JMF posted this question (edited for space) —
One of the students in my class posted a question on the Church of Christ “House To House” website about the proposed reading of Heb.6:4-6 that is in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace (basically, taking the scripture exactly at face value). …
If you believe that people can fall away, then repent and be in God’s grace again.. then how do you explain Hebrews 6:4-6? My belief is that one can indeed fall away, but once one falls away, one cannot come back. Not because God wouldn’t forgive him, but because he would not have the desire to come back. One can fall away by losing faith, losing penitence, and trying to be justified by works. (It is much harder to fall away than the traditional Church of Christ view)
[Jay–how about some props to my student! How is that for a concise description of falling away!!]
Here’s the answer from the Church of Christ “House To House” website:
Good to hear from you again. I think there is an important part of Hebrews 6 that you are failing to consider, and that is verses 4-5, which indicate that these fallen ones have been partakers of the miraculous spiritual gifts and the powers of the age to come.
James 5:19-20 makes it very clear that a Christian can fall away and be restored: “19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” NKJV
The text is clear that the fallen one is one who is among the brethren, and can be turned back to the saving of his soul.
Jay, here is what I take from that: The person that answered this question would have to take a Word-only view of the Holy Spirit – as he is saying that the “heavenly gift” is a “miraculous gift” and thus, wouldn’t apply to us today. And so, it seems, he writes off this whole verse.
As to the James passage, I don’t recall that being covered in HSARG. It is obvious, to me, that in order to be “brought back”, one would still have to be penitent. It appears that he has made the leap that “wandering from the truth” would equate to “falling away.”
Do you have any thoughts as to how I answered these challenges?
JMF,
Here’s my current thinking on the subject.
1. Heb 6:4-6 means what it says and says what it means.
(Heb 6:4-6 NIV) 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
My thinking is unchanged from The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace, which gives a very detailed analysis that I won’t repeat here. As you student accurately states, it’s not because God will reject anyone who comes back to him, but because someone who so rebels as to be lost will not repent.
2. It’s not a theological principle. It’s not part of the framework of God’s redemptive plan. Rather, the Hebrews writer is making an observation regarding human nature and — indirectly — of the vast scope of God’s grace. God won’t give up on his child until the child is beyond redemption. And this make perfect sense because it’s exactly how we deal with our own children. God is as patient with us as we are with our children — and what would it take for you to disown your own son or daughter?
3. “Who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,” of course, refers to every single Christian. To suggest this is limited to those with miraculous powers is to ignore huge portions of the New Testament. As you’ve said, one would have to take the Word-only view to reach this conclusion — and that view is mistaken, for reasons I also lay out in The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace. I cover that view in detail as I continue the Holy Spirit series now underway.
4. As your student has also correctly noted, I see three ways to fall away —
a. Lose your faith in Jesus
b. Lose your repentance, that is, your submission to Jesus as Lord
c. Seek a works salvation (that is, conclude that faith and penitence are insufficient)
I see Heb 6:4-6 as speaking to b. That’s particularly clear if you consider the rest of the book. For example —
(Heb 10:26-27 NIV) 26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
This parallel passage from later in Hebrews speaks quite specifically of rebellion, which is the same concern addressed back in —
(Heb 3:14-17 NIV) 14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15 As has just been said: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion.” 16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert?
This is a warning against having a hard heart or rebelling. Just so, there is —
(Heb 12:15 NIV) 5 See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.
“Bitter root” is a reference to —
(Deu 29:18-20 ESV) 18 Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, 19 one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. 20 The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.
In each case, the emphasis is on a hard heart, rebellion, deliberate continuing to sin, and a refusal to repent. Heb 6:4-6 is about a refusal to submit to Jesus as Lord.
But I’m familiar with two passages that suggest it’s possible for someone to be restored if they fall away under a or c.
(Gal 2:11-13 ESV) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
“Stood condemned” in v. 11 is a controversial translation, but it’s what the word means. The same Greek word is also found in —
(1Jo 3:19-22 ESV) 19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
Peter’s sin was not rebellion, but divisiveness resulting from seeing Gentiles as lost (or second-class Christians) because that lacked circumcision. And it’s not that he preached error but that he refused to fellowship those who weren’t circumcised. In Paul’s mind, he was guilty of denying the faith solely because he allowed pressure from one party to keep him apart from other Christians!
