What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved? Chapter 14

We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved? The paperback is $7.95, but it’s also available in Kindle edition for $0.99. For $0.99, it’s really an offer you can’t refuse!

Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”

Chapter 14 is entitled “Stand in the grace of God.”

When I say in this installment that if the Church of Christ is to be saved it must, as the above passage indicates, stand in the grace of God, and not simply believe in it. The Church of Christ has a head knowledge of grace, but at the gut level it does not, generally, know the grace of God. To put it another way, we must come to terms with the grace of God, recognizing that it is a reality to be realized. It is like living in a house wired for electricity and not being plugged into the power. This is why we’re not going anywhere, we’re not plugged in. (pp. 163-164).

Being the pragmatic individualists that we are, a “do-it-yourself” people, we can’t believe there are really any free lunches, not even in religion. Grace can’t really be a completely free gift, we figure, for we have to do our part — by repenting or being baptized, or going to church, or something! — for it is illogical that God would freely bestow his grace apart from our cooperation. It is our pragmatism, our humanism, our fleshly pride — yes, our logic — that causes us to do what Paul sought to avoid, nullify the gift by failing to realize that it is free, unconditionally free. Of course it is illogical, that is what makes it grace. There is no logic in giving heaven itself to people that do not deserve it. (pp. 165-166).

I think Garrett nails it. We accept a theoretical grace but often deny an effective grace. Grace covers sins we commit but not sins committed by others. We conveniently define “grace” to not apply to doctrinal error, so that we who have perfect doctrine can go to heaven but those who err cannot.

Only grace will free us from our legalism. Only grace will deliver us from the backwater of our sectarianism. Only grace will give us the assurance of our salvation. So long as we are deceived into believing that “we have to do it” and that righteousness is at least partly our own doing, we can never be sure of our standing with God. We must realize that God’s grace is not auctioned off to the highest bidder. We can do nothing to merit it, we cannot work enough to earn it, we cannot be good enough to deserve it, we cannot be rich enough to buy it, we cannot muster enough power to wrest it. Grace is God’s free gift, all because he loves us, abundantly and extravagantly.

When we “stand” in the grace of God, trusting in his goodness and mercy, then love, joy, and peace will flood our hearts. We will then be a more gracious people, magnanimous, full of life and enthusiasm, eager to praise God for his great mercy. We will take ourselves less seriously and be able to laugh at our foibles. We will not be so uptight, we’ll quit worrying, be less critical of others, more accepting, more forgiving. (pp. 171-172).

Our working definition of grace is reflected by our hearts. We become like whom we worship. Those who worship a God of astonishing grace becoming astonishingly gracious people. Those who worship a God of tightfisted grace for only those who know the secrets of the silences, well, they become tightfisted people who dole out their own grace very sparingly as well.

 

 

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized, What Must the Churches of Christ Do to Be Saved?. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved? Chapter 14

  1. Price says:

    So, the “fruit” of understanding and fully accepting grace is extending grace to others…

    Sort of in line with Luke 7:47(b) But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”

  2. Philip Yancey’s book, What’s So Amazing About Grace, makes much the same point. As he describes his youth and the gracelessness he experienced in his church/Bible College, it sounded strangely like my own youth – even though the Baptist church he grew up in supposedly has more grace than the CoC.

    He does a beautiful job of describing the results of a grace-filled life. I heartily recommend this book. It is not a “doctrinal,” but a practical study of grace.

    Jerry

  3. hank says:

    “Grace can’t really be a completely free gift, we figure, for we have to do our part — by repenting or being baptized, or going to church, or something! — for it is illogical that God would freely bestow his grace apart from our cooperation.”

    Do you honestly believe that the grace of God that brings salvation is bestowed upon those who are unpenitent and unimmersed? Do you honestly believe that that God bestows his grace that brings salvation upon sinners APART FROM THEIR COOPERATION?

    If the grace of God which brings salvation were truly unconditional (without any conditions), then why would ANYBODY not be benifiting from it? Do you guys believe that EVERY person alive is currently experiencing God’s free and “unconditional” gift of his grace? If not, why not?

    Think about it… if God’s grace is really intended for all men (which it is Tit. 2:11), but if all men are not experiencing it, then it must obviously be conditional.

    Please explain how it can be extended unconditionally and yet still have conditions?

    I believe that the actual truth is that it is a FREE GIFT and yet still be conditional and require our cooperation. Again, if it were unconditional and did not need any cooperation from man…then nobody would be lost.

  4. Bruce Morton says:

    Jay:
    Since you think Leroy Garrett “nails it,” then the question becomes why you believe that “The ultimate test of salvation is faith in Jesus?” Your “everyone is saved by their faith in Jesus” ignores the truth that we are saved by grace through faith (though I know you do NOT agree with that). But before telling me I have missed your conclusions, read on….

    Yes, Leroy Garrett’s focus on grace is important… and ironically invalidates some of what he has written previously. And ironically he has chosen to avoid noting many excellent lessons (I and others have heard) within churches of Christ reaching back to at least the 1960’s. Lessons that focused in baptism as an action of God’s grace. Does he mention baptism as an act of God’s grace in the chapter, Jay?

    Ephesians 2:8ff. indeed sums up. And it is in baptism as an action of God’s grace that our sins are washed away and we become God’s possession. We are buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through our faith in the power of God (Col. 2:12).

    A wondrous thought. And a powerful corrective to the belief that baptism is a “work.” Correct? And also a powerful corrective to some of what you have proclaimed in your weblob. You do not believe that baptism is a “work,” do you Jay? And if you do not, then what is left?

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas

  5. abasnar says:

    It is like living in a house wired for electricity and not being plugged into the power. This is why we’re not going anywhere, we’re not plugged in.

    Grace can’t really be a completely free gift, we figure, for we have to do our part — by repenting or being baptized, or going to church, or something! — for it is illogical that God would freely bestow his grace apart from our cooperation.

