Fellowship with Boundaries (from 2nd John)

Two weeks ago, I was again blessed with the opportunity and privilege to preach at our evening worship service. My initial thought was to preach out of the book of Jude, but I resisted that urge and, instead, went on to preach from 2nd John. The main reason for my choosing a text other than Jude was that I wanted to see how my preaching would fair if I was preaching from a text that I hadn’t studied before (in order to teach it, anyway) and that hadn’t been percolating in my head for quite some time. And the main reason for my choice of 2nd John was due to the fact that the only real thing that I knew about that book was that there was some uncertainty and discussion about who the initial recipient was.

This epistle opens up with the following greeting from the apostle John, “The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,” (2 John 1). The debate over who the original recipient has had three primary answers that various scholars and theologians have held.

1. The “chosen lady” is a metaphor for the church that was used because of the intense persecution.
2. The “chosen lady” refers to some specific but unnamed woman, possibly of some high class and monetary standing, whose home was used by the church or traveling evangelists, teachers, and apostles.
3. The “chosen lady” is actually a wrong translation of the Greek word, and it should be addressed to the “chosen Kyria”, because Kyria is her proper name.

Historically speaking, I have been under the persuasion that the recipient listed on this letter is a metaphor for the church. This is the only interpretation that I was presented with until about six months ago when I heard another preacher refer to this book and espouse the second position above. This was the one issue that I wanted to settle in my mind before I tackled the rest of the book, but when I got into studying it, I was exposed to yet a third position.

On the outset, I found myself initially drawn to the third option and away from the first because the metaphoric idea seemed to be a bit too imposed on the text. The trouble with translating this part of the text is due to the fact that the Greek word used here, kuria (kyria), is only used one time in the entire New Testament and only one other time in the Greek Septuagint (although different forms of the same word are used a total of seven times in the Greek Septuagint). And in all of the passages where a form of this word appears (Genesis 16:4,8-9; 1 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 5:3; Psalms 122:2; Proverbs 30:23) the word is translated into English as “mistress”, and not as a proper name even once. Having done some of this legwork, I began to be more convinced that the word kuria as it is used in 2 John 1 is not to be read as a proper name.

Now the question was to determine if the word is a metaphor for the church or if it is referring to an unnamed individual. I ended up coming to the conclusion that John seems to be addressing an individual woman. I arrived at this conclusion primarily from comparing this text to the opening text of 3rd John.

2nd John 1 – “The elder to the chosen lady…whom I love in truth”
3rd John 1 – “The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.”

…and now, in Greek…


The letter of 3rd John has historically been understood (without a large disagreement) to have been from the apostle John to a man named Gaius and written at about the same time as 2nd John. Now, if John wrote both of these letters in a very short time and both make clear references to Christian activity or doctrine, why would he make one a metaphor out of a fear of persecution, both for himself and the recipient, and yet address Gaius by name and, by doing so, hang him out to dry? My conclusion (not dogmatically held, but I am personally convinced) then is that this letter is addressed to a woman who had children (v.4), a sister, and possibly nieces and nephews (v.13) who were believers. She also played some role in the congregationalism of the local church in her area, because John warns her not to “receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” (v.10).

When reading through this letter, there are a few themes that seem to be emphasized. These themes relate to the issues of truth (vs. 1-4), love (vs. 5,6), and false teachers (vs. 7-11). But when we see this whole book inside of the “book ends” of the first few verses and the last book (v.13), I believe that get a glimpse at the warmth and fellowship that must have been the standard of the first century church. And when we see the ecclesiological overtones of this book, I believe that it makes the admonitions to love others and to separate from false teachers all the more powerful. Because if the overall context is one of a community and loving fellowship, it is an important thing to note what causes those inside of this fellowship to cut off fellowship and not to even associated with someone.

But before we can get to what seems to be the main thrust of John’s second letter, the first thing that needs to be dealt with is this issue of truth. Pilate, in his famous question, asked our Lord, “What is truth?” (John 10:38) The word for “truth” used here is the same as the word that is used throughout the New Testament, and that is the word alhqeia (alay-thee-ya). So what does it mean? One helpful thing in trying to figure this out is that out of all of the occurrences of this word in the New Testament (108), John’s uses of it account for about 42% (46) of them. Here are just a few examples of John’s use of this word:

"¹⁹ This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. ²⁰ For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." (John 3:19-21)

"⁶ If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth ; ⁷ but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. ⁸ If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:6-9)

"³¹ If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; ³² and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31b-32)

What could possibly exist, or what reality could encounter someone, that has the power to free the individual from sin and death? The only reality that has the power to do that is the gospel of Jesus Christ working in the sinner.

"Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6)

When John uses the word “truth” in 2nd John, he seems to be making a combined and complete reference to the message of the gospel, of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the universally evident (i.e. all believers will display this) and visible signs of each individual’s own personal salvation which are repentance, faith and the other fruit of the Spirit.

The truth has always been under assault by from Satan. From the Garden of Eden where Satan questioned and distorted, “Indeed, has God said…’ (Genesis 3:1) to the present demonic philosophy known as postmodernism, Satan has been attacking the truth, and specifically the revealed truth about God. Postmodernism is this dopey modern drivel that only creedal statement is that there is no creedal statement that is universally binding. Of course, the logical person would ask if that postmodern statement of truth is universally binding. It is the truth of the true nature of Jesus Christ and His divine redemptive accomplishment that are the basis for all Christian truth, love, and unity.

Next, John moves on to the natural, and inevitable, consequence of those who have encountered the truth; love.

”⁵ Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. ⁶ And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.” (2 John 5,6)

One of the more confounding things about this command to love is that the New Testament, and Jesus specifically, refer to the command to love others as both a new commandment and an old commandment.

"³⁴ A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. ³⁵ By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)

“³⁴ But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. ³⁵ One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, ³⁶ ‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ ³⁷ And He said to him, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.” ³⁸ This is the great and foremost commandment. ³⁹ The second is like it, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” ⁴⁰ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.’" (Matthew 22:34-40)

So the theological question is how can a law, or commandment, be both new and old? Well, it is an old commandment because it was stated in the first books ever written containing inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. So, the Jews and all people before Christ had the mandate to love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). However, the commandment was also a new commandment because with the advent of Christ and His incarnational ministry, we have been given the supreme example of this commandment being fulfilled. But even more than that, once the Spirit was given to the church at Pentecost, the believers were then empowered by the Spirit to follow the commandment that was modeled by Christ Himself.

But the bigger question seems to be, how does this work? How does one fulfill this commandment to love one another? The Bible is clear that all believers will be marked by this attribute of love, so much so that if love is not present, any claim to know God or be a Christian is a lie (cf. 1 John 4:7,8). There is the general understanding that if I am to love others as I love myself, since I wouldn’t steel from myself, kill myself, or intentionally deceive myself, I won’t do those things to my neighbor if I love him in the same way.

But the Bible goes farther than that, and once again sets up Christ as the example for how we are to fulfill this command to love.

“and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.” (Ephesians 5:2)

“²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, ²⁶ so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. ²⁸ So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;” (Ephesians 5:25-28)

”And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.” (2 John 6)

And even John’s answer to his own question in the context of 2nd John needs some necessary background understanding so that we do not misinterpret or misunderstand what he meant. And I would sum up my understanding of this in one statement; We do not obey the commandments of Christ to attain salvation, but Christians obey the commands of Christ in their sanctification. In other words, obeying the command to love is not something that assists in our attaining or maintaining salvation, but they are the external evidence of the internal and real process of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Finally, we’re able to move into what seems to be John’s main point in writing this shortest of epistles; the presence of false teachers. Jesus (Matthew 7:15-20), Paul (2 Corinthians 11:13-15), Luke (Acts 20:29-31), and Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3) clearly stated that false teachers would be inside of the church. If that weren’t bad enough, Paul (Galatians 2:4; 2 Timothy 3:8), Jude (Jude 4), and John (2 John 7) all record the fact that false teachers have already come into the church and are reeking havoc with the brethren.