Now, Paul uses this as an example of a failure to practice justification by faith because justification by faith compels us to treat those with faith as brothers and sisters. It wasn’t good enough that Peter let the Gentiles eat together as part of the church. The fact that he personally withdrew from them was enough to condemn even Peter! Scary, isn’t it? I mean, this is a deeply challenging, even threatening passage. (I find the thought of brothers and sisters in Christ being in this situation agonizing.)
But it’s clear that Peter repented and was restored. He wasn’t in rebellion against Jesus as Lord. This is an example of being restored after falling away under c.
The other passage is —
(1Ti 1:18-20 ESV) 18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Paul says these men have wrecked their faith, but he clearly anticipates that they might repent and be restored, making this an example of case a.
Therefore, God will always accept someone who leaves him and repents. And it happens. It’s just that those who so rebel against the Lordship of Jesus as to fall away will not repent — not because God won’t let them, but because God doesn’t give up on them until they’re beyond all hope.
All this brings us to —
(Jam 5:19-20 ESV) 19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
One could argue that this is an example of a loss of faith. You see, “truth” in the New Testament is the truth about Jesus, the gospel.
(Jam 1:18 ESV) 18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
But “sinner” and “multitude of sins” sounds like this may really be someone in category b — in rebellion against Jesus as Lord. Here’s how I see this passage.
First, Jesus speaks of the “straight and narrow.” There is a path that has boundaries and which we can fall from. But it’s broader and harder to fall than we often imagine. Nonetheless, there are certainly boundaries.
Sometimes a Christian veers from the center of the path. Just as when we drive a car, the way we stay in the middle of the road is by keeping our eyes on where we want to go. When the eyes turn, the car turns.
(Luk 9:62 ESV) 62 Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”
A plowman who looks back cannot plow a straight furrow. He’ll veer off the path. It’s all about the eyes.
But we don’t immediately veer into the ditch. There’s some room in the road for error, and it’s entirely possible to be less than perfectly straight and stay on the road. We’ve all had a moment of inattention when we started to turn off the road and caught ourselves in time to turn back. We wandered, but wandered within the road and not into the ditch.
As we wander further from the middle of the road, our hearts grow harder and it gets to be hard to come back.
(2Pe 2:20 ESV) 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
(Heb 3:13 ESV) But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
(1Ti 4:2 NIV) Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
We get entangled in sin, become hardened, and eventually lose all sensitivity. Reaching a state where you will never repent takes enough time for sin to destroy your love for Jesus and to quench the Spirit in you. But it happens.
I say all of that to say that I think James 5:19 is speaking of someone who has wandered from the middle of the road and is heading toward the ditch and needs to be rescued. Think of it this way. If you were following a friend in a car and you saw your friend’s car start to wander from the middle of the road, you’d pull out your cell phone and call — or blow your horn — to wake your friend up! You know your friend is in trouble and the need to help is urgent. She may correct herself — but you’d rather embarrass her by making a call than see her dead in a ditch.
That’s James 5:19. (In short, I think you’re exactly right.)
Jesus was a perfect sacrifice. He saved perfectly. He didn't misfire. He isn't sitting in heaven biting His nails hoping people will come to Him and that nobody will be lost. Jesus saved the Elect (His Bride) perfectly. He will lose nobody. When someone's sins are forgiven they are forgiven (past, present, future). Therefore there is no sin that can overcome the blood of Jesus. Nobody can lose their salvation once in Christ. Believers can backslide in faith, struggle, even walk away for a season; but one purchased will never be lost. If anybody is at the point of no repentance they are simply proving who they always were (i.e. never saved), for even repentance is a gift given to us from God; and nobody who is saved will refuse repentance, for it is not something we come up with on our own; instead it is granted to people by God (2 Tim 2:24-25).
If you keep reading Hebrews 6 it tells us what is true salvation: "yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation" (v.9). Those things discussed in v.4-6 were not a part of salvation. The text in Hebrews never once says anything about salvation, or one being saved, or one losing salvation. Reading it this way is eisegesis at its best. Instead, the question is, what fruit did one bear that is the proof of final justification one may claim? This is what v.7-8 discusses. Is it a crop? Or is it thistles? Fruit will prove justification, it will never gain it. And justification given by grace at the point of being saved is a believer's final justification. It's done. It's over. Nothing will overturn that judgment.