    These two statements reflect a dilemma, don’t they? On the one hand Leroy says, we are not plugged in – on the other hand he says it is wrong to “plug into Grace” (my words) by doing something. How should that work?

    First of all baptism is our first step into Grace, because in baptism God redeems us and is bestowing his grace upon us! So by this we are plugging in, aren’t we? And this relationship to God needs to be maintained, it’s not a one-time-event but a relationship! Therefore going to church, or “not forsaking the assemblies” is essential!

    The problem is that Leroy does not understand grace, which is demonstrated in the following quotation:

    Only grace will free us from our legalism. Only grace will deliver us from the backwater of our sectarianism. Only grace will give us the assurance of our salvation. So long as we are deceived into believing that “we have to do it” and that righteousness is at least partly our own doing, we can never be sure of our standing with God.

    Again and again and again an unscriptural term is used to play down the role of obedience in our salvation! “Legalism” is a straw man! Shoot at him as long and as hard as you like, blow out its guts with your bazookas! Leroy is a typical Protestant using typical protestant terminology to describe things he does not understand, because he is too biased by his Protestant theology. The church of Christ is neither Protestant nor Catholic. Let the Straw man bleed and groan and suffer and die in agony, Leroy!

    How can you show your righteousness apart from your works?

    Alexander

  6. abasnar says:

    @ Jerry

    I have a copy of Yancey’s book in German. I warn against it with all my might – it’s heresy. I do understand where he came from, but where he ended is the other extreme! It’s a terrible misunderstanding of God’s Grace, misleading and irritating. I wrote a book against it (not against him personally, but against this Prostestant/Evangelical misunderstaning of Grace). It’s in German, though, so I fear you won’t be able to read it …

    Alexander

  7. abasnar says:

    To be ore to the point, here is an excellent article of David Servant, that refutes all the basic statements of “unconditional grace and love” (the theme of Yancey’s book):

    Christian Clichés That Contradict Christ

    It has been said that if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it even if it isn’t true. This certainly seems to be true concerning many oft-repeated Christian clichés about God’s love. Consider the following statements that so frequently reverberate within our Christian circles:

    1.) God loves everyone unconditionally.

    2.) God loves everyone the same.

    3.) There isn’t anything you can do to earn or deserve Jesus’ love.

    4.) Jesus’ love for us is not based on our performance.

    5.) There is nothing you can do that would make Jesus stop loving you.

    6.) There is nothing you can do to make Jesus love you more or less than He does right now.

    We’ve all heard these, but are these true according to Scripture? Consider the following words of Christ, spoken to His very own disciples:

    Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love (John 15:9-10, emphasis added).

    Notice the conditional word if in the declaration, “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.” Jesus’ disciples are responsible to abide in His love, just as He said, and they do that by keeping His commandments. Only those who keep Jesus’ commandments abide in His love. If we don’t keep His commandments, we don’t abide in His love. That means Jesus’ love for us is conditional, and there is no getting around that fact. (Other scriptures besides this one, which we will consider shortly, make the same point.) So the first cliché under consideration—that God loves everyone unconditionally—is false according to Christ. Incidentally, the Greek word translated love in these two verses of John’s Gospel is agape, which is often defined as “unconditional love,” a definition that is obviously not correct according to these verses.

    But doesn’t Scripture declare that God loves those who don’t keep His commandments? What about John 3:16: “For God so loved the world…”? That must mean that God also loves sinners, which must mean that His love for them is not conditioned upon their obedience. How then are we to reconcile these two apparent contradictory facts of God’s love being conditional and also unconditional?

    It seems to me that the only way to reconcile them is to simply acknowledge what we all know to be true from experience—that not all love is the same. Some love is conditional, while other love is not conditional. Non-conditional love is known as mercy, and could be called “merciful love” or “merciful favor.” (When someone loves you, he bestows his favor on you, and you experience some benefit Because of that favor.) In this article, I will refer to unconditional love as merciful love. It is a love that says, “I love you in spite of.” It loves undeserving people. It is the kind of love God has for those who are not submitted to Him, the unregenerate. His merciful love for them is temporary, however, lasting only until they die. God forestalls His judgment upon them all of their lives as He gives them years to repent. Jesus gave His life for them, providing a way for them to be forgiven. To that degree and in that way, it can be said that God loves them.

    But there is also such a thing as conditional love. It is known as approval, and it could be called “approving favor” or “approving love” as I will refer to it in this article. It is a love that is earned or merited. It is a love that says, “I love you because you deserve my favor.”

    God of course never loves those who are not submitted to Him with an approving love. Or it could be said this way: God never has a love for them like a father has for his child. Rather, Scripture declares, “Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him” (Ps. 103:13, emphasis added). God has fatherly compassion only on those who fear Him (which implies that they therefore obey Him). God does not have the same compassion on those who don’t fear Him. His love for sinners is more akin to the mercy a judge has on a convicted killer who receives a life sentence rather than the death penalty.

    In light of these truths, clearly God does not love everyone the same, which means that cliché #2 is also not true. Unfortunately, many of us mistakenly think that if love is conditional it is not love at all. Or we even belittle such a love, saying it is purely selfish, and contrary to God’s love.

    The truth is, however, that God does indeed possess conditional love, as we have just read from the lips of Jesus in John 15:9-10: “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.” Thus approving love should not be sneered at. Approving love is the primary love that God has for His true children.

    Stop and ask yourself this question: “Which kind of love would I rather people have for me—merciful love or approving love?” I’m sure you would prefer that people love you “because of” not “in spite of.”

    For example, would you rather hear your spouse say, “I have absolutely no reason to love you, and there is nothing about you that motivates me to show you my favor” or, “I love you for so many reasons, because there is so much about you that I admire”? We all, of course, would prefer that our spouses love us with an approving love, and that is the primary kind of love that draws couples together and keeps them together. When there is nothing that a person admires in his or her spouse, when all approving love has ceased to exist, few marriages last. If they do endure, the credit goes to merciful love, which stems from the godly character of the giver of that love.