In the past, the problem with a lot of heresy was that the masses didn’t have access to the word of God in order to test what their teachers were telling them to see if it was true, and so many were caught up in the pomp and pageantry of false teachers. However, many people may be worse today because the bible is available (in much of the world, anyway) and people can search the scriptures to see if what they are being taught is true but there is a tragically popular mentality inside of Christendom that doesn’t want to debate theology. Many Christians don’t want to debate theology or doctrine (doctrine and dogma are words that are often demonized and seen as negative) and just encourage people to “believe in Jesus” for eternal life and the forgiveness of sins. One of the problems with this mentality is that as soon as you ask this same person what he or she believes about Jesus, they will be articulating their own doctrine. It is a foolish childish fancy to think that you can spread the gospel without worrying about the doctrines that are built upon the truths of the Scriptures.

The heresy that was apparently on the mind of John was one where the incarnation and humanity of Christ was being denied or distorted in some way. The Bible is absolutely clear that Christ was fully God and was perfect humanity all in one.¹ Christ is and was as fully God as the Father and as human as Adam was before the fall of man. And without getting into an extended defense of the person of Christ here, it should suffice to say that He showed the traits of humanity while He was on the earth. ² He was hungry (Matthew 4:2), He was thirsty (John 18:28), He became weary (John 4:6), He experienced love and compassion (Matthew 9:36), He wept (John 11:55), and He was tested (Hebrews 4:15).

We don’t live in the first century, and many of the specific heresies that were gaining momentum then have been dealt with over the past two-thousand years. However heresies are as alive and well today as they have ever been. Whether these heresies deny the deity or humanity of Christ, we must be very wary. One of the more scary heresies around today, in my opinion, is the modalistic heresy. This theological disposition is also known as the “oneness” of God and has its primary manifestation in groups known as Oneness Pentecostals. The name is descriptive in nature because they believe in the absolute and total oneness of God, and they also are more Pentecostal or charismatic in their understanding of Spiritual gifts. Not all, or even most, Pentecostals or Charismatics confess, profess, or preach this heresy, so my comments here are not a blanket condemnation of all of my Christian brethren who disagree with me on the issue of Spiritual gifts.

The modalistic heresy, in short, firmly and ardently affirms the Hebrew Sh’ma found in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy.

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

This passage is not only affirmed and ardently defended by these heretics, but it is also defended, cherished, and loved by those of us who hold on to traditional and orthodox Christian doctrine. The error that the modalists make (which gives them their designated title) is that this passage is the trump card for all things concerning God’s nature. In other words, since “the LORD is one”, there can be no Trinity. On the surface, this disagreement may seem to have more to do with semantics rather than actual theology, but let me assure you that that is not a correct conclusion.

Here’s an example of what Scott Phillips, a pastor who holds this heretical doctrine, has said (to me) concerning this issue:

“I am affirming the scriptural precedent of One God, manifested in three forms. This idea/heresy of three distinct persons is not Biblical... not can it be determined. It took 500 years AFTER the last scripture was written to "agree" on the Trinity. The Scripture plainly states, one God.

Bottom Line, the Scripture plainly states a Oneness of God and not a Unity. The theology around the trinity is inferred meaning from statements and scenarios. However, every time the scripture states a point, it is emphatic, God is One, indivisible” ³

I appreciate the candor and honesty that Mr. Phillips used when he referred to Trinitarianism as a heresy. That is consistent with his understanding of Scripture. He’s wrong, tragically wrong, but at least he is being consistent and honest. The bottom line when it comes to how this false theology regards Jesus Christ is that it denies Scripture and how it describes the Person of Christ. I’ll give two Scriptures (there are many more) to illustrate the problems that come with a modalistic understanding of God. But first, the reason that the word “modalistic” is used is that these heretics affirm the work of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Christ Jesus. But when the Bible refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, these are “titles” of God, but not names. In other words, before the Incarnation, God was in the “mode” of the Father, and during the earthly ministry of Jesus, He was in the “mode” or “manifestation” of Jesus Christ, and now He is in the “mode” of the Holy Spirit. Picture one person putting on three different hats – that is how they view God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

This text is one of the best places in the New Testament to go in order to see both the Deity and distinctness of Christ. And by distinct, I mean that He is not the Father. In the beginning (i.e. before creation, when only God was) Jesus Christ existed and He was with God and He was God. The “with” and “was” are very important words to note. The word “with” shows us that He was not God the Father, but the word “was” shows that He was God. This passage by itself doesn’t scream the doctrine of the Trinity, but it does show us that the Word, Jesus Christ, is somehow distinct from the God while still being God.

“When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Without a proper understanding of the Trinity, this text (along with other texts describing the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is nonsense! What could it possibly mean that Jesus subjects Himself to the Father (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24) if there is no distinction?

As Trinitarians, we affirm that it is possible for Christ to be fully God and yet be distinct in His person because God is one in essence and three in person. As Hank Hanegraaff has said on many occasions, “God is one ‘what’ and three ‘who’s’”. Believing in the Trinity is not believing in three “whats” (i.e. three gods), but we confess that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) and three Persons.

“If you try and define the trinity and you’ll lose your mind. Deny it and you’ll lose your soul.” – Dr. Adrian Rogers

In the spirit of Dr. Rogers, I must claim human limits on my understanding of God and His nature. I cannot fully comprehend or define God so that my finite mind can put Him into an understandable box that has four walls, a ceiling, and a floor. Praise God for that! How feeble a God would that be if, in my fallen state, I could exhaustively comprehend His nature.

As if the heresy about the nature of Christ and of God weren’t enough, it doesn’t stop there. Following the reasoning and understandings and conclusions that must be made to maintain the oneness heresy, these same men have come up with other heretical theological conclusions. The biggest other one that I am aware of is that this theology is also a very blatant works righteous system. In order to be saved, they preach that one must have faith, repentance, water baptism, and speak in tongues.

“Yes, I am saying that you MUST believe, be baptized (In the name of Jesus), and receive the gift Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit give the utterance. This is just as Peter preach[ed] on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38.”

I agree that all believers will have faith, repent, receive the Holy Ghost, and that all believers should be baptized. ⁴ However, the inability to be baptized does not stop someone from being granted a remission of sins and eternal life. From Lazarus (the beggar) to the tax collector in Luke 18 (v.10-14) and the thief on the cross next to Christ, they all were forgiven of their sins based on their faith alone, not on external works of righteousness.

The Epistles make it clear that we are saved by faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5) and not by any work. The book of Galatians was written to combat the heresy of teaching that one needed to be circumcised in order to be truly saved – Paul doesn’t refute this by saying that they need to believe and be baptized, he states (twice) that their salvation came by “hearing with faith” (Galatians 2:2-5).

Baptism is not something that is to be neglected or disregarded, but it is also not something that is to be elevated to the level of an act to obey in order that you might be saved. The gospel that adds any human work of obedience (circumcision, baptism, or whatever) to the plan of salvation is due to receive the anathema from Paul in Galatians 1.

Soli Deo Gloria.

---

¹ The Council at Chalcedon used this phrase, “perfect humanity”, and specifically the word “perfect” as opposed to “full” or “total” in order to emphasize His sinlessness.

² By no means am I stating that we should not be willing or able to make an extended defense of the humanity and divinity of Christ Jesus, but for the sake of this writing, I felt compelled to summarize the issues in a few short statements.

³ Scott Phillips, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKDLIb1rsZE

⁴ Equating “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” from Acts 2:38 with the fact that the gift of tongues normative inside of every Christian is a wildly careless interpretation of Scripture. Saying that one believes that the gift tongues, healing, and other gifts that we see in the book of acts are for today divides some denominations inside of orthodox Christianity, but saying that all true Christians “MUST receive the gift Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit give the utterance” as a sign that you are saved, and if you don’t experience this then it means that you are not saved, is a completely different issue.

Reflecting on Galatians

This past Sunday, I finished going through the book of Galatians with my adult Sunday school class. We started studying it in September, and have not really deviated from it except on a few occasions. I have personally been thoroughly blessed both through studying and teaching this book. I do not fully understand all that there is to know from the book of Galatians (I won’t ever on this side of eternity), but I feel as if I am more equipped to articulate, defend, and incorporate what Paul wrote than I was a few months ago. I became very excited to cover the final eight verses (Galatians 6:11-18) this past week because I found that it was a very…satisfying conclusion to the book.

I say that it was a satisfying conclusion of the book because it appealed to my thought structure in a different way than others of his letters end. Basically, it ends with, what seems to me, Paul firing off a final statement to cover each of the major themes of his letter. Let me also say that my mental appreciation of the form of this letter does not elevate it above any other Scripture, it is just one of those passages that just…clicks with the way that my mind works.

