Nearly ninety percent of Americans believe in heaven, while only thirty percent believe hell is a real place. Moreover, only a small percentage of the thirty believe they’re actually going to hell.

Most people believe that being a good person is sufficient to get them to heaven. Most religions teach that good works will earn you a place in eternal bliss. When you read the Bible, however, you quickly discover that the truth is quite the opposite.

Author and speaker Andy Stanley wrote a book entitled, Since Nobody’s Perfect, How Good is good enough? In it, he addresses the widespread belief that good people go to heaven. Stanley wrestles through the inconclusive standard of good and evil, the guilt-ridden human conscience, the impossibility of fully obeying the law, and more.

He argues that most people put hope in a belief system that is untenable. Performing good works in order to cancel out the bad ones presents many problems. A major one is the brevity of our lives.

Jesus blew the hypothesis that good people go to heaven out of the water while hanging on the cross and pardoning a condemned thief on the brink of death.

“One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: ‘Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other criminal rebuked him. ‘Don’t you fear God,’ he said, ’since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong’” (Luke 23:39-41).

Here’s an excerpt from Stanley:

Notice anything about what the second criminal said that is particularly relevant to our discussion? As horrible a death as crucifixion was, the second criminal readily admitted that his life was so horrible that he was actually getting what he deserved. ‘We are getting what our deeds deserve.’ In other words, ‘Stack up our deeds and you won’t find a good one in there anywhere.’”

Then the convicted criminal did the unthinkable: he asked Jesus a favor. He asked Jesus to have mercy on him in spite of his worthless life. He said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42).

Keep in mind this man was in no position to bargain. There was no “from now on,” no turning over a new leaf. The opportunity for doing good had come and gone. This was a dead man talking. He had come to the end of his miserable life and there was no chance to make up for lost time. He lived his life exactly the way he wanted, with no concern for doing the right thing, and then, he suddenly gets religion and asks for mercy.

Now if Jesus, like most people, believed that good people go to heaven and bad people don’t, what would you expect him to say to a guy who, by his own admission, had lived a life worthy of crucifixion? What would you have told him? What if he had raped your sister or murdered your brother? What if you had been maimed for life because of this man’s reckless behavior?

Pushing up on the nail that pierced his foot for leverage, he managed to utter these words: “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

Do you realize what that means? It means that not only did Jesus not believe that good people go to heaven, he believed that bad people do! One of his final acts before dying was to promise a criminal a spot in paradise!

God’s grace and mercy is sufficient where works fall far short. Only forgiven people can and will enter God’s rest.

This post stands as the final installment to my five part series, which has dealt with the doctrine of justification and the differences that exist between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism concerning this doctrine. In my first post, I introduced the debate, explaining what is at stake and gave some context to the issue (read it here). In the second post, I attempted to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). In the third post, I sought to define and explain the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed righteousness (read it here). In the last post, I intended to present a critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification (read it here). In this final post, my goal is to respond to some of the most common objections that Rome has raised against the Protestant doctrine of justification.

[...]

Roman Catholics and Protestants have many doctrinal commonalities. However, they differ, and differ tragically, when it comes to their soteriology and their views of justification. In the first entry to this series, I introduced the discussion, explaining what is at stake and gave some context to the issue (see this post here). In the second entry, I sought to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). Last time, I attempted to define and explain the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed righteousness (read it here). In this post, I intend to present a critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

The grave and historical error made by Rome is that they have failed to understand and believe the true message of the gospel: that man is saved by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. The damning flaw in Rome’s doctrine lies in its denial of this great truth. Since the Reformation, the most important criticisms of the Catholic view of justification have had to do with its inclusion of and need for meritorious works. While Rome seeks to emphasize that its views on merit should be understood in concert with God’s grace, it neglects the scriptural teaching that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive. The faulty Catholic doctrine of justification has much to do with the many problems in their teachings on merit.

[...]

The Protestant understanding of the doctrine of justification is undoubtedly very different from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Does this difference matter? Should those during the Reformation have made such a large deal about it? Should Protestants and Catholics today just forget about it all and be friends? Or, should we adopt the mindset of the Reformers and stand for the one true Gospel against any opposing and false gospel? This post stands as the third entry into this series in which I am attempting to articulate and defend the Protestant doctrine of justification over and against the one presented by the Roman Catholic Church.

In the first entry, I introduced the matter as a whole and explained what is at stake, giving some context to the issue (see this post here). Last time, I sought to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). In this post, my goal is to define the doctrine of justification as is held my post Protestants—imputed righteousness. Generally speaking, the Protestant doctrine can be defined as follows: “Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which He thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and declares us to be righteous in His sight.”[1] There are a number of elements inherent to this definition that must be discussed.

[...]

Have you ever wondered why Martin Luther and the rest of the Protestant Reformers made such a fuss over the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation? The Reformers certainly disagreed with the Catholics over a number of doctrinal and practical issues, but nothing was more important than their differing views regarding the doctrine of justification. This post stands as the second entry in this five-part series. Last time, I introduced the matter, explained what is at stake, and gave some context to the issue (see this post here). In this post, my goal is to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments. In upcoming posts, I intend to do the same with the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed grace. I will, furthermore, argue that the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is mistaken and that the Protestant view of justification is most faithful to Scripture. In doing so, I will also provide a critique of the Roman Catholic position and respond to Roman Catholic objections against the Protestant doctrine of justification. For now, let us turn our attention to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

[...]

The debates that led to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century were not over minor details of theology. Of the debated issues, the doctrine of justification became the most divisive and controversial issue in the history of Christendom. R.C. Sproul is correct to point out that “both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformers understood that what was at stake in the controversy was nothing less than the Gospel itself.”[1] It was upon this conviction that Martin Luther, in his 1537 Schmalkaldic Articles, singled out the teaching of justification as “the article upon which the Church stands or falls.”[2] In similar fashion, John Calvin regarded justification sola fide as “the main hinge on which religion turns.”[3]

The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation were willing to face anathematization for their dissenting beliefs concerning justification.[4] Today, however, not everyone within Protestant circles are willing to take such a stand.[5] Some Evangelical leaders have referred to this doctrine as the “small print” of the Gospel, that it is “nothing more than a large misunderstanding,” and that the seemingly major issue of the sixteenth century is “no longer a matter of serious debate.”[6] In Evangelicals and Catholics Together, many scholars from both camps have agreed that there are “some differences within both the Evangelical and Catholic communities.” However, they have affirmed that, “All who truly believe in Jesus Christ are brothers and sisters in the Lord and must not allow their differences, however important, to undermine this great truth.”[7] [...]

In a recent article in CNN’s Opinion Section, the Reverend Jesse Jackson discusses his faith as it leads to his works.  At first glance it seems rather theologically correct.  The book of James does say that faith without works is dead right?  Interestingly enough (to write about), Jackson says that his works have always been and will always be intertwined into the civil rights movement in America. [...]