    All this being so, we see that approving, or conditional love, is not an inferior love at all. While merciful love is the most praiseworthy love to give, approving love is the most praiseworthy love to gain. We should desire God’s approving love much more than His merciful love. Moreover, the fact that approving love is the only kind of love that the Father has ever had for Jesus elevates it to its rightful place of respect. God the Father has never possessed even a drop of merciful love for Jesus, because there was never anything unlovely in Christ. Jesus testified:

    For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again (John 10:17, emphasis added).

    Notice the phrase “for this reason” and the word “because.” Both indicate that there is a condition. The Father loved Jesus because of His obedience to suffer death. So there must be nothing wrong and everything right about approving love. Jesus earned and deserved His Father’s favor. (Incidentally, the Greek word translated love in this verse is also agape, proving again that agape should not be defined as “unconditional love.”)

    Looking again at John 15:9-10, we note that Jesus said that he abided in His Father’s love by keeping His Father’s commandments:

    Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love (John 15:9-10, emphasis added).

    So there is another scripture that reveals the Father’s approving love of Jesus. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, this same scripture indicates that we are to follow Jesus’ example and abide in His love by keeping His commandments.

    Jesus was clearly speaking of approving love in this passage, telling us that we can and should earn His love, and that we may take ourselves out of His love through disobedience to His commandments. We abide in His love only if we keep His commandments. Again, this is completely contrary to what we so often hear, but we just read it straight from the lips of Jesus. And this exposes the fallacies of clichés number 3, 4, 5 and 6. According to Jesus, we (#3) can earn or deserve His love, (#4) His love is based on our performance, (#5) there is something we could do to make Jesus stop loving us, and (#6) there is something we can do to make Jesus love us more or less.

    Of course, God still reserves plenty of merciful love for His children. When we sin, He mercifully delays His discipline. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to mercifully forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). Yet the fact remains that Jesus only affirmed God’s approving love for those who keep His commandments. Here are two other scriptures besides what we read in John 15:9-10 which make that same point:

    For the Father Himself loves you [and why does He love you?], because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father (John 16:27, emphasis added).

    He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me [that is, he who meets that condition] will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him….If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and [because of that] My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him (John 14:21, 23, emphasis added).

    Note that in the second quotation, Jesus was not making a promise to uncommitted believers that if they started keeping His word, He would draw closer to them in a special way. No, Jesus was promising that if anyone would start loving Him and keeping His word, then—once those conditions were met—His Father would love that person, and both He and His Father would come to live in that person, a clear reference to being born again. Everyone who is born again has both the Father and Son living in him by the indwelling Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:9). So we see, as Scripture so often affirms, that those who are truly born again are those who have repented and have begun to obey Jesus, and they are the only ones who thus gain the approving love of the Father. God favors such people in a special way—He comes to live in them. He doesn’t do that for those whom He favors with only a merciful love.

    The Conclusion

    Let’s revisit those six clichés again:

    1.) God loves everyone unconditionally. Not true. God’s approving love is certainly conditional. And even His merciful love is conditioned upon a person being physically alive. After death, God’s merciful love ends, so it must be conditional, being temporary.

    2.) God loves everyone the same. Not true. God doesn’t love anyone the same, because all, sinners and saints alike, He disapproves or approves to varying degrees. And certainly it is true that God’s love is not the same for His children and the devil’s children. God loves His children much more than those who are not born again. He primarily loves them with an approving love because they have repented and are striving to obey His commandments. As they grow in holiness, He has less and less reason to love them with a merciful love, and more and more reason to love them with an approving love, which is exactly what they desire.

    3.) There isn’t anything you can do to earn or deserve Jesus’ love. Not true. Anyone can and everyone should earn Jesus’ approving love by their repentance and obedience. It is true, however, that no one can earn His merciful love, as it is unconditional.

    4.) Jesus’ love for us is not based on our performance. Not true. God’s merciful love is not based upon our performance, but God’s approving love certainly is.

    5.) There is nothing you could do that would make Jesus stop loving you. Not true. A Christian could forfeit Jesus’ approving love by returning to the practice of sin to live like an unbeliever, putting himself in a position to experience only Jesus’ merciful love. And, similarly, the non-believer could die, and that would end Jesus’ merciful love for him, the only love Jesus ever had for him.

    6.) There is nothing you could do to make Jesus love you more or less than He does right now. Not true. There is something believers can do that can make Jesus approvingly love them more: they can be more obedient. And there is something they can do to make Jesus approvingly love them less: become disobedient. For those who are not children of God, there is something that they can do that would make God love them much more: repent. Then they would gain God’s approving love for the first time. And there is something they can do that would make God love them less: die. Again, they would then forfeit the only love Jesus ever had for them, His merciful love.

    I hope you can see that these common clichés are not only wrong, but are also very damaging to the cause of Christ, because unbelievers who hear them are deceived into thinking that they don’t need to repent, and professing believers are deceived into thinking that holiness is not very important, whereas Jesus warned that only those who do His Father’s will shall enter the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. 7:21).

    http://www.shepherdserve.org.

    You are welcome to print, copy, distribute or transmit these documents by any means, as long as the documents are unaltered and kept their entirety, and are not sold for profit.

    ©2004 David Servant

    June 2005 E-Teaching

    By David Servant

    Receive David’s monthly e-teaching in your inbox.

    http://www.shepherdserve.org/newsletter.htm

    Alexander

  8. Price says:

    How do you say that works matter when eph 2:8-9 says that they are not. Hank, isn’t faith the qualifier for grace? Also, doesn’t romans 4 say that grace isn’t something that one earns? It seems difficult to argue for works in salvation, however it seems reasonable for Sanctification If grace must be earned, then by definition in romans 4 it’s not grace. I just don’t see any qualifier for receiving it except belief.