As I look back over the book, I see many themes that Paul covers. He begins by defending the singularity of the gospel (i.e. there is only one message), the intention of the Law, the believer’s sonship in Christ, the allegory of the bond and free women (this is very cool, by the way), the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit, bearing of one another’s burdens, and boasting. However, the two primary themes (as I see it, and I am willing to be corrected) that are woven throughout the others are salvation by faith apart from works of the Law and the authentic nature of Paul’s apostolic ministry.

The lesser (by emphasis in the book, not necessarily by importance) of the two themes is Paul’s defense of his apostolic ministry. We see it begin in chapter two where Paul recounts his visit to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15) and submits his teaching to the other apostles in private out of fear that he “might be running, or had run, in vain” (Galatians 2:2) regarding the gospel of grace and faith that he was preaching. He was utterly convinced of the truth of what he was preaching, and he seems to have wanted the issue resolved once and for all. However, you will notice that the dissention caused by those false teachers in Acts 15 is similar to that of the teaching of “certain men from James” (2:12) that Paul encounters later in Antioch.

The specific issue of the Jerusalem council was to determine if Gentile converts to Christianity had to follow the Jewish laws, particularly if the male converts had to be circumcised. Paul brought Titus to Jerusalem to, as it seems, show off a gentile man, who was not circumcised and did not follow the dietary laws and regulations, as an example of a non-Jewish Christian. Well, the conclusion of the Jerusalem council was to say that converts to Christ did not, in fact, need to undergo circumcision or follow the ceremonial and dietary laws that God gave to Israel.

Unfortunately, the issue didn’t stop at Jerusalem because it seems that men went out from there claiming to have been sent “from James,” who seems to be the elder of the Jerusalem church. Also, it seems that these false teachers, these “Judaizers” (they were called Judaizers because of their desire to put new converts under the burden of the Jewish system), lied when they claimed to have been sent by him because it was James who articulated the judgment of the apostles against this heresy.

¹⁹ "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, ²⁰ but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

So, the result of the council is that Paul’s doctrine is recognized as the true gospel¹ and that the other apostles had been preaching this same message as well. Paul also contrasts how it was when he initially came to the Galatian church and that he came in need proclaiming the gospel, whereas the false teachers “shut you out so that you will seek them.” (Galatians 3:17) In other words, because of the teaching of the Judaizing false teachers, the followers would be compelled to seek after these teachers instead of going to others (like Paul or the other apostles).

The pinnacle of his argument in favor of his apostleship as presented in this book is found in the second chapter where Paul confronts, opposes, and rebukes Peter (Galatians 2:11-21). One of the messages conveyed here is that Paul shows how Peter was lulled into going along with this hypocrisy, and calls him on it. Peter was always the front man for the disciples of Jesus as well as the apostles. So for Paul to use this account of the confrontation with Peter, he was not pulling any punches. Remember, the readers could have, with relative ease, checked to see if this had in fact happened.

So, in a final way to punch his point across about how his ministry and message is authentic, Paul says this as one of the final statements of his letter:

“From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.” (Galatians 6:17)

Case closed.

Whereas I see Paul’s defense of his own ministry to be a key issue here, it is, by comparison, dwarfed by the subject and the amount of material presented relating to the main theme of the book. This theme is that salvation is by faith apart from works of the law. In other words, Paul here is saying that salvation, or more specifically I believe that he is referring to the process of justification, is applied to the believer on the basis of faith, and faith alone. Now I realize that a common objection to the doctrine of Justification is that the exact phrase “faith alone” only appear in James when he writes, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). The short answer to this objection is that Abraham and Rahab (both referenced in the context of James 2) both did actions showing their faith in and allegiance to God after they had “believed God, and it was reckoned to [them] as righteousness]” (James 2:23). In other words, the justification that James speaks about is how we are seen before men’s eyes, and not through God’s. Here’s what John Gill had to say about this verse and the controversy and apparent contradiction that it presents,

“Moreover, the Apostle Paul speaks of justification before God; and James speaks of it as it is known by its fruits unto men; the one speaks of a justification of their persons, in the sight of God; the other of the justification and approbation of their cause, their conduct, and their faith before men, and the vindication of them from all charges and calumnies of hypocrisy, and the like; the one speaks of good works as causes, which he denies to have any place as such in justification; and the other speaks of them as effects flowing from faith, and showing the truth of it, and so of justification by it; the one had to do with legalists and self-justiciaries, who sought righteousness not by faith, but by the works of the law, whom he opposed; and the other had to do with libertines, who cried up faith and knowledge, but had no regard to a religious life and conversation; and these things considered will tend to reconcile the two apostles about this business, but as effects declaring it;”²

Paul’s issue here in Galatians is against those whom Gill referred to as legalists and I have referred to them as Judaizers. Legalism is, in its most basic and correct understanding, a system that adds anything to the process of salvation above faith in Christ. In other words, the circumcision that the Judaizers were pushing did just that. And because of this heresy, those who followed in their teaching would be led astray, never to hear the true gospel of grace through faith alone.

It is most excellent that Paul’s defense of his apostleship and his defense of the gospel merge in the council of Jerusalem and the following hypocrisy of Peter and Barnabas in Antioch. Both of these instances show the truth of his calling and office and the truth of the gospel. Paul hammers on this doctrine throughout every chapter of this book. In Chapter one he refers to the fact that there is only one gospel, not two or more, and he makes a very clear and stern condemnation of any deviation from that gospel,

“⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! ⁹ As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8,9)

In chapter two Paul shows the nature of the false teaching that he is confronting at the same time as he is asserting proof for his apostleship. The primary issue was that of whether or not there is a required Jewishness in Christians, and it seems to be focused around the dietary laws and circumcision. Paul sets up his argument, that he lays out throughout the rest of the book, about the inadequacy of the Law and adherence to it as a means of being made righteous when he says,

¹⁹ "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. ²⁰ "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. ²¹ "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Galatians 2:19-21)

Chapter three opens up with a few rhetorical questions where he basically asks if the Galatians received the Holy Spirit and experience miracles “by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Galatians 3:2 & 5) The answer is, of course, that it was all received through faith and not by performing a religious ritual. He then concludes the chapter with an argument for the proper place for the Law given by God to Moses.

“²³ But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
²⁴ Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Galatians 3:23-25)

The picture here is that before the gospel of faith was revealed through Jesus Christ, we were bound to keep the Law of Moses even though it was impossible to do. In other words, we were bound to this system that we could not fulfill and therefore could not redeem us. This system and standard of God’s holiness that also shows our inability to measure up is the “tutor” that helps us and, by God’s grace, shows us that we need a substitute. Therefore, once Christ came, He fulfilled the Law; He “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us.” (Galatians 3:13) This is pictured beautifully in the prophetic words of Isaiah and in the doctrinal statement of Paul when they said, speaking of Christ’s punishment on our behalf,

“But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being {fell} upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Therefore, Paul’s letter to the Galatians goes on to say that the reason for why God set it up this way is “so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (v. 14), not through observing and keeping the law or performing deeds, but “by means of a promise.” (v. 18) We would be saved by Christ’s work on the cross, but we would not and cannot contribute anything to our justification. If we attempt to add to that finished work on the cross, we in effect say that Christ’s righteousness is not enough and that He was unable to deal with all of my sins. This type of legalistic addition is blasphemy and heresy, and it is a doctrine of devils that cannot save.

The fourth chapter’s contribution is primarily contained in the allegorical way that Paul uses Hagar and Sarah to show the different outcomes from the law and from the promise. Ishmael was born according to the flesh, through Hagar, and Paul shows how Ishmael and the rest of Hagar’s spiritual offspring came about by the flesh, and they are not the chosen of God. However, Isaac, and the rest of Sarah’s spiritual offspring, are born according to God’s promise. This is an excellent portion of Scripture that took me quite a while to wrap my head around.

Paul’s argument here is hitting the false teachers and those under their sway on a level that is at the very root of their attempts to achieve full “Jewishness”. The descendants of Ishmael were outside of the covenant that God made with Abraham, and therefore they were not allotted any inheritance with the nation in terms of the physical land or in terms of the Spiritual promises. Paul equates the Judaizers with those born from Hagar, and that they are likewise outside of the covenant relationship with God. He also shows the similarity of Isaac’s mistreatment by Ishmael and that of Christians who are mistreated by imposters, posers, as well as pagans.