Salvation belongs to the Lord, and to the Lamb. Nobody will pluck a true believer out of the hand of Jesus or the Father; and they are One. Oh what glorious rest we have in This Perfect Savior! Perseverance to the end will prove true election.
Are you sure it's that simple? This statement is calvinistic to the core, and there are many who do object to the concept of TULIP.
T – Total depravity (man is unable even to believe)
U – Unconditional election (God's election is arbitrary and souvereign)
L – Limited atonement (only for the elect)
I – Irresistable Grace (the elect will and must come to a living faith)
P – Perseverance of the elect/saints (and they cannot lfall away again)
The churches of Christ differ from Protestantism in their undertstanding of salvation. We are not "faith only" people and by no means Calviistic.
This means we see the necessity of works, of obedience and we believe in free will. Hence we have no problem (normalöly) understanding these passages of falling away quite literally.
What was new to me was the idea that Heb 6:4-6 applies only to people who received miraculous gifts. I don't believe that was meant.
But I do believe that falling away is a process. The heart does not suddenly turn hard, but it hardens gradually. And a bitter root does not appear suddenly out of nowhere, but it grows from seeds of bitterness. As long as this process is not finished, we can return any time.
But I also do beliebve that there is a point of no return. These are the situations when even intercession is in vain (1Jo 5:16).
I also think it is hard to discern when somebody crossed that line, but we need to be aware of it. The word "impossible" in Heb 6:4-6 is illustrated by the impossibilty of another crucifixion of Christ. The same point is made in Heb 10:26-31. And again in Heb 12:16-17 where Esau is a sad example of someone for whom repentance became impossible. Esau is an example of someone rehected by God although he desperately saught to return to Him.
There once was the Novatian controversy in the Early Church. THe issue was whether someone who denied Christ in persecution but repeneted afterwards could be received into the fellowship of the church (and receive communion) again. The "liberal" wing of the church said: "Yes, they may, after showing genuine repentance for at least 10 years." Novatian and the hardliners said "No. Because Christ said He would deny those who denied Him" – which was repeated by Paul in 2Tim 2:12. The controversy eventually led to a split.
I think most of us would feel uneasy even with the "liberal" position of these days. But my problem is that the time of 10 years was just a manmade regulation. Why not five years or 15 years? And why do Jesus and Paul say clearly: Those who deny Christ will be denies. Why does the Lord pepetedly say: Who wants to save his life will lose it?
Is it OK to save your life aout of fear, to repent and to have eternal life as well? So we can in the end have both this life AND eternal life? This is inconsistent, isn't it?
So I think we should not even think whether God could be more gracious that He said He really is. I sometimes wish it were different, but then this means I would rather have a different God. But I know of no other God.
Alexander
Alexander: You said that my comment "perseverance to the end will prove true election" was "calvinistic to the core"
Really? Jesus speaks of perseverance to the end to be saved in Matthew 10:22 and 24:13. "But the one who endures to the end will be saved." Was Jesus a Calvinist? Or is Calvinism simply teaching the words of Jesus in regards to perseverance?
I realize the churches of Christ differ in salvation; namely because our view of salvation (and theology) is so very man-centered. We say that Jesus' sacrifice is nothing more than an offer; that He actually didn't save anybody on the cross. It is up to man to make salvation complete. This is man-centered, harmful, and unbiblical.
And in regards to works and obedience, I do not deny the "necessity" (if you want to call it that) of both. But in what regard: the ground of justification or the proof of justification?
I believe the failure in popular cofC thought is that works/obedience is what justifies us (legalism, moralism) and therefore it is what can unjustify us. But to the contrary, what works/obedience is, is not what justifies us or unjustifies us; instead it is what proves our election. It is our fruit that we bear as believers. If there are no works or obedience, one is only proving they are not truly justified. I think we confuse the fruit of our justification for the root of our justification. We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There is no works in justification, period. The fruit we bear and obedience we show only affirm such justification that we have received by grace. May no man boast.
Well, did our Lord connect it with election? Actually not, but with obedience in love (Mt 24:13) and with steadfastness in persecution (Mt 10:16-22).
Maybe I put you in a box you don't belong in; but the way you worded your statement matches the Calvinistic dictrine, that thos who are of the elect will persevere to the end (the P in TULIP, that's why I summed up the TULIP-way of salvation)
Alexander
We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. There is no works in justification, period. The fruit we bear and obedience we show only affirm such justification that we have received by grace. May no man boast.