  9. hank says:

    Price,

    The word “works” is used througgout the NT with different meanings. Oftentimes, Paul used “works” to refer to perfect obedience. For example, in Romans 4 Paul said that to the man “who works” God OWES HIM his reward. For the man “who whorks” his wages are not a gift but a obligation. The one “who works” HAS SOMETHING to boast about. Clearly, Paul is saying that the only one who is owed anything and can rightfully boast is the man who never sins. Therefore, the one “who works”, is the one who never sinned. For the rest of us who are not saved “by works” (never sinning), but by faith, our reward is a gift which was not owed us and which leaves no room for boasting.

    Price, you write:

    “I just don’t see any qualifier for receiving it (grace) except belief.”

    Well, at least you acknowledge some type of “qualifier” at all. For Jay and Leroy seem to be saying that grace is “unconditional” and does not need ANY “cooperation” from man. But Price, do you REALLY believe that belief is the ONLY “qualifier”? Remeber that there were many who actually believed but would not confess (Jn. 12:42). And what about those who believed but would not repent? You may argue that such did not “truly believe” if they did not repent or confess, but hen why would it be so wrong to suggest that the same couldn’t be said regarding baptism? Too, why do we insist on calling baptism “a work” and not belief, confessing with the mouth, and/or repentance?

    Especially when the Bible calls belief a “work” of God? Do you believe that belief is “a work” of any kind? Do you believe repenting and being baptized are “works”? If so, do you consider them too to be the works of God, or of men?

  10. Price says:

    Hank …. I believe it says in Rom 4 that I’d there is reason for boasting it is NOT to God. It also says that it was Abrams faith not adherence to law that justified him. There just isn’t any qualifier from works according to Rom 4 or Eph 2. For salvation Now as far as growth in the Christian walk it would be foolish to assume that it could be done without effort. We learn through doing. But that is quite a different thing to being saved. Right ??

    Yes I do believe that faith is the only qualifier for Salvation. I don’t know why god Sao what he said but he said it. If one truly believes he will act. If he does not act he didn’t truly believe.

    I do not believe baptism saves. I believe that it is a public declaration of an existing and saving faith. God doesn’t need to be convinced of ones faith. He already knows. But the church needs to see because they don’t know. IMHO

    Scripture defines faith as not works I don’t always understand but that is what it says. Faith and works both have value and God decided what that was Faith for salvation. Works for sanctification. Good thing. I can’t be perfect enough to save myself. But I can work on being a better person, husband, neighbor and it’s comforting to me that I don’t risk my salvation based on my performance.

  11. hank says:

    Price, It does say that the one “who works has something to boast about, but not before God”. It also says that to the one “who works” his reward “is not a gift but an obligation”.

    Price, who is the one you believe to be owed his reward? Who is it that you believe would have something to boast about? Would it not be the man who never sinned? Paul call such person the one “who works”.

    Also, you frist said that “belief is the only qualifier” and I see that you now are saying “faith is the only qualifier”. Which is it? Or, are they the same?

    And do you believe that faith is the same thing as repentance? Is belief the same thing as confessing with ones mouth?

    Finally, you did not answer whether or not you believe that believing in God is “a work” of any sort? If you believe it is a work, but that it is the work of God (as the Bible says), what about repenting and being baptized? Are they works too? If so, are they the works of God or of men?

  12. Bruce Morton says:

    Price:
    I appreciate your candor. And I understand that you have embraced the traditional Baptist view that baptism is a “work.” (“a public declaration”) I will mention that I am aware of some rethinking that is occurring within the Southern Baptist Convention. I rejoice in such.

    Now at this point let me ask you to do a little digging regarding this. Do you find ANY text in the New Testament where the “baptism” is in the active voice? Note: You will not.

    That is because baptism is not about “convincing God” of faith. That is never the teaching about baptism by the apostles. And that is why G.R. Beasley-Murray, as a Baptist scholar, could see apostolic teaching about baptism and write well about Ephesians 1:13-14 and other texts. He saw what the texts individually said… but then his Baptist heritage held him back from announcing the conclusion of his study.

    If Jay wants to take up an important study, let me suggest that he, along with all of us, wade into Everett Ferguson’s thorough look at baptism in his Baptism in the Early Church. In short it is making waves in the believing world.

    Below is the URL to Scot McKnight’s review:

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/01/saturday-afternoon-book-review.html

    In Christ,
    Bruce Morton
    Katy, Texas

  13. Price says:

    Hank. It’s a difficult question to answer without being labeled or placed into some sort of group but if we are to encourage and help one another then we should feel safe to speak honestly. Paul contrasts faith and works as well as belief and works rom 4:3-5 speaks about it as clearly as it could be spoken about. Belief isn’t works. Faith isn’t works. Are belief and faith the same. Not sure. Romans 4 seems to use them interchangeably We are saved by grace through faith, not by works lest anyone should boast. To the layman that seems to exclude faith works. Actually, I’m not sure how from this passage alone it could be made more clear that faith isn’t a work that even allows for one the possibility of boasting. Romans 4 removes boasting from personal accomplishment as well. So to me, without regard for what the baptists or ancient mystical goddesses migh think, faith-belief isn’t a work.

  14. hank says:

    Not sure why that last post (1:02) claims to be mine when it was addressed to me. I assume it was Price?

    Anyway, who is the one who “has something to baost about”? Who is the one who is owed his reward and it not be a gift? Paul still says it is to the one “who works”. Who is that, and why is his reward his due?

  15. Price says:

    Yeah that was me. Not sure what happened. Hank, the comparison of that passage is between one who believes and one who works. Belief matters. Works doesn’t. Seems to me that the focus is belief not works so perhaps instead of spending time on what works is and what works is not we might focus on what Gos says is the priority and that is belief-faith. Belief saves. Works does not. Faith is not works. What is faith? The evidence of things not seen ?? Not trying to be evasive. Just focused on what God says is important.