Chapter five is most known for its teaching about the fruit of the Spirit, and that is as it should be, because that is a great section of this chapter. However, one must note that this whole chapter is a contrast between the same things; flesh and spirit. The beginning of the chapter sets the stage for how we are to understand the teaching that follows as well as how it connects back to the previous statements about faith contrasted to law keeping.

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1)

All of the discourse in this chapter is rooted in the teaching that we are not saved by any human work. Whether Paul is writing about the deeds of the flesh as being the evidence of an unsaved person and that this leads to destruction (Gal 5:16-21), or when he contrasts it with the fruit of the Spirit that is evidence that those who display this fruit live and walk by the Spirit (Gal 5:22-25), he is explaining that our salvation is based on grace and mercy, not merit and wages.

This leads us to the conclusion of the book, and what Paul says near the end of Chapter six. Paul summarizes the issue that was at hand for the Galatians, those in Antioch, and those at the Jerusalem Council with the definite summary of the conflict and the doctrine that resolves it when he wrote,

“¹⁵ For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. ¹⁶ And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:15,16)

We need to be created anew by Christ, and we can have that done by God’s grace through our faith in Christ Jesus. And for those of us who place our faith in Christ’s completed work in his life, death, and resurrection, we will be granted salvation, or “peace and mercy”, and inherit the blessings of God.

The truth of this great doctrine is the same today as it was for those to whom Paul initially wrote it. The difference is that there is no contemporary movement (or at least not a notable one) demanding circumcision and dietary adherence for attaining salvation. We do, however, have many different forms of this type of legalism that will not save.

This legalism takes the form of all non-Christian religions in their requirements to attain any higher enlightened state or their perception of heaven. This also takes many forms inside of Christendom. From the Mormon cult that requires baptism (whether you are living or dead) for salvation to the cult of the Jehovah’s Witnesses whose works-righteous system appears very crass and less cloaked in Christian terminology.

The distorted teaching that baptism is required, or a prerequisite, for salvation is rampant throughout more main-stream portions of Christendom; from Catholic to Methodist, and Lutheran to Easter Orthodox, this is a gross misunderstanding of baptism and it is a heretical teaching. Do Christians need to be baptized? Yes. But we don’t need to do it in order to attain salvation as it is an act that is done after faith, and we have seen how we are saved through faith apart from works of the Law. However, it is also true that a continued refusal to be baptized when the command of Christ is preached and known could very well be a sign of an unregenerate heart. The rebellion that shows in relation to one of Christ’s simplest forms of obedience is an ominously telling sign of the probability of a greater rebellion and condemning rebellion that has never bent the knee of faith to Christ alone.

Paul refers to this teaching in his letter to Titus when he said of Christ and our salvation,

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5)

May we hold fast to the truth of God’s word and never prostitute ourselves for a counterfeit that cannot save. Soli Deo Gloria.

---

¹ It was always the true gospel, and that is why I don’t say that it was “declared” true or “made” true or something along those lines. Paul’s doctrine was affirmed against the growing apostasy and heresy that was taught by the Judaizers and those caught in their sway.

² Gill, John. "Commentary on James 2:24". "John Gill's Exposition of the Bible". 1999.

The War with Sin and the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

I have been doing a bit of reflecting on the text of Scripture (Galatians 5:16-21) that we studied in Sunday school this past weekend. We looked at the “deeds of the flesh” which are the evidences of an unsaved and unsanctified life that come directly before (in the context of Galatians 5) the “fruits of the Spirit”, and these are the evidences of a saved and sanctified life.

When I was studying, one of the major rabbit trails that I explored had to deal with our justification before almighty God, and what that means and implies for the daily lives of the believers. The verse that propelled me into this line of thinking was

“For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” (Galatians 5:17)

I know that it might be a bit of a stretch to say that this verse made me think of the doctrine of imputation, but that is where it led me. We are sinful by nature, and being regenerated doesn’t change the fact that we have a sinful inclination whose roots go down very, very deep. We cannot ignore the fact that we will continue to sin until we die or until Christ returns. However, as John MacArthur put it, as we grow and in holiness throughout our life as believers we will, “sin less, but feel worse.” In other words, as a Christian, I will be sanctified as I live and grow in Christ (sin less), and in that process I will have a fuller understanding of God’s holiness and my sinfulness and depravity. Therefore even the smallest of sins (as man might reckon them) are seen as exceedingly heinous and my understanding of my rebellion is poignant (feel worse).

Seeing Paul’s description of the way in which the Holy Spirit and my flesh are at odds with one another in that the desires of each is set against the other. It’s helpful to see this dichotomy both from this pseudo-detached way that he lays it out here as well as from the point of view of a personal and agonizing battle that he lays out in Romans.

“For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:19,24)

And I made a point to say that even though we know that we will sin until for as long as we live, that doesn’t give us some kind of “get out of jail free” card relating to our responsibility for our sins or the necessity to war against them. I quickly built the case that we are able to resist sins because of what we are being tempted with and because God can keep us from sinning.

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

“⁷ and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men ⁸ (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), ⁹ then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,” (2 Peter 2:7-9)

So you may be wondering how in the world did all of this lead me to think about the doctrine of imputation…well, I’ll tell you. First of all, one of the primary messages of the book of Galatians is the defense of the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works of the law. Or, in the language of the reformers, the declaration “sola fide,” which is translated as “faith alone.” This doctrine is at the heart and soul of what the entire Bible teaches. We see that man is made right before God – he does not make himself right nor does he assist in the making of himself right before God – and that is the only way that man has ever been made right with God.

Abraham believed God, before he ever was asked or attempted to follow through with the sacrificing of Isaac, and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). The men of Nineveh were about to be destroyed by God because of their individual and national wickedness, but after hearing the prophet Jonah preaching, “the people of Nineveh believed in God” (Jonah 3:5). And because of their faith, the redeemed men of Nineveh will stand at the end of time and condemn the wicked contemporaries of Christ because “they repented at the preaching of Jonah” and the Pharisees did not. The wretched sinner, not the self righteous and condemned Pharisee, was justified because he pleaded, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” (Luke 18:13b) The thief on the cross didn’t perform any act of service or deed (no, not even baptism) to commend himself to the Lord but, like the tax collector in Jesus’ parable, he knew what he deserved and he pleaded with Christ,

“⁴⁰ But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹ "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." ⁴² And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" ⁴³ And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:40-43)

It is upon this basis of unmerited favor and unearned righteousness that my sins were imputed to Jesus and fully punished on the cross. It is also upon this basis of this same unmerited favor and unearned righteousness that Christ’s perfect righteousness was imputed to me on the day that I repented of my sins and placed my faith – my trust – in Christ. And because I am clothed with the righteousness of Christ, I am treated (eternally) as if I had lived his life, even though I still presently sin.

This whole line of thinking brought me to ponder the “what if” related to this awesome and infinitely valuable imputation. What if Christ’s righteousness weren’t fully imputed to me and I only received some of this righteousness and had to work with it until it was fully formed in me? That is the essence of the doctrine of the infusion of righteousness, as I understand it, as held by Roman Catholicism. This theological understanding is that we are given some of Christ’s righteousness, but before we can be accepted into heaven, we must be completely purified. That is where the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory comes into play.

Other than the problem (an enormous and insurmountable problem) that arises out of this theological framework that I must work to earn my righteous standing (justification) before God (simply based on the fact that Christ’s work was not sufficient to do it all completely), we have the bigger issue of continuing sin to deal with. And this problem is bigger than my Roman Catholic friends, I think, realize.

If I were given some righteousness of Christ (even up to 99.9% of it) I would still not be able to “attain” a righteous standing before God. Because if, immediately following this infusion, I was attempting to find a way to complete my righteousness and I sinned even one time, I would be back to square one; a wretched and completely unrighteous sinner.

Before the fall, Adam was perfectly sinless and right with God (i.e. blameless in His sight). It took only one sin for Adam to go from being sinless and perfectly acceptable before God to being a wretched sinner whose deserved end was death, both physically and spiritually. Only one sin! If Christ had sinned, but only once, what would have been the result of His death on the cross? I’ll tell you this, He wouldn’t have been an acceptable sacrifice that could atone for anyone’s sin…not even His own. He would have been justly under the condemnation of the Father. So what makes men think that we are somehow different than our father, the first Adam, or the Lord, the second Adam?

