I'm assuming that you're saying that my claim is that Jesus did not only teach that we had to get to Heaven through him? No, I don't think he did. He said many things, some of them contradictory, and they were interpreted in different ways.
The quickest reference that comes to mind from the Synoptic gospels is Mark 16:16 (I think verse 16 is the right verse, but because of what I'm about to say I'm not going to check.) I could be dishonest and leave it at that, but I'm going to tell you right now that the vast consensus of scholars, even among Evangelical Christians, is that they were added in the second century and were not part of the original manuscripts. Based on my views of Biblical inspiration, nothing written after the book of Revelation can be taken as canonical. Now, some scholars think the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter were written after that period, but I think that thesis relies on assuming that Christianity, or at least the miraculous stuff in Christianity, including the rapid growth of the church, is untrue. Mark 16:9-20, on the other hand, are missing from the earliest manuscripts. So while Jesus may well have said those things, they probably aren't canonical, so they don't really count. That said, under the strictest definition of "In the Synoptic Gospels" this passage would apply.
Now, onto non-disputed scriptures, after researching...
21 Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? 23 Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!
This is right after the "Narrow gate" discourse. Two things...
1. Jesus has to know you, and
2. You have to obey him, otherwise he won't know you.
You can't obey the Father without faith in him.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
You might not see why this passage applies immediately, but keep in mind what happens right AFTER this passage. You said you trust the Synoptic gospels (Although even if you didn't, that's the sources we're discussing. Right after Luke is Acts, and when Peter (Who, remember, literally followed Jesus around for over three years) starts preaching the gospel after receiving the Holy Spirit, he said:
38 Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Now, there's a bit of dispute here as to whether the baptism part of this was the part necessary for Salvation, or just the repentance in the name of Jesus Christ. Most historical Christians said yes, most modern born-again Christians say no. Cornelius apparently gets saved before baptism, so its certainly possible, and I think that it isn't absolutely essential for this reason. Regardless, repentance "In the name of Jesus Christ" is made clear, and this by Peter right after Jesus taught him for 3 1/2 years. Now, it might be plausible that the disciples would add something to what Jesus taught long after he left, or perhaps think he said something that he really didn't, but I don't see this as likely literally a few days after he left them.
Now, there's a really tricky thing with not using John. Yes, it has different material than the Synoptics. I think that's because the Synoptics were really written to show us why Jesus is the Messiah, while John was to show us how to be saved. Since Matthew, Mark, and Luke were each written to different audiences, but John initially intended for the entire church, it makes perfect sense to me why the material in John would look a little different, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are each written to a different audience to show who Jesus is (In Matthew's case it was written to Jews who already knew a Messiah would eventually come, in Mark and Luke's case it was written to Gentiles both to explain who the Messiah was and that Christ was him) while John was to show us, in precise terms, how to be saved.
That said, I showed how the synoptics do, although not absolutely explicitly, defend a gospel that is focused on belief. I think the other Biblical writers make it more clear, admittedly, but I do think that it is there. And its certainly there in John, if you accept my reasoning for why some of the stuff is different, it is, and in fact, the book even says this, to show you how to get saved.
As to which requires more faith ... I have no idea. I think it takes massively more faith to believe anything spiritual in the Bible than to just think of it as a neat series of stories. After that, I think it requires more faith to assume that Jesus thought of himself as a unique conduit to God than to think that this was an interpretation taken up by the authors of the texts that we have, but that's just my impression. It could very well have been that Jesus thought that he was the necessary Messiah, and that the parts of the NT that capture this idea are accurate.
Considering at least some of the Pauline letters were probably written before Mark (First gospel written according to most people) was, I find it unlikely that Paul actually made up his own gospel, when Jesus' disciples were still around to correct him, and yet we have 13 letters alegedly from Paul (seven of which have little or no criticism) and either letters from Jesus' other disciples that agree with this gospel (See 2 Peter 3:16), or no surviving letters from them at all (Some liberal scholars deny that any of Jesus' original disciples had anything to do with the New Testament) and yet somehow this made up gospel survived but the real one didn't. Its just implausible that a group of people would follow Jesus around for 3 1/2 years, give up everything to do so, say they saw him rise again and give their lives for that belief, all to get a group of people to follow a false gospel of their making instead of the actual gospel Jesus preached. That's just implausible to me. If you can find a clear contradiction between Paul and the other New Testament writings, I might see your case, but as far as I see it, they all taught the same gospel. Even James, commonly disliked by sola fide people, teaches gospel by faith. It says Abraham's faith was "Completed by his works", which obviously means the faith had to come first.
As I mentioned, the first three gospels discuss how people will end up with magnificent rewards, because of their present-day suffering. It's not "blessed are the poor (who believe in Me), because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven". It's "blessed are the poor (in spirit)."
First of all, he was preaching to Jews, who conceivably believed in God anyways. Even still, if they rejected the Messiah, I see no indication that those promises apply to them. In fact, I can't think of a single example Biblically, either Old Testament or New, where a positive promise applies to a non-believer. Yes, Jesus does teach us to pray for our enemies, but that doesn't mean he actually blesses them (And if he does, it would be by causing them to believe in him
)
That said, my main thesis regarding Jesus is that he preached that it was much, much tougher to 'get into Heaven' than is currently envisioned by mainstream Christianity. The amount of self-sacrifice that he calls for is vastly greater than nearly anyone I know is willing to think is even reasonable for someone to do.