I disagree. It is typical for Protestant (and Clavinistic) theology to present their faith with these "Sola fide", "sola gratia" phrases. But this "sola" (alone) is added to the Scriptures.
We are saved by faith, but not by faith alone (Jas 2:24) – and you cannot make obedience appear as something tzhat comes "automatically". It does not. Period. And we are going to be judged according to what we hav done.
I understand that some in the CoC overemphasioze man's part in salvation almost to the exclusion of God's part. But the solution is not to go into the Protestant extreme. We should not try to become Protestants, but live, think and love as Christians.
Alexander
I didn't see the "word only" view in the response from House-to-House. That might be the view of the author but the words don't say that. We know that Paul saw/heard Jesus directly. He was in the third heaven and he and others were specifically called upon to write God-inspired passages.
I believe the Holy Spirit is working today beyond the written Bible but to have that level of revelation from God and still rebel, now that would take something for a person to come back.
Alexander:
You mischaracterized the 'U' in TULIP. God's election is not "arbitrary" (though it is sovereign). As with Israel, who God took the initiative in calling, and as a newborn baby, we are born again not by our efforts. They nor we play any role in our conception, birth, or calling prior to being called. The act of calling a people is ever the prerogative of God. He is God. He is the Potter. And it is an act of love and grace to call a people to Himself, not a tyrannical or arbitrary decision of an authoritarian despot. I think many people's offense rests in the wrong way. Many are put off that God hated Esau before he was born (and before he did anything good or bad). But instead, we should be shocked and amazed at the grace of God that He chose Jacob. Saying God's choice is "arbitrary" puts man in a place of mutual respect; deserving grace. This is not the case, as we are all sinners and our fleshly ways are repugnant to a Holy God. All we deserve is judgment, not grace. Be amazed at grace, not judgment.
Additionally, to say that we are not justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is to have a "Christ+plus" system of faith. It limits what Christ accomplished on the cross and it denigrates His accomplishment of perfect obedience to the Father (something that is required by us all). Christ's sonship was determined not by kinship or descent but by obedience. Jesus is the ONLY rightful heir to the house, to the Father's inheritance, the One not destined for death. Jesus is the heir of the Father and the life he receives from the Father He can bestow on others because He alone is obedient to the Father. All elements of genuine sonship are in Christ, and His mission is to set others free so they can enter in the Father's gifts through Him. The exclusivity of Jesus' sonship actually becomes the means through which others may receive life and freedom that characterizes the true "children of God."
It is the obedience of Jesus that saves us. It is not our own obedience that saves us. We are justified in Christ alone, and that justification is final and cannot be revoked. Our works ("obedience") merely prove our justification in Christ; they are not the root of our justification.
Yes, I put in the word "arbitrary" because that's how it is in fact presented normally; esp. if you consider double predestination: Some are predestined to salvation and the others (consequently or even spelled out) to damnation.
If we speak of Biblical predestination, then predestination is "inclusive" in Christ. God did not sort out the wheat from the chaff before He even sowed the field. But He ordained Christ as our saviour, so that ALL who trust in Him shall be saved. So, yes, there is a predestination IN CHRIST, but no individual predestination in the sense of I was chosen, hence I came to Christ, my neighbor wasn't chosen, hence he will never repent. Or (even more radical) his repentence won't effect salvation.
The election of Israel is something entirely different, since being a Jew does not mean you are automatically saved and not being a Jew does not mean you are automatically lost.
One definition of the "U" on a Calvistic web-site (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm) reads like this:
God according to this defintion elects not because of any merit on our part. He does not look into the future whether we would accept the gospel (this would be election by foreknowledge). He chooses people out of no obvious reason – and he damns people without any obvious reason. To call this just (concerning the damnation because of our sins) or gracious (because he still chooses a handful to whom He eventually will extend grace), is close to blasphemy; if I may use such a strong word. Well, I chose arbitrary, because this really is to the point.