If I, after repenting of my sins and trusting in Christ and having received the infusion of 99.9% of Christ’s righteousness, sinned in any way, shape, or form, that righteousness would do me no good. I would be in the same predicament that I was prior to receiving that infusion of righteousness. I would, again, be a fallen and wretched sinner hanging over the chasm of God’s just wrath and judgment, and holding on for dear life, but only barely able to grasp the firmly rooted shrub of God’s divine patience. But once God has determined that his patience has run its course, the roots of that shrub give out, and I would fall to my eternal demise. (See 2 Peter 3:9)

So, you see, the necessary doctrine of imputation is directly linked to the clear biblical teaching of justification by faith apart from works of the law. Since scripture, from beginning to end, is clear that we are justified by faith alone and our works will not and cannot make us right before God, we must earnestly defend this doctrine. We cannot make any compromises on this doctrine, because if we do, the very infinite rock that we are trying to stand upon for our salvation will become an immeasurable boulder that looms above our heads and will completely and totally ruin us in the end.

May the Lamb receive all of the glory and reward for His suffering.

Context Makes All of the Difference

The other day I heard the song called “I’ll do my Best” by Go Fish and I couldn’t help but feel more motivated to love, serve and worship my God and Savior because of that song. The song has very simple and repetitive lyrics, but I find that there is power in repetition when you sing, teach or preach to people of any age.

Love, I’ll Love,
I’ll Love You Lord forever (repeat)

I’ll do my best, I’ll do my best,
Oh I’ll do my best for You (repeat)

Serve, I’ll Serve,
I’ll Serve You Lord forever (repeat)

I’ll do my best, I’ll do my best,
Oh I’ll do my best for You (repeat)

Praise, I’ll Praise,
I’ll Praise You Lord forever (repeat)

I’ll do my best, I’ll do my best,
Oh I’ll do my best for You (repeat)

I’ll Love, I’ll Serve,
I’ll Praise You Lord forever (repeat)

I’ll do my best, I’ll do my best,
Oh I’ll do my best for You (repeat)

When I think about these lyrics, depending on who is singing, that person could be acting in an absolutely heretical and abominable way toward God or their actions could be a pleasing and right response to His grace. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two, and only two, different types of religion in the world. There is the religion of human achievement that builds any hope of pleasing God, attaining heaven, or some other goal upon what I can do. In other words, God may do some, or even most, of the work in order to get me saved but my own contribution is what makes the difference. This type of religious thinking and action toward God is an abomination and He will not deal kindly with them when He judges them no matter if the person claims the name of Christ or not.

You see, this type of religion doesn’t see sin in its proper context, and therefore the adherents believe that by doing certain things they make up for any sin that they may (or may not) have done.¹ This philosophy cheapens God’s glory to something that Man can, on some level, measure up to as well as it lessens the treasonous nature of all sin and diminishes the horror of sin. Basically, it makes God more like man, man more like God, and sin more like holiness. Not to mention that this type of idea, especially when it is inside of label of Christianity, makes a mockery of the cross of Christ.

The second type of religion in the world is one of Divine accomplishment, or Justification by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:20-28; Galatians 2:16; 3:1-18). In this system, and only true Christianity has this as one of the foundational principles of salvation, God does 100% of everything to bring people into a right relationship with Him. God remains totally holy and man remains utterly sinful, and yet this sinful man is able to be made right with God and is able to be in fellowship with Him. This is all made possible by the virgin birth, the perfect and sinless life, the substitutional and sacrificial atoning death, and the victorious resurrection of the eternal second Person of the Triune Godhead; the God-Man Jesus Christ.

The song lyrics above are blasphemous if coming from that first mindset where the person thinks that he is able to do something in order to be made right and acceptable before God. However, if they are sung in the way that the artist intended and they come from the foundation of justification by faith alone in Christ Jesus and they are an outpouring of gratitude from a person in that position…well, then they are most correct and acceptable before a Holy God.

The context makes every difference with this type of mentality. If this is the way that one is seeking to be justified, then it is heresy and that person will end up in hell. However, if this is the response to justification by faith, it is the picture of what sanctification looks like in the redeemed Body of Christ. We dare not mingle or confuse these two glorious truths (Justification and Sanctification) from God’s Word or we will show that our faith is not in the True God, but yet another created god and religious ideas that will end up with those who follow and believe in hell.

---

¹ I say “or may not” because many religious people believe that they are good and do not believe that they sin much (if at all) and have a very self righteous attitude.

Legalism vs. Liberty (Part 2)

Please read "Legalism vs. Liberty (Part 1)" before reading this post.

Now that we have established the understanding of legalism and liberty in Paul’s day, as well as how I believe contemporary Christians should use and understand these two terms, I want to journey into the practical application part of this lesson.

Since we do not have any constraining religious dietary laws that Christian leaders want to impose on the masses in order that they might be saved, we really can’t relate with much of what the Judaizers were teaching. Likewise, most Christians view circumcision as a completely symbolic option for boys or simply a choice that pertains more to health and has nothing to do with getting saved. So in the most direct sense, the exact application of the truth of Scripture here does not make one bit of difference for our lives today. We weren’t thinking that we had to be circumcised for salvation before, and we still aren’t.

However, I do think that it is important to see that there are a few things that modern “Christianity” has imposed upon the people and it directly relates to salvation. The two things that I am specifically referring to are the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Some congregations refer to these as sacraments and others (ours) refer to them as ordinances. But either way you look at it, these are the two things that Christ commanded us to do. The command to baptize new believers was included in many places, but most prominently Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus (John 3:3-8) and in the Great Commission.

“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’" (Matthew 28:18-20)

In the almost two millennia that has passed since Christ lived, preached, died, rose, and ascended back into heaven, many different institutions have tried to put greater emphasis on either or both of these different commands. For instance, some popular modern teachers and churches require that you be baptized in the name of Jesus in order to be saved. This teaching began out of the Pentecostal movement in the early 20th century, and its adherents believe that Acts 2:38 which states, “Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.“ is the fulfillment of the baptismal command in the Great Commission. This may seem like a small and insignificant error, and I would agree that it is if this were the extent of the teaching. They (Oneness Pentecostals) teach that any other baptism that was done in the style of the Great Commission (i.e. in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is not really baptism. But even worse than this is the belief that you must be baptized in their formula in order to be saved. This went from a simple disagreement over how best to adhere to the scriptural command to baptize believers into a heretical system that requires baptism in their formula and by their ministers in order to be saved. Consequently, since it seems to be the case that error on one issue begets error on others, Oneness Pentecostal’s also do not believe in the Trinity.¹ It is notable that this heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism is not a new invention of the twentieth century, but it is the resurgence of an ancient heresy known as Sabellianism which was arose first in the third century.

I labeled the above doctrine on baptism (i.e. only in the name of Jesus) as a heresy because it places requirements or prerequisites for salvation over and above those contained in scripture. In a similar way, but definitely a more accepted and long standing tradition, the doctrine of baptism (or the Sacrament of Baptism) in the Roman Catholic Church states the following about Baptism:

“Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti), The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained, The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.”²

Basically stated, if you know about the command to be baptized, and you are not baptized in their system by a Roman Catholic Priest, you cannot be saved. This is no less of a heresy than the modalistic Oneness doctrine described before it. It is possibly even a worse error now because it is so wide spread and taught that most people don’t even question it. And, if you think that I am being a little harsh on Roman Catholicism by saying that their doctrine of salvation (because with them baptism is undistinguishable from actually being saved) is heretical, read what the Roman Catholic Church states about those of us who hold a symbolic understanding of baptism; an understanding that baptism doesn’t save someone.

“This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation.”³

Basically, there is no love lost between the Council of Trent (and therefore Catholicism for all time) and the reformers in their understanding of baptism. As a side note, the Council of Trent equates the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) with the act of baptism, and that is through baptism. So, in order to be justified, one must first be baptized. This is so contrary to the biblical testimony that it would be funny if it were not so wicked. Justification comes by faith in Jesus Christ.⁴

In a similar fashion to Baptism, the Lord’s Supper has been distorted to be a means of grace, or something by which salvation is attained, maintained, or regained. The Lord’s Supper is referred to in several places, but it is primarily in the record of the last supper (Matthew 26:26-46; Mark 14:22-31; Luke 22:14-23; John 13:1-20), Jesus’ words concerning the fact that He is the Bread of Life (John 6:41-58), but the observance of this command by the church is recorded for us by Paul’s writing to the Corinthians.