  16. hank says:

    Price,

    Yeah, that was weird…

    But, could you try not to be evasive for a minute :).

    The passage couldn’t be anymore clear in saying that to the one “who works”:

    1. He does have something to boast about (although of course, not before God – who is perfect)

    2 That his reward is not a gift but his due.

    Now, with your understanding of works in this passage, how do you see that “the one “who works” is owed his reward? And how does the one “who works” have any standing to boast? It does actually say as much, right?

    Seems to me that the only one who could actually do either of those things is the one who never sins and therefore needs no forgiveness. Who do see as the one who is owed his reward and can boast (in any sense)?

    I’d really like to know how you can make sense of that passage with your understanding of “works” as obeying certain commands of God. Do you believe that if a guy is baptized, that he then is owed his reward? I don’t.

    Still, the passage says that the one “who works” is owed his reward and can boast.

    Think about that….

  17. Price says:

    Hank. My thoughts on Romans 4….. It says that IF abram was justified by works he would have reason to boast. Paul Clearly points out that he was not justified by works so thus there is no reason for abram to boast. Pretty straight forward.

    The passage about wages being due to one who works is an everyday illustration used by Paul to contrast grace versus works. IMHO to read anything more into that would be a mistake. It would be a fantastic leap to equate an illustration of one being paid for work performed to some sense of salvation by effort when the illustration was used to make justthe opposite point.

    I agree with u that baptism is not a means of requiring something of God. I see it as a similar thing to circumcision inthis passage: A outward confirmation of an inner faith. Take a look at vS 14. Faith is made void by what ??

  18. abasnar says:

    I’m not sure how from this passage alone it could be made more clear that faith isn’t a work …

    Yes, from this passage alone one could come away with a wrong impression. But to understand salvation we cannot go by “one passage alone”, but by the totality of what scripture says on this subject.

    Doing this would reveal that in our language “to believe” is an insufficient word to transate the Greek. Even “To have faith in Christ” does not fully describe or even encompass the meaning. “being faithful to Chrsit” would be as fitting a translation, yet insufficient on the other side. But looking at all the texts where faith is described, one would find that the same faith

    a) puts ones full trust in the davior
    b) is faithful to Christ like a servant to a King
    c) is obedient
    d) is convinced of the invisible truths
    e) is living and growing
    f) is loving sacrificially
    g) is enduring and persevering
    h) …

    Reading all of this one cannot say faith and works are “against each other”, but faith is active and works.

    Now what is Paul referring to in Eph 2? Context matters!

    Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
    Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

    OK which works? The answer is found just two verses later:

    Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands–
    Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
    Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
    Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
    Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

    Circumcision and the Mosaic Law!

    Not only do Protestants generally “reduce” the meaning of faith to mental assent and trust, completely apart from any works; but they also “expand” the meaning of works beyond the limited meaning Paul gives it in each of his letters! The works Paul writes about (in contrast to Faith) are ONLY the works of the Mosaic Law. The reason is the widely debated issue whether Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul deals with this issue in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians in great detail and from many perspectives, but it is always the same question.

    So, when we come with a reduced undestanding of the word “faith” and and expanded understanding of the word “works”, we have to misread Paul. We are bound to produce heresy! therefore the NT contains a warning that applies especially to people like us who only have Paul’s letters but never heard him preach and teach in church nor saw him live out the Gospel:

    2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
    2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

    Peter even tells us what errors he thinks of:

    2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
    2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

    Lawlessness – this is the consequence of a theology that abhorrs works as a part of our salvation. Keeping God’s commandments does not rule out grace and knowledge of Christ, but lawlessness will lead us astray both from grace and knowledge.

    So, Price, maybe you trusted a false Gospel?

    Alexander

  19. hank says:

    Price,

    Are you aware (have you noticed) that the Bible says that “to the one who works”, his reward IS HIS DUE? You do know that the Bible says that “the one who works” HAS REASON TO BOAST, right? I’m not making this up…

    You wrote: “The passage about wages being due to one who works is an everyday illustration used by Paul to contrast grace versus works.”

    But, to what “everyday illustration” are you talking about?

    Its no “illustration” but a fact. The “one who works” IS OWED his reward (that’s what the book says) and he “has something to boast about”.

    You seem to have a problem with that. Again, the “one who works” is owed his reward AND can boast. The Bible says that. Clearly, the one “who works” (in this passage) can only refer to the hypothetical guy who never sins.

    You say it is “an everyday illustration” but I have no idea what you mean by that. How is that an “everyday illustration”?

    Why is the guy “who works” OWED his reward? In what sense does he “have something to boast about”?

  20. Price says:

    Hank… Seriously ?? You don’t understand about wages being paid formwork performed ?? That was the illustration. In a Separate verse it speaks about abram boasting IF. IF. IF. He were justified by his works. Paul says he wasn’t. You are mixing the verses together and fabricating some new theology. IMHO. Believe what u wish but your argument isn’t convincing to me. Doesn’t make it wrong. It just doesn’t convince me.

    Furthermore it says that abram IF he had reason to boast…. it was NOT before God. There is perhaps some reward from man. Jesus spoke of those that made a big deal of their “works” receiving their reward So, i guess it depends from whom one is interested in receiving a reward. Go isn’t impressed with works. I think Isaiah described our works in leas
    Than flattering terms.

    Beyond this our opinions seem to degrade to argument and from that I’ll decline to participate. Ive tried to express my belief but each man is responsible for his own belief. I’m certain you have carefully considered yours Bleasings

  21. Alabama John says:

    When everything you do, everhow its done, is considered a work, even thinking, its easy to understand how works save us!

    That is the thinking and reasoning of many in the churches of Christ.

  22. hank says:

    If Jay and Leroy are correct in claiming that the grace of God (and I assume that they mean also the benefits of such) is really given “unconditionally” and without requiring any “cooperation” from man…would that not mean then that everybody is experiencing the benefits of God’s grace?