You may call it a faith"+"system. Faith "+" baptism (Mark 16:16), faith "+" confessing Him as Lord (Rom 10:9), faith "+" works (Jas 2:24), faith "+" love (1Co 13:2), and so on …
What I really don't like about these Protestant phrases of "sola gratia" and "sola fide" is that you don't find them in Scripture. Luther in his translation added the word "only" in Rom 3:28 and ever since he progagated his system of "sola fide" Protestantism has proclaimed a gospel different than that of Christ, by overreacting to an equally wrong understanding of the gospel by the Roman Church. The only verse that contains justification, faith and only is Jas 2:24 and it also has a very strong NOT in it. That's why Luther disliked James and even changed to order of books in the New Testament: In all Luther-translations James has been moved back just before the letter of Jude! But it was his polemic use of the "sola"-phrases that shaped Protestantism; and hardly anyone knows who started this …
Now, does that diminish Christ's work? by no means. It simply states that salvation is not an unconditional gift. It is tied to the condition of maintaining an obedient love-faith-relationship. The wicked servant who did not want to forgive his own debtor lost the forgiveness he received (Mt 18:23-35) – I mean, how plain do we need it?
If a branch remains fruitless, it we be cut off the vine and burned. What does that mean? If we don't stay in Him (which means: If we don't love Him and don't obey Him) we will lose our salvation again (John 15:1-10). How hard is this to understand?
We who have been engrafted into the olive tree, can also be broken out of it again if we don't persevere in faith (Rom 11:20-22). We even hear from Paul!
So how can anyone say, that we are saved by Christ's perfect obedience and cannot lose our salvation again? Christ's obedience was necessary for Him to remain a spotless lamb. But He did not obey on our behalf! He did not keep God's commandments so we are free of keeping them. No, as you said yourself: "Obedience is required from us."
And without obedience we will not enter the rest.
Sorry, that's totally wrong. I'd like to go back to the theme of restoring those fallen away: I'll use just two verses to make my point:
A few observations:
James speaks to brothers about brothers – So to say, he speaks about people who have been born again (Jas 1:18).
James is fuilly aware the Christians can wander away from the truth.
And he sees that in the end they are in danger of losing their soul.
That's why he urges everyone among us to take care for one another, so we might be admished, encouraged and restored by Christian love.
Do you see, how serious James is about this, Jr? Can you imagine James saying, "But the elect will persevere anyhow" (That's what you said , basically). This is an invitation to a carefree and careless life.
We might ask: How likely is it, that the "elect" won't persevere until the end? Our Lord does not really say, how many will evtually be saved. But I can almost guaratee that from those who trust the Protestant Gospel a great number don't really strive for holiness, they rest on a supposed guaranteed salvation (as you described it) and still: They also will be judged according to their works (as we will be judged). I am very, very reluctant to boast about my salvation. I am very, very reluctant to speak of salvation as of a guarantee.
I used to believe similar to you. I used to believe the gosple was that simple, grace was so irresistable, salvation could by no means be lost again. But, please, put aside the letter to the Romans for a while and just read the gospels of Christ. You would never come to this understanding of grace based on Christ's own words (in fact, He never used the word grace). I cannot and I will not join Protestantism any more. I came to see it as a misrepresention of the gospel, that is in fact very dangerous to a mutitude of souls.
And a hindrance to restoring souls.
Alexander
The epistle James wrote was to confront the assembly of professing Christians and call them to examine their profession to see if it's a real faith, or a dead faith producing nothing. James’ epistle comes both to those who are not genuine and to the those who are genuine.
James epistle is teaching people what a real living saving faith produces, for he too faced the frightening and tragic reality that in all generations there are those who are soil but no genuine fruit is ever produced. There are those who profess to be Christians, but no real transformation of heart takes place, there are tares mingled within the wheat, the false are sown in the same field with the true. There are professors who are not possessors. There’s no evidence of a genuine faith.
James 5:19-20 is a sinner who wanders from the truth they‘ve heard. They hear the truth, but then wander from the truth they’ve heard either by speaking against the saving gospel of Christ or by rejecting Christ living a lifestyle of wickedness. James knows how very serious and real this can be, 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” James closes his epistle calling the genuine Christians to reach out to those who are with the church but who have not taken root. This is a call to Christians to help the lost who are among them, James 5:19-20 “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”
That's a very common assumption.
If you believe, that a "true" believer will never fall away, then all verses who speak of believers who fall away speak only of "professing Christians".
If you believe that a "true" faith will always produce fruit and works, than a faith that does not work is not only dead but the person has never been a true believer.
