is the difference between what I was fifteen years ago and what I am to-night?” Was his faith false, defective, unreal, fifteen years ago? No, but it was alone, without works. He continues, “I have never believed any thing since that time that I did not believe before. I believed before, but did not do. I have now been a believer and a doer for twelve years. That is the difference between a Christian and a sinner. It is faith in Christ; it is following, loving, revering Him. I have never been converted, if a man must believe something afterward that he didn’t believe before. It is not believing so much as it is doing. ‘Show me your faith,’ says James, ‘without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.’ Now you are getting down to facts. I believed and did not; now I believe and do. The teaching is that you must quit doing wrong.”

Here is the plain doctrine of the Bible. Simon the sorcerer believed (Acts 8:13), but in spite of that Peter perceived him to be in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. How, then, does Peter advise him? Does he tell him that his faith is defective or unreal, and that he must believe aright, or believe otherwise than he has done already? Nothing of the kind. The language of the Bible is as plain as can be against such a notion. “Then Simon himself believed also”—-the same as the others had done. He was a believer, as much as they were. What Peter tells him is, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” Faith without repentance has never yet saved a soul, and never will. That a man may have faith without repentance is plain from the text before us, as well as from a host of other scriptures—-and from the lives of a great host of believers in Evangelical churches and assemblies all over this land. That their faith is false is what no man can prove from the Bible. That it is defective we grant, but so is mine and thine. The difficulty is that their faith is alone, without repentance, without works meet for repentance, without virtue. They believe in Christ—-in his deity, virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, and literal return. They believe the record that God hath given of his Son. They believe in the efficacy of his shed blood to wash away their sins. They “trust in Christ for salvation”—-and are saved according to Curtis Hutson and Zane Hodges, though they are ungodly. They believe, but cling to their sins. They sow to the flesh, and shall of the flesh reap corruption. They sow not to the Spirit, and therefore shall not of the Spirit reap everlasting life. They do not mortify the flesh. They live after the flesh, and so must die. They live in their sins, and shall die in their sins. They love the world, and “if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him,” however sound his faith or trust may be. Faith they have, and perhaps a good deal too much of it, for faith without works is not only dead, but presumptuous also. But faith they have. They “believe in his name,” but they neither repent, nor bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, nor obey, nor follow Christ. They believe, but do not repent. They believe his promises, but disregard his commandments. Faith they have, but it is alone, and cannot save them.

Glenn Conjurske