    How do people not see that?

  23. Jay Guin says:

    Hank,

    I did not quote all of Garrett’s essay. In context, I think you and Garrett would be largely in agreement. Here’s another section —

    An illustration I borrow from Alexander Campbell may be better. Campbell wanted to show that God’s grace is unconditionally bestowed to all mankind, apart from any worth, merit, or works on man’s part. But the appropriation and enjoyment of the grace is conditional. To illustrate this he told a story of a ship at sea in peril in a raging storm. It was sinking and all on board were lost An old captain of the sea saw their predicament from the shore, and out of the goodness and mercy of his heart sent his son in a lifeboat into the dangerous sea to the doomed ship. The son cried to them amidst the storm that they were saved, beckoning them into the lifeboat. That is grace, Campbell said, sheer grace, apart from any initiative on the part of the lost. The bestowal and presence of the grace was unconditional.

    But, Campbell goes on, to appropriate the free gift of grace and to enjoy its benefits, the men on the doomed ship had to get in the lifeboat. Like Peter did on Pentecost in Acts 2, the son could have cried out to the men on the doomed ship, “Save yourselves,” but this can only mean something like “Accept the gift” or “Take advantage of what my father has done for you.” It would be nonsense to say that the men did anything to merit the grace. They merely reached out and accepted an unconditional free gift of grace. That of course they had to do, but that made the grace no less free.

    That is where baptism comes in. It is God’s way of having us accept the gift. And even baptism is not something we do as much as it is something done to us. Baptism is an act of grace, appropriating for us the free gift.

    And even if the men did, once in the lifeboat, cooperate with the son in maneuvering the boat through the tempestuous sea to shore, all of them rowing for their lives, their salvation was still only by the grace of the father. They “worked out their salvation with fear and trembling” because they had already been saved by grace, not in order to be saved by their own works. That is why we do good works, not to be saved but because we are saved.

    Garrett, Leroy (2010-10-29). What Must the Church of Christ Do To Be Saved? (pp. 168-170). SCM e-Prints. Kindle Edition.

  24. Jay Guin says:

    Hank and Price, I’ve corrected this post to fix a typo that resulted in the wrong author being shown.

  25. hank says:

    Jay, thanks for clearing that up. I agree with that illustration and believe that that is the traditional understanding of all “traditional” coc’s. I don’t see how anybody would/could have a problem with that other than those who have argued that men are saved before and without one bit of obedience and/or cooperation.

    But Jay, does not the part you did quote in your original post above contradict what you just now added? If he believes what you just added (the illustration of Campbell and the sea), how could he before or after write that men are saved (enjoy God’s grace) “unconditionally” and without “cooperation”?

  26. Jay Guin says:

    Hank,

    You ask a fair question, and only Leroy can answer completely. I would propose this theory —

    Contrary to the beliefs of many here, there remains a strand of thought in the Churches of Christ that distorts “cooperation” and “condition” to make baptism literally into a “work” in the Pauline sense and thus argues that certain works are essential for salvation. See, for example, Goebel Music, Behold the Pattern at pages 506-508.

    Of course, we see in the comments on this site a struggle to reconcile the necessity that Christians do good works (conceded by all to some degree) with Paul’s repeated declarations that salvation is a “free gift” and by “faith not works.” It would hardly do to declare, as some do, that we enter for free and then have to start paying for our salvation (justification is free and salvation is not).

    In this light, it’s easy to see why Garrett would push us as far from a works salvation as possible when we understand that Galatians refers to a works salvation as “a different gospel.” There are those who wish to push us into a works salvation, whether or not called by that name.

    We’ve covered how the Bible reconciles “not saved by works” with “saved to do good works” many times. But it looks like I need to post something on the question once again. It is, I admit, a difficult one unless you address it relationally.

  27. Price says:

    I applaud Garrett’s encouragement to move as far away from a self-salvific approach as possible…Baptism was never intended to be a sacrament…IMHO…

    However Faith and/or Belief are defined, they both necessitate obedience to be real… Obedience MUST follow true faith… Don’t have a problem with seeing good deeds as the things that “accompany salvation” Heb 6:9 but accompaniment isn’t the same as the act of salvation itself…That’s ALL about Jesus…again, IMHO.

  28. Charles McLean says:

    Price, I think one problem is that some will see your statement (“Obedience must follow true faith”) as additive, rather than resultant. If said obedience is additive, that is, if it is something we do in addition to our faith, then we have fallen into a salvation by works. If, OTOH, such obedience is a consequence of faith, an effect, if you will, then this both retains the necessity of obedience and the proper place of works in our soteriology– as immutably connected to, but subsequent to and separate from, our salvation.

  29. Charles McLean says:

    Garrett states the traditional CoC position on grace with bullseye accuracy. Until we can embrace something so radical, so other-worldly as grace, we will continue to half-sole it, to try to make it just a bit less than what it is so that we can have our personal contribution recognized. Unfortunately, the world is full of self-help promoters, and this watering down of grace renders us just one more of those “how to do better” programs.

  30. Price says:

    Laymond… it would be difficult to assign a cold hearted attitude to the Apostle Paul. Yet, wasn’t it him who said in II Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Even Paul knew there was no free lunch. it seems to me that Paul drew a line in the sand and made it a command that lazy people should not benefit from the efforts of those that were industrious. I have a great deal of compassion for those that have suffered from no fault of their own…even those that have made bone-headed decisions..but I have little sympathy for those that choose dependence as a way of life… but that’s just me…

    Charles… I don’t see good deeds as additive to Salvation. I do see it as additive to Sanctification.. We learn through our service…our mistakes. Our successes…One can’t make mistakes or achieve any substantial goal if he never makes an attempt… However, as important as Sanctification is to our understanding and growth, I do not equate it with our ultimate Salvation and Security in Christ Jesus… IMHO

  31. hank says:

    Price,

    You say “IMHO” too much (IMHO).