I don't see James making this distinction between genuine brothers and brothers who only think they are brothers. But I see that born again (baptized) Christians can live holy or carnally, can be saved in the end and can be lost at the end, can have a living faith or a dead faith – but are none the less genuine Christians.
In your theology the whole thing normally boiles down to a "real" conversion experience. This teaching (as I have learned and believed and later rejected it) hinges on the thought that a truly born again believer:
a) will never fall away
b) will produce good works
This brings some serious problems:
If you started out well (as most converts do) but grow lukewarm over the years – what then? Is it OK to be born again but also be lukewarm? Does your lack of obedience, zeal and fruit in any way affect your "new Birth"?
Or will you – on the other hand – say: "Well, maybe my conversion was not real! Maybe I've never been really born again, because my life does not show it anymore …" And maybe you don't realize it yourself, but others may think about you this way.
I heard the following conversation a few years ago when I still fellowshipped in Evangelical circles:
"Have you heard of Brother Soandso?"
"You mean the preacher of the church in Hereandthere? He's divorced now, isn't he?"
"Not only that, he left the faith completely"
"Strange, huh? A preacher, an Evengelist for so many years – and he has never been born again …"
Do you understand what I mean? This theology gives no confidence, no security at all.
Today I have a living faith (with ups and downs).
Tomorrow I might give in into some grave sins and depart from God.
Today everyone (me included) would consider me born again and saved.
Tomorrow (according to this theology) they would say I've never been born again at all.
Which means: My faith today might be nothig but an illusion!
But try to see it from this perspective:
The new birth is not a finished thing, but a starting point. God plants a seed. This seed may be eaten by some birds – this is when a person hears the word but does not believe,
but when a person receives the Gospel a miracle happens: The seed becomes a new plant determined to bring fruit.
This is the New birth. We do not bring forth fruit and good works out of our own strength, it is the nature of the seed. So in a way there is some truth in the statement: "Genuine faith will produce good works".
But does that mean that everyone who received the Gospel will be fruitful?
In some cases people fall away under persecution. Jesus compares that to the situation when the plant has not enough soil to develop strong roots.
In other cases weeds grow beside the good plant and make it weak and eventually it dies.
In both instances the New life dies! So the New Birth is not a life that could not be destroyed!
Question: Were these conversions real? You bet they were: Didn't you see the plant growing from the soil? There was new life, but this new life did not produce fruit and died. Why? Because the conversion was not real? The faith was not genuine? By no means! In one case there wasn't enough soil, in another there were weeds. But these things are in our responsibility!
We are the ones who need to weed the garden! We have to water the plants, to add soil where soil is lacking.
Do you see that salvation is a process, not a one-time-event? We have been saved when we came to Christ and started a new life, but we will be saved in the end only when this new life brings fruit – which it will if it does not die before that, if we weed the garden and water the plant.
Brother, the greatest error in Proptestantism lies exactly here: Making salvation a one-time-event. That's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And the result is confusion with verses that speak of falling away and of losing one's salvation. But there is no confusion as soon as you realize that salvation is a process that started today, has its ups and downs, has all power of the Spirit to produce good fruit, but can be destroyed by a carnal life-style as well. We have to weed the garden if we want to be saved.
I hope this is helpful
Alexander
P.S.: Jas 5:19-20 speaks of a brother who is brought back (!) from a way where in the end he would lose his soul. And yes, brothers can sin and can become sinners.
1John 2:19 speaks of false teachers who crept into the church (as in Jude 1:4) but in 1John 5:16 we see clearly that a brother (!) can commit a sin unto death. And more than that: A brother can sin, and we we pray for him, we restore him back to life (see also Jas 5:16). Which means (the other way round) if we let a brother sin and don't pray for him, he might evntually die (fall away).
Help the lost who are among them: The church is an assembly of people who heard the gospel, repented and got baptized in the name of Christ. There are no "lost" ones in the church, there are people who embarked on a journey and committed themselves to walk the narrow way. All are addressed as brothers, as being sancifoed as being saved in the sense of having received the New Birth; but also all are addressed to be careful, to be diligent, to work out their salvation with fear and trembling and to hepl one another to stay on the path.
Alexander, you make reference to our Lord's parable of the soils in your last post, is it your understanding of that parable that Jesus was teaching that a person can "change" his soil by being diligent to "weed" it?