“and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26)

The Roman Catholic Church has built a doctrine surrounding the Lord’s Supper called Transubstantiation, which also called the Real Presence. Basically, the Roman Catholic Church, primarily looking at John 6:52-58, has built the doctrine that Jesus becomes truly present in the proper offering of communion, and it is the spiritual food for the Christian that is required for salvation.

“The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life. "The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity."⁵

The idea that our spiritual lives and devotion are dependant upon the food that we eat seems far fetched. Granted, Paul does warn against taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner which resulted in some of the Corinthians dying, but there is no clear implication that we grow spiritually in the same way that we grow physically, i.e. the more of the Eucharist that I take, the more spiritual and holy I become. But, the idea that one grows spiritually simply by partaking of communion is a smaller matter, although still significant, compared to the following blasphemous idea.

“Though Holy Communion does not per se remit mortal sin, it has nevertheless the third effect of "blotting out venial sin and preserving the soul from mortal sin" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. ii). The Holy Eucharist is not merely a food, but a medicine as well. The destruction of venial sin and of all affection to it, is readily understood on the basis of the two central ideas mentioned above. Just as material food banishes minor bodily weaknesses and preserves man's physical strength from being impaired, so does this food of our souls remove our lesser spiritual ailments and preserve us from spiritual death.”⁶

In case you missed the reason for my outrage, it is primarily centered around Trent’s declaration the taking the Lord’s Supper has the power of "blotting out venial sin and preserving the soul from mortal sin." The translation is that some sins are forgiven (“blotted out”) by simply the act of taking the Lord’s Supper. Of course, there are qualifications that are listed elsewhere in Catholic dogma stating that the bread must be of only a certain recipe, the Priest must do all of the movements and recitations of the ritual perfectly, he must also have pure intentions, and the recipient must have pure intentions otherwise the spiritual value is almost insignificant.

But again, this is all window dressing on an even larger heresy. When the Lord’s Supper is given in the Roman tradition, it is called the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hebrews tells us that Christ died once for all, and He is not sacrificed over and over (Hebrews 7:27; 9:11-14; 10:10). It is a sick perversion of God’s promise to forgive sins to say that some sins are forgiven (or can be forgiven) in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Romans 5:1 says that we have been justified and we have (present possession) peace with God. Peace with God is only attainable without sin, and that is only available through faith in Jesus Christ, not through ceremonial observance.

So, you see, the application of the exact same type of false teaching that Paul was warring against in the book of Galatians is the same sort of false teaching that is around today. The only difference is that it has been repackaged into the Christian framework of western society as opposed to the Jewish framework of the early church. I affirm, just as the Bible teaches, that man is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

We dare not become legalistic to teach that baptism or communion are necessary for one to be saved. However, I really appreciate what John Piper once said when he was asked this same question; is baptism necessary for salvation?

“It isn’t absolutely [necessary] because the thief on the cross was saved. Jesus said, ‘today you will be with Me in paradise’ and he didn’t have any opportunity to be baptized. So I wanted to start with the absolute statement: it s not absolutely necessary. However, if a person draws from that this inference, “Well who cares whether you’re baptized or not. I don’t care if Jesus said ‘go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t matter to me whether Jesus said [that] because John said you don’t have to be baptized to be saved.” Now that attitude towards the command of Jesus might signify [that] they’re not saved; they just don’t believe in Jesus. And so baptism then becomes the touchstone or a point at which “not to be baptized” doesn’t, in itself, damn you, but the attitude of refusing to be baptized is what damns you. And so I want to be careful how we say it. So baptism is not in and of itself, that is water on the body, somehow, either magically or sacramentally, the saving agent. We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, and then we signify what has happened to us and bear witness to it in baptism.”⁷

I think that John Piper is right on when he refers to the attitude of refusing to be baptized as opposed to the lack of baptism as the thing that shows that you are condemned. The next question that might come up refers to someone who believes in the biblical doctrines of justification by faith and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner at the moment of salvation, but they believe in infant baptism where the bible seems to clearly indicate that baptism follows the conversion of the believer.

The question is then, that if people have the doctrines of justification and sanctification right, but they believe in infant baptism, does that qualify as a type of refusal that would show that a person is condemned? My short answer is no, and I’ll try to explain why.

There are many Christians who view baptism as more of a covenantal ritual similar to circumcision as opposed to strictly being the act of obedience following conversion. They would still baptize adults who convert, but as a rule, if a child is born to a family in the congregation, that child would be baptized. These same Christians believe that it is through faith that one is saved, and not through baptism (i.e. not baptismal regeneration). When confronted with the issue of baptism, these same Christian brothers defend infant baptism in this sense as the teaching of scripture and defend it with historically biblical arguments. So the reason why this same Christian brother does not get baptized as a believer is not because he is unwilling to submit to the command of God, but he is convinced that the act of baptism as an infant fulfilled this command of Christ.

So, the distinction is that this refusal (although it is still wrong in my opinion) is not a refusal because of a lack of zeal for God or for obeying His commands, but it is exactly because the person is defending what they understand from scripture that they refuse to be baptized as an adult. So if this is the case with you, and you are not convinced that the baptism of an adult should be the first act of obedience following conversion (this is also called believer’s baptism), this omission is not a sign of a rebellious and condemned faker masquerading as a Christian, but as any other sin or lack of direct application that any Christian does.

However, if you are convinced that believer’s baptism is what is mandated in scripture and you have, and have had, many opportunities in which to obey Christ, but you refuse to be obedient, this may indicate the fact that you have not been born again and are still in your sins.

When I attended Northwestern College, I had a saying that is very applicable now. You see, at NWC, there were many social guidelines that were in place for various reasons. All students, faculty, and staff had to agree (in writing) to follow these guidelines for as long as they were associated with NWC. A few of the rules that seemed to rub students the wrong way were the regulations not to dance or to drink alcohol (even when you were of age). This did not stop everyone from participating in these actions while associated with NWC. As a student, I would often get into conversations with my friends about this issue. My friends thought that these rules were oppressive, wrong, and unbiblical. But, whenever we’d debate, I would never challenge these conclusions, and I would, for the sake of the argument, agree that they were correct and that the stipulations in question were wrong for those reasons. However, that does not change the fact that every student, every member of the faculty, and everyone on staff agreed to these rules before they began with the school. So, my argument was simple: if you cannot keep yourself from drinking and dancing for four years, how much can you possibly love Jesus Christ?

It may sound like a little bit of a leap, but it isn’t. Christ demands our obedience, and if I do not obey Jesus, it is a sign that I am not a Christian. If I willingly put myself under the obligation to follow certain rules that I disagree with, I should – out of a love for Christ – obey those rules and count my “suffering” as a privilege. If I cannot put Christ and my love for Him and obedience to those in authority over me (as it relates to drinking and dancing at college) as a higher priority than my desires, how willing will I then be to forsake all things to follow Christ and endure harsher and more unpleasant repercussions of persecution and death for the sake of obeying Christ.

---

¹ If you do not think that the Trinity is a doctrine to contend for, please read my previous article "an apologetic e-mail"

² http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#IX

³ Ibid.

⁴ You can read Faith Alone - a Truly Biblical Doctrine and Justification: "Works" vs. "Works of the Law" for more on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

⁵ CCC 1212 http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1212.htm

⁶ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

⁷ 10/9/06 commentary before the Desiring God radio broadcast of “United with Christ in Death and Life, Part 2a”

Legalism vs. Liberty (Part 1)

On Sunday, I began our Sunday school lesson on Galatians 2 by writing two words on the board and asked for either their definitions or the connotations or implications of these words. These words were “Legalism” and “Liberty“.

Concerning legalism, most people (including my class) would define it as strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to a law or to a rule.¹ Generally, in Christian circles, the title of legalism is applied to people who place boundaries or rules on themselves or others that are derived from biblical principles, but are not necessarily explicit biblical commands. Some of these types of rules can be seen at some churches or Christian schools and they include regulations on how a woman can dress (i.e. she must wear a dress or have long hair), no card playing of any kind (because it might appear to be gambling), no dancing (because it might lead to impurity), and other things.