  32. hank says:

    Charles, you write:

    “If said obedience is additive, that is, if it is something we do in addition to our faith, then we have fallen into a salvation by works.”

    How do you explain Acts 2? Specifically, when all those convicted sinners cried out “what shall we do”, how do you make sense of Peter’s exhortation of “SAVE YOURSELVES…”?

    How do you not see that as something they were to do?

  33. Kirk says:

    In Colossians 2:9-14, Paul says (vs. 12) “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” At our baptism, we are made alive. Brought to life from the death of sin. Up until baptism, one is dead in their sins. At baptism, one who is dead is buried, is raised with Christ, and is made alive by God. And notice that it is the work of God, through our faith, that we are made alive. Not our works, but God’s works.

  34. Kirk says:

    Verse 13 of this passage also shows that it is at this point, when we are made alive, that God forgives us of all our trespasses by cancelling out our record of debt.

  35. hank says:

    Great point, Kirk. That’s what the Bible teaches….

  36. Price says:

    Hank, Kirk…. are you saying that when someone agrees to sell you something on credit because you have promised to pay them…and you get what you were promised, that you should be able to walk away from that obligation because that’s what the Bible teaches ?? Surely not….

  37. hank says:

    Price,

    While I can’t speak for Kirk (don’t even know the guy), I don’t believe either one of us are saying anything about anybody buying anything on credit and then not paying for it. Where does the Bible teach about that anyway? Not really even sure of what you’re talking about….

  38. Price says:

    Hank, Kirk…oops my bad…confused posts… I knew it didn’t sound right…I’ll try and be more observant…

  39. Charles McLean says:

    Hank, if one can save himself, he needs no Savior.

    It is by grace you are saved, and not of works (I heard this somewhere) so Peter’s words can only be interpreted within that context. Here, the encouragement to “save yourselves from this corrupt generation” is VERY different from “save yourselves from your sins”. Only the lingo is similar, the meanings are unmistakably distinct.

  40. hank says:

    Charles,

    Are you suggesting that when Peter exhorted them to save themselves from that corrupt generation, that he was not exhorting them to be forgiven of their sins??

    If not, in what sense do you believe he wanted them to be saved (from that generation)?

    I need to check to see if anybody else believes like you do about that passage, because I’ve never heard anybody else ever suggest anything other than that Peter did have in mind forgiveness of sins when he exhorted them to “save yourselves.”

    Of course, as in Jay’s illustration above, them saving themselves would only be in the sense that they would be “grabbing on to” the lifeline that God had extended. Namely, by repenting and being baptized.

  41. hank says:

    Unless, Peter meant that after they were forgiven by repenting and being baptized that they should run away from the resy of th crowd who did not repent and be baptized because maybe the unrepentant would want to kill them?

    I just don’t know how you can believe that saving themselves from that crooked generation did not imply becoming Christians and being forgiven. That’s just a really odd take…

  42. Nancy says:

    I can’t speak for Charles, but in the Acts 2 passage, Peter’s impassioned speech does not address their personal sins at all, he is exhorting them to repent (or change direction) of their unbelief about who Jesus was/is and what He accomplished. He tells them what happened, reminds them of prophecy and then tells them to change their minds about this man Jesus. Repent of their sin of disbelief. I think we read into the text the idea that it’s about repenting of our personal human sin(s).

    And, like Hank, I had always been taught this passage was about turning away from our personal sin.

    I’m looking at it again right now and he never once talks to them about their personal sin. He just makes his case for Jesus as Lord and Savior. It’s a “believe me when I tell you these things, cuz’ you’ve been told all along that this was gonna happen. Now don’t be like all these others that won’t believe me, you save yourself from these falsehoods” kinda message.

  43. Nancy says:

    I think “saving themselves from this crooked generation” does imply believing that Jesus Christ was/is the promised Messiah or as you say becoming Christian and being forgiven or justified.

  44. hank says:

    Nancy,

    Me too. There’s really just no other way of interpreting that and I am really curious to learn more of how Charles sees that.

    Clearly, saving themselves meant becoming Christians and being forgiven. And the way they were to do that there was by repenting and being baptized..

  45. Nancy says:

    They can’t save themselves, they must look to Jesus for that. “saving themselves” in my understanding meant being set apart from the corrupt generation (the unbelievers)…i.e. don’t be like them. Maybe we are just talking past each other. Clearly baptism is closely associated with belief but obviously, a person can’t just be baptized physically and expect to have “saved themselves”. The Holy Spirit (God) is the agent of spiritual rebirth.

    I think you are probably saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.

    I’ll admit, like others on this board (and Paul too), my radar is very sensitive to any idea that seems like a man centered sotoriology. Like Paul and Barnabus later in Acts, I’ll sharply oppose that idea.

  46. Nancy says:

    p.s. My study today is from Acts 15. That passage is relevant to this discussion I think.

  47. hank says:

    Nancy,

    If they couldn’t really save themselves, the inspired apostle wouldn’t have told them to “save yourselves”. But he did and so they really could.

    Again, I point to the above post and illustration of Jay (originally Campbell’s). Make no mistake, God and his Son are the ONLY authors of our salvation. But sinners “save themselves” when they believe, obey, and take hold of God’s “lifeline”. We do that when we by genuiine faith, repent and are baptized.

    There can be no doubt that when Peter exhoted them to save themselves, he was exhorting them to become Christians and receive forgiveness of sins. They were to do that by repenting and being baptized. When Peter said “save yourselves” he meant “become Christians and be forgiven”.

    And I am curious to see ANY reputable scholar to suggest otherwise. Do you know of any?

  48. Charles McLean says:

    Hank, you are taking the word “save” and insisting that it can have but one meaning in all applications. This is incorrect. If it were correct, women would gain eternal life by bearing children (I Timothy 2:15) Or we would have to stay with the ship, per Paul’s instructions in Acts 27:31, in order to be saved. Or we would have to be in Noah’s Ark, per I Peter 3:20. “Saved” does not always mean the same thing in every context.