A few comments.
First of all, I really don't disagree with you that Jesus called for an extreme amount of self-sacrifice. I'm not sure when, and to what extent, those callings are essential for Salvation. I do know that in the rich young ruler's case, its pretty much impossible to argue that he was actually being saved BY selling his goods, especially when that's literally the only text that we can find where Jesus says anything about selling goods. Granted, Acts also talks about selling goods, and it portrays doing so in an extremely positive way, but it also makes pretty clear that its voluntary and not explicitly commanded.
That said, Luke 9:23 (In my sig
) makes pretty clear that discipleship is hard, hard work.
Here's a couple of possibilities.
First of all, there's a difference between being a disciple and being a Christian. Simply the latter will attain Heaven, but the former will also bring much, much greater rewards there.
While I think both Jesus and Paul make clear different levels of reward (And at least Jesus makes clear different levels of punishment) I think this is a bad interpretation. First of all, Jesus NEVER uses the word "Christian" yet he uses the word "Disciple" numerous times. While I did say John was specifically written to explain how to be saved, this hypothesis assumes that John has everything to do with being saved and Matthew-Luke do not contain any explanation of how to get saved at all. I think this is an implausible explanation, and as I shown, faith's clearly necessary part in the gospel IS implicitly shown (I forgot to mention "Having the faith of a mustard seed" as well) in the Synoptics. Secondly, not only does Jesus never use the term, but the Apostles don't either. Acts 11:26 (Another verse I sigged) tells us the disciples "Were called Christians" but that seems to be by other people, and synonymous with disciple. In fact, the reason I put that verse in my sig is to refute the idea I just presented in the former paragraph (Difference between Christians and disciples.)
A second possibility is that, while disciples do have to do those things (Denying themselves and such) some disciples will do so more than others. I think this is a plausible explanation even from the synoptics. Matthew 27:57 describes Joseph of Arimathea as "A disciple of Jesus" even though he practically hid and did nothing overt until Jesus died. However, he ultimately does risk his life. That said, he WAS a disciple of Jesus even before he did those things. Peter also denied Christ three times, yet was a disciple. This concept does bear out both in the Synoptics and later on as well. Later on its even made more clear concepts of Christian growth. Some Christians will grow more than others, but they WILL grow. As for where the "Cutoff" is, there is no magical cutoff. The thief on the cross was saved immediately before death and didn't openly exhibit the characteristics of a disciple. Remember that this man was a thief. Do you think he would have gone from committing actual crimes to giving his life to Christ overnight? Its possible, but considering Jospeh of Arimathea as well, a negative answer is more probable.
I will admit this though. Part of how I know my Salvation is through my own experiences. A lot of people are in the same boat. I'm sure there are people that might see me in day to day life and not know for sure that I am saved. That's a bad thing, but its also a part of being imperfect.
That said, none of that is any cause for excuses. What you are saying is right. Jesus does call for much more. The fact that it is technically possible to be saved without quite reaching the point of the first disciples should not be an excuse.
That said, Paul didn't only teach an exclusivist gospel. Oh, he preached it for sure, but he didn't only preach it.
1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
I believe that's out of context. First of all, even in the verse, it seems to be talking about the unbelieving person's children, not the person themselves. But if you look at the context:
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16
How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Verse 16 pretty clearly implies that they still need saving. That said, I see a couple of possibilities from this passage.
First, that whether or not a child who dies before they were able to personally commit themselves in faith depends on the faith of their parents. This was the view of some early reformers who rejected the Catholic view that infant baptism actually had a Salvic effect on the infant (Although they did not completely get away from the Catholic system since they still maintained paedobaptism in the first place, in spite of Scripture and the earliest church traditions being against the practice). While I can respect the view, and see where they get it from (Children being made holy) I struggle with the interpretation, because it means by necessity that infants who have unsaved parents go to Hell. Its a possibility, but a difficult one. Jesus tells us to be like little children in order to get to Heaven. And infants haven't actually had a chance to even sin yet. So while a possible interpretation, the text isn't clear enough to assume it.
Another interpretation, and the one I hold to, is that having even one parent teaching them the Christian faith gives them an opportunity to choose it and "Be holy." In other words, otherwise the children wouldn't be raised in the church at all, but since they have the believing parent, they have the chance to be saved. Since even a child with two believing parents can reject the faith when they get older and end up going to Hell, a child with one believing parent is "Sanctified" in the sense of being able to accept or reject Christianity easily, as having two. Whereas someone raised by two unbelieving parents, while still able to choose Christ, will find it much more difficult to overcome the way they were raised.
A third possibility, although one I just thought of, is that having one parent means the Christian parent will teach them Christian
morals, meaning they will be "Holy" in the temporal sense of knowing how to be holy.
I think the second interpretation is the most plausible but its not completely clear. Nevertheless, I don't think your interprtation fits when you throw in the next two verses. And there's just no indication anywhere else in the Bible either that an unsaved person having a saved spouse will get them saved. In fact, if that were so, we'd all be commanded to marry non-Christians in order to get them saved
And this is not commanded, and in fact, it is implied that we should not marry non-Christians (Although if already married to them, we are not supposed to divorce them, as your text indicates.)
I think this discussion is inspiring me to do an "Ask an Evangelical III"
'd