We then went to discuss what liberty means and implies and only one word was said in the long space of time that was given for an answer. Freedom.

Could someone consider the statement “you should not commit adultery” as a legalistic requirement? The initial answer might be no, but is that true? This statement (the 7th of the 10 Commandments) is a rule that Christians ought to follow.² I think that because Scripture so clearly states that the sexually impure will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and that Christians will be sexually pure because of their new nature (1 Corinthians 6:11).³ So, being true to what legalism means, technically it is legalistic (i.e. a rule that should be strictly adhered to) even though no true Christian would probably classify it in this way.

Where does application of this command to be sexually pure go from being something that is universally understood and adhered to into being a legalistic imposition on the command? If I asked you that question, the following discussion between us would boil down to an issue of what action is commanded and where we have some freedom to apply that principle to our lives in various ways without compromising the letter and the intent of the command.

That brings us directly to the other issue of liberty. Now, where legalism was defined (or over defined and overused), liberty is just the opposite and is a very vague concept in our minds and is usually just thought of as a synonym for freedom. As an American, liberty means freedom, and it means that no one controls what I do. If I want to do something, I basically can. If I were to ask an American from the 1700’s what liberty meant, I would get an answer that probably included some reference to King George and being free from the tyrannical rule of England. Likewise, if I were to ask this same question to an African-American in post Civil War America, I would hear an answer of no longer being in slavery and not being owned any longer.

Because of the vagueness of our primary understanding of liberty and our liberal use and definition of legalism, I am advocating for a more specific use of these terms in our Christian dialogue.

When we discuss religion (Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Christianity, or whatever), I would argue that we should not use the term legalism unless it is referring to a works righteous system of salvation. In the case of Christians who put restrictions on clothing, food, drink, or recreation, usually the reasoning is not one of attaining or maintaining salvation, but it is more for the edification and sanctification of the individual or community of people. This is very different from Islam where you must do the 5 Pillars in order to possibly have a chance that Allah will be merciful to you. Although the others are more veiled works-righteous systems, Mormonism, Hinduism, and every other world religion is basically a works righteous (quid pro quo) system. Similarly, Catholicism teaches that one must be baptized, take the Lord’s Supper, and do other things to be saved, to keep your salvation, or to regain it once you’ve lost it. That is different than saying that one should do these things once they are saved as a means of sanctification, and therefore it is a works-righteous and non-Christian system.⁴

It is this exact issue of legalism (works righteousness) verses liberty that Paul was referring to in Galatians 2. In this text, Paul recounts his experience with the heretical teaching of some of the Pharisaic converts to Christianity and the resulting council that was held at Jerusalem. When reading Galatians 2 and Acts 15 (the parallel historical account of this situation), you find that some of the Pharisees who had converted to Christianity had gone down to Antioch and were explicitly teaching that all people (Jew or gentile) must be circumcised (Acts 15:1) and keep the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5) in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas opposed this teaching vigorously, and because of the disagreement they went to Jerusalem and, “submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.” (Galatians 2:2)

There was much debate over this issue (Acts 15:7), but the issue was settled when Peter and James both declared that the teaching of the Judaizers was wrong, and therefore heretical. Peter was explicit in stating that both Jews and gentiles were saved in the same way, “He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9)

Since the legalism of the pharisaic teachers was condemned and the liberty of the Christian was defended, I feel that we (today) must define liberty in the same context as we defined legalism and not leave it as a way to excuse poor or unedifying decisions. I think that we should define liberty with three basic statements that will get to what the bulk (I think) of what Christian liberty, or the law of liberty, implies. Christian Liberty says that:

1. We have freedom from needing to fulfill the law in order to be righteous. God demands holiness, perfection, and sinlessness in order to be acceptable to God (1 Peter 1:15,16). We no longer have the requirement to fulfill the law in order to be made acceptable to God because Christ has already done that (Matthew 3:13-17; 5:17). Not only that, but it is impossible to be holy before God because everyone is guilty of sin (Romans 3:23; Galatians 3:22). So, the freedom that we have through faith in Jesus Christ is truly a great freedom from the oppressive and impossible yoke of becoming righteous by works.
   
   “Christ fulfills the Law by His person and work. So believers are under a new law; the obligation to walk by the Spirit of Life (Rom. 8:2-4). If we are under the Spirit then we are not under the Law (Gal. 5:18).”⁵



2. We have freedom from the slavery and bondage to sin. We are also freed from our slavery and bondage to sin. All people are slaves of sin before Christ saves us through faith in Him (John 8:34; Romans 6:6,16-20; Ephesians 6:6).



3. We have freedom to serve and follow Christ. Before we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), and our good and righteous deeds are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), not as acceptable or pleasing to God. But since we have been made alive in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:22; Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13; 1 Peter 3:18), we can then go forward in good works “which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10) But this only happens after we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, and only as a fruit of that salvation, not as a way to attain it.

Part 2 will follow very shortly, and in it I will deal with the practical application of shunning legalism in favor of grace and mercy and cling to the liberty in Christ.

---

¹ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=legalism

2 I would argue that Christians, as a rule follow it. If you claim to be a Christian by you are a habitual adulterer or fornicator, your actions betray your claim, and you likely are not a Christian.

³ Again, this is not a statement that someone who commits adultery is by definition not a Christian, but I am referring more to the lifestyle or ongoing unchecked nature of sin versus a war with sin. See 1 John and Romans 7:14-25 for more on this concept.

⁴ I firmly believe that people can be saved in a Catholic Church. Not because of any mystical “specialness” of that church, but because the Word of God is read there and because the basic doctrines about the deity of Christ, the incarnation, and the Trinity may be heard. I believe that one can be saved in spite of the bad theology and wrong gospel that is preached there. I think the same thing regarding modern non-Trinitarian churches, a health and wealth charlatan of a TV preacher like Benny Hinn, and other venues. It is because of the power of the Word of God that this is possible.

⁵ http://www.bible.org/qa.php?topic_id=7&qa_id=3

James and the Gospel

I have recently begun studying (and teaching) through Galatians and it has already been well worth it. A few weeks ago we opened our study with a look at Paul’s pronouncement of anathema (condemnation) upon anyone who preaches a gospel contrary to what he had been preaching. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

The question that we looked at in that lesson was, basically, what is the gospel message that Paul preached? The answer from Galatians is that we are saved by faith in Christ. The English word “Faith” is found 228 in the New Testament and 161 of those times in the writings of Paul (19 of times in Galatians).

“nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)

“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.’” (Galatians 3:8)

“But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:22-26)

Because I know that objections will arise, allow me quickly to deal with the epistle written by James.¹ First of all, I must say that I affirm and firmly believe what is written in James. We must understand what he is saying in context. The next question that may come up is, “what is the context of this passage?” to which I reply with something similar to the words of a blogging opponent of mine, “The context is the context of Scripture as a whole. The entire New Testament must be considered when establishing doctrine. One verse cannot be elevated above all the others that appear to contradict it….”² With that correct statement of the interpretation of scripture, we must look at the rest of Scripture to ascertain what the correct meaning of James’ words here are. Without going into an extended argument from scripture about the fact that it is faith and faith alone that God has chosen to unite the sinner with the righteousness of Christ, and therefore it is the vehicle of faith that justifies the unbeliever, we can look at the book of James and see that the direct context of James’ faith and works argument is in relation to showing partiality inside of the congregation. It is very important to note that he is addressing the hypocritical actions of members of the church in relating to different classes (rich or poor) of believers.

James makes the case that true faith impacts or effects the actions of the believer. First, he gives a negative example of how someone can have good theology without the fruit of works which indicates that they are not saved by saying, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” (James 2:19) He then gives examples of both Abraham and Rahab where their true faith was perfected by their works.

The most difficult passage in this text is James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James uses “justified” three times in his epistle, and all of them within 5 verses of each other (James 2:21-25). The first time that it is used is in relation to Abraham when he was going to sacrifice Isaac on the alter. Did this happen before or after God had credited Abraham’s faith as righteousness (as James referenced later in the same chapter)? It was in Genesis 15:6 when the declaration about Abraham’s faith was made. This did not happen at a random or unimportant part of his life. The statement was made directly after God had promised that his son (that he did not have yet), not Eliezer, would be his heir. It was not a simple thing for Abraham to believe this statement since he was very old, and his wife was beyond child bearing years. In fact, it was not until many years later, following the birth of Ishmael and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, that Isaac was born. More than that, it was not until Isaac was a young boy that Abraham was tested by God when he was told to offer his son as a sacrifice.