    When we marry ourselves to specific words in the biblical text (what I call “Concordance Disorder”) and use these words on their own to try to prove our established doctrines, we may easily fall victim to a lack of discernment. We may read for language before reading for meaning. This often results in our making the scriptures say things which they really do not say. Sometimes, this is fairly harmless, resulting in overstating that which is said elsewhere. Other times it is doctrinally deadly.

    It appears to me that here in Acts 2, Peter was contrasting those who were believing his message with those who were not, and urging those who believed in the Messiah to separate themselves from those who would try to convince them otherwise. There had to be a lot of conflict and argument over this at this time among the Jews gathered there. This interpretation makes good sense in the overall context of the gathering ,and the recent history, and Peter’s specific message.

    Getting away from other sinners does not a believer make, nor did Jesus say that he who avoids the members of this current corrupt generation have eternal life. And anyone who understands the central message of the gospel should be instantly wary of any interpretation which would have us finding eternal life by “saving ourselves”.

  49. hank says:

    “Charels,

    Obviously, I disagree with your interpretation. Frankly, it makes no sense to me to understand Peter to be in essence saying, “repent and be baptized for forgiveness and then get away from everybody else who does not”. And I can’t find ANY known scholar/commentator to interpret the passage anything like that.

    And, why do you claim that I am “…taking the word “save” and insisting that it can have but one meaning in all applications. I don’t do that and that is not a true statement there.

  50. hank says:

    Plus, to exhort then brand new believer to “get away from” those who did not believe, would be contrary to the Great Commision. Disciples ARE to go to the lost and try to convince them to believe, not get away and stay away from non believers so as to not risk being unconverted.

    Christ expects us to be faithful enough to not be talked out of believing…

  51. Nancy says:

    Well, in Moody’s Handbook of Theology by Paul Ennis, he writes “”…Peter was calling for members of that generation which was guilty of having crucified Christ to separate themselves from a generation under the judgment of God.” That separation was to be publically signified through baptism. Moreover, the baptism signified that the people had received the forgiveness of sins”.

    So there’s one scholar that doesn’t read the text the same way you do.

  52. hank says:

    Nancy,

    I think you are reading him wrong. When he says that they were “…to separate themselves from a generation under the judgment of God”, he means that they were to “get themselves saved”.

    Think about it… the ONLY way to separate themselves from those who are under the judgement of God would be to NOT BE ANYMORE under said judgment of God. He was exhorting them to be forgiven. He was wanting them to become Christians! In doing so, they would be “saving themselves.”

    If he DID NOT mean that they were TO BECOME Christians, then what was he saying? Not like Peter would say “hey non believers, get away from the other non believers by leaving town and start hanging out with other non believers”.

    No, the “separation” Peter had in mind was clearly of a spiritual nature. They would “separate” themselves from the crooked generation by becoming Christians. And by believeing and obeying Gods word, they would be “saving themselves.”

    So, while we disagree on the meaning and purpose of baptism, even Paul Ennis is knows that when Peter exhorted them to “save yourselves”, he meant nothing other than “become Christians and receive forgiveness”.

    Again, the separation was spiritual and had everything to do with forgiveness of sins. And technically, the Bible does not even say “separate yourselves from”…what it actually says is to “save yourselves from.”

  53. hank says:

    Nancy and Charles,

    Did you read the illustration of Jay (from Campbell) on Nov. 6th 1:14? It is a perfect illustration and will help one understand how one may actually have to “save themselves” by doing certain things and yet TOTALLY AND TRULY be saved because of the mercy and kindness of another.

    The fact that a person must actually do a thing do be saved does not make his salvation be any less a free gift out of the kindness and mercy of another. If you haven’t, please read it..

  54. hank says:

    One more thing. The fact that he added the following further proves that the “separation” he had in mind, had to do with forgiveness:

    “That separation was to be publically signified through baptism. Moreover, the baptism signified that the people had received the forgiveness of sins”

    So, and again, he clealry believes that the passage under discussion does refer to forgivness and becoming a Christian.

  55. Hank & Charles,

    Reading your comments reminds me of a dog gnawing on a bone and growling.

    Did you ever wonder just what Paul meant in 2 Tim 2:14?

    Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

    Respectfully,

    Jerry

  56. hank says:

    Jerry,

    If you think our words will “ruin the hearers”, perhaps you shouldn’t be reading them! Lol

    Seriously though, what do you think Peter had in mind when he exhorted those sinners to “save themselves”? Do you believe he had in mind the forgiveness of sins? Or, to something else?

  57. Nancy says:

    I agree Hank, peter wanted them to become believers. My understanding is that believers are saved and forgiven.

  58. abasnar says:

    Seriously though, what do you think Peter had in mind when he exhorted those sinners to “save themselves”?

    “Save yourselves” is just part of the verse. It is highly important to read the rest of it, because this leads us to a forgotten aspect of salvation:

    Act 2:40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”

    Just to mention first: The Greek is 2nd person plural aorist passive tense. “Let yourselves be saved” would be correct.

    To be saved from this crooked generation is an important part of salvation:

    Gal 1:4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

    “to deliver us” is too weak: The Greek exaireo means “to tear out” or to “pluck out” – such as in Mat 5:29. That’s a very “dynamic” language paul uses, stressing the urgency of the matter of our salvation out of and from this world. So radical this is that he concludes the same letter with the following text:

    Gal 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

    Being crucified to the workl is the result of being buried and raised with Christ in baptism.

    So this is part of God’s redemptive work.

    But – BUT – we are involved in this when we read the same Paul in 2nd Corinthians:

    2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
    2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

    That’s am imperative, a command to us. Unless we separate ourselves (from the world) we cannot become children of God. Christians who think or at least act as if they belong to “both worlds” might be mistaken about their salvation.

    Alexander

Comments are closed.