So, Abraham’s faith was tested when God told him to sacrifice Isaac who was the miraculous fulfillment to God’s promise of an heir and the way that Abraham would be the father of nations (through him). Anyone would be hard pressed to hold on to faith in God when He seems to promise and demand two contradictory things. But, Abraham’s faith was proven true in that he was willing to sacrifice his son. Why? As we find out elsewhere, “He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead” (Hebrews 11:19) and so he did not fear to follow the Lord’s command.

All of that to say this: Abraham was already justified because of his faith prior to the offering of Isaac, but it was the truth and the genuineness of his faith that was proven by his action (his willingness to kill his only son). This links us back to the beginning of the book of James where he says, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” (James 1:2-4).

Another question that is helpful is to ask this: who is the proof of the faith for? Is the proof for God’s benefit or the believer’s? God already knows (whether you’re Calvinist or Arminian) if your faith is genuine before you do anything. Abraham was not proving his faith to God when he followed His command. It was God who was showing Abraham how solid and steadfast his faith is. Moreover, it was also statement of the degree of Abraham’s faith to the rest Abraham’s family as well as to everyone who has come after him.

In conclusion, James was not writing to those Christians who felt that they were obligated to keep the Mosaic Law in order to attain salvation (so many of Paul’s letters were combating this false teaching). James was addressing the anti-nomianists who try to make faith in Christ simply a mental action or doctrinal confession but that causes no change in life.

“He is worried about people who were confining faith to a verbal profession (v. 19) or to empty, insincere good wishes (vv. 15-16). This faith is dead (vv. 17, 26) and barren (v. 20) and will be of no avail the day of judgment (v. 14).”³

I will say again that I firmly believe the teachings in the book of James. If someone claims to have faith in Christ, but their actions betray that claim, then they have no more of a saving faith than the demons. I have never, and I will never, advocate for such a cheap counterfeit of the grace of God in salvation by saying that all that is necessary for one to be saved is to pray a prayer, sign a card, walk an aisle, or confess true doctrine. True faith will include some of these (i.e. true prayer to God and the confession of true doctrine), but it is not confined to either of them.

Likewise, I will not ever advocate a cheap counterfeit of the grace of God in salvation by saying that my good works are anything other than the fruit of a right relationship with Christ. They are important, and if I do not have the works that follow my faith, my faith is worthless. However, the works do not make me or keep me saved. They provide proof, both to me and to others, of the genuineness of my profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

---

¹ People like to try and use James 2 as a bludgeon to say that people are justified by works (i.e. the works assist in the attaining of salvation).

² This comment was made in reference to an eternal security debate, but the statement is no less true there (even though I disagree with his overall conclusion,) than it is here. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dannytheactor/116229955314191696/#213308

³ Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'James, Theology of'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology". . 1997.

Faith Alone - a Truly Biblical Doctrine

I have always maintained that people are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. It is true that I did not make this explicitly clear in a recent comment on another blog, and for that I do apologize. However, if you look at my comments on posts on this blog (or any other for that matter), you will see that I affirm the truth that man is saved by grace through faith (apart from works) in Christ whole-heartedly.

An objection to the doctrine of sola fide and sola scriptura was raised in this way, “Show me one verse in the Bible that says we are saved by "Faith alone" or that the "Bible Alone" is the sole rule of faith.”¹ I answered it (or began to, anyway), in a comment that preceded his when I said, “While the exact phrase ‘faith alone’ appears only in James regarding false faith….”² But in case this was missed, I will try again.

The exact phrase “faith alone” occurs only once, and it's in the book of James, and he says that faith without works is useless. And as for a verse that uses “Bible alone”, well the word Bible is not in the Bible so that is an easy one. But we do not get our vocabulary from just the Bible, nor do we, necessarily, get our doctrine out of “word for word” phrases in the Bible We (I) look at the whole of Scripture to see what it says about any one subject, and then we try as best as we can to articulate that as stated in a doctrine. Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are two such articulations of doctrine. You also know that I affirm that salvation is in Christ alone, but the phrase “Christ alone” is not found anywhere in the Bible (except in the NLT which is less than a word for word translation). But you would not disagree (I hope) that salvation is, in fact, in Jesus Christ alone. It is not reckless, wrong, or ridiculous to use the statements that came out of the reformation to articulate the true gospel message.

In further dealing with the “trump card” of James 2:20 that seems to be played with no care of how recklessly it is wielded, we must go back and first understand (as Christ taught) that you can sum up the law and the prophets into two commandments:

1. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.


2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Therefore we know that there is no work that can be considered to be “good” that doesn’t fall into either of these two categories. Any deed, whether it is circumcision, baptism, walking an aisle, signing a card, or any other action, does not save us. It does not bring us into a relationship with Christ nor does that action reconcile us to the Father. Therefore, when we are exhorted that we are saved apart from works of the law (Romans 3:20, 27-28; Galatians 2:16), apart from works (Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 1:9), not of deeds done in righteousness (Titus 3:5) but we are saved by faith (Romans 3:22-31;4:5-16; 5:1,2; 9:30-33 Galatians 3:8-14, 22-26; Ephesians 2:8,9; 2 Timothy 3:15), it is by faith to the exclusion of anything else that our new relationship (being born again or born from above and being Justified) with God begins.

Obedience to the commands of God (good works) comes as a result of faith (Romans 1:5; Galatians 5:6, 22-23; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Timothy 1:4-5; Hebrews 11) and being evident, they (the fruit of good works), validate our claim of faith (James 2). True faith brings other things with it and produces love and good works (1 Corinthians 13:2; 2 Corinthians 10:15). Therefore, for whatever reason God decided to do this, faith (by the grace of God) is the instrument that God has chosen to use to connect sinful man with the righteousness of Christ.

The statement “works are not a prerequisite to justification but a natural consequence of it.”³ was made by Jeff S (an Episcopalian in transition to Catholicism), and Danny (my Catholic theology student friend) agreed with Jeff S’s summary of the Catholic understanding of faith and works by saying, “And Jeff S. has summed it up splendidly!”¹

That statement affirms what I believe. All good works – every single one – are the out flowing of someone who has been Justified by God. This is the truth that I have been articulating all along. The grace of God works through men to produce faith in Christ – and that man is saved. This saved man will now go about performing good deeds, but all deeds done are the result of salvation, the do not assist with the attaining or the maintaining of it.

Baptism is not some ritual that makes us born from above or cleanses us from original sin and brings us into fellowship with God. It cannot since “works are not a prerequisite to justification but a natural consequence of it.”⁵

But if you still believe that baptism (water baptism as performed by sprinkling, dunking, etc) is either (a) a prerequisite of justification, or (b) the first step in someone’s spiritual life (forgive me, I do not know the correct Catholic ‘lingo’ to for baptismal regeneration) then we – most definitely – do not agree on how man is saved. And if Jeff S. or Danny believes that baptism fits either of these two above criteria, then they disagree with themselves.

Baptism is, at least, a deed done in righteousness whether it is understood to be the beginning of one’s spiritual life or one of the first acts of obedience by that person who has been saved. But baptism cannot play a role in our actual salvation, because it is a deed. We all should be baptized, I totally affirm and agree that all Christians should be baptized, but as seen by the thief on the cross; water baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation.

I trust that opponents to this affirmation of faith will take the time to read the texts that I cited which begin, at least, to articulate this doctrine. The only thing more compelling than the shear number of the texts that articulate or refer to the truth that man is saved by grace alone through faith alone (“alone” meaning that faith is apart from any works) are the texts themselves in how powerfully clear they are.

---

¹ Comment by Danny Garland Jr. 10.28.06 - 10:07 pm

² Comment by EJ 10.28.06 - 3:31 pm

³ Comment by Jeff S. 10.28.06 - 10:33 pm

⁴ Comment by Danny Garland Jr. 10.28.06 - 11:09 pm

⁵ Comment by Jeff S. 10.28.06 - 10:33 pm