Dear Nancy
A simple and short answer: YES. But weeding actually does not change the soil, does it?
A little longer:
The secret of growth and fruit lies in the seed, not in the soil. But the seed is planted into our hearts. Now, our Lord says that some circumstances can hinder the seed
a) to "give birth" to a plant (the seed puts out shoots)
b) to develop deep roots for the plant
c) to grow into full maturity because of the weeds
Since He Himself explained the parable, we can be absolutely sure what He means:
There are some who hear but don't believe – the birds eat the seed before it enters the heart.
There are some who believe and are all excited about it, but they fall away in persecution or difficulties.
There are some where the plant would have enough soil, but there are the cares of this world and money that hinder us to grow into maturitry and bring fruit.
The plants that started growing, die.
So it is not US who can produce fruit on our own. The fruit is part of the nature of the seed.
But we can HINDER the seed to produce fruit, by
a) not listening carefully and not believing
b) by being "superficial"
c) by being to involved in the affairs of this world.
Can we do anything about it? Yes, and we are called to do something about it:
a) We should listen carefully (Mt 13:9))
b) We should develop a deep relationship with Christ (John 15:1-10)
c) We should not be moneylovers or focussed on worldly things (Mt 6:24-34)
All these things are addressed frequently throughhout the NT. And I am convinced that this is our part and responsibilty, and we in the church should help each other to grow into maturity and to bring this fruit the Lord wants to see.
The hard message: There are many, far to many, who believe it is enough to be born again. But is it enough for the seed to start growing as a plant? Or is there more to life than just a birth? Is there more to salvation than just a new birth?
I am desperate. Ever so often I am confronted with this illusion that once we are born again, we already made it into heaven, that there is nothing we could do to earn or lose our salvation. But look at this simple parable: It is so obvious, it is so natural that it is not enough for a seed to be planted! There are so many obstacles between our conversion and the day when we finish the race, that can even kill this new life if we don't watch out. It is exactly as this parable says.
And so many have fallen away, gobne back into the world (even a co-worker of Paul 2Ti 4:10). To say they were never really born again is "fishy". Pray, who can be sure of salvation, if as soon as we fall away this theology says: "Until now you only imagined you have bneen born again, but that was just an illusion!" Of course the seed started to grow! But the new life has been killed!
Or take other parables: The vine and the branches – is the message there any different? Or the branches in the olive tree? Quite similar. Or the example of Israel wandering through the desert, Paul and the letter to the Hebrews refer to. Again: To embark on a journey, to leave Egypt in faith, does not mean to maintain the faith until the end. So many, so many died in the wilderness who once trusted the Passover-Lamb! That's terrible!
So, what's the conclusion? Salvation is a process, not a one time event (Conversion, New Birth or Baptism). It is a false Gospel, a misleading Gospel that so many preach and believe today.
See how serious this is, when it comes to restoring those fallen away (or in the process of falling away):
It is about heaven and hell (as in Jas 5:19-20)!
Thanks for you explanation Alexander. How do you understand judgment, specifically crowns and rewards? In your understanding will there be some that receive more reward (crowns) than others based on their fruit(s)?
The answer is in the parable of the talents Lk 19:11-27
So, there will be some who receive more reward, based on their fruit/faithfulness …
But think about it: Aren't we going to be judged acording to our works?
We will receice what is due to what we have done. Does he mean only two options: Heaven or Hell?
I don't think so. When our works are judged, then we will all receive different reward, because we lived differently. Also in the parable of the seed we talked before, the quantity of fruit is different.
Or this one:
He does not speak of a free unmerited gift of salvation here, but of a "recompense", a repay.
I keep it short, because I promised my daughter to play with her. But it is quite simple and I'm sure you know the other texts as well.
Alexander
How does 1 Cor. 3:12-15 fit into your understanding of judgment?
About whose work is Paul writing in this text?
About the work of the apostles (Apollos, Kephes, himself) or about the work of the individual Christians?
I understand him to write of Christians that might tirn out to be gold or straw. So even if a disciple falls away (or a church completely), the Apostles lose some reward but not their salvation.
So the message is not: If you are a Christian you can live a life of straw and be saved anyway (as through fire); but that as a "fellow worker" with God if your work does not remain, you won't be damned because of that. But a living and fruitful church will add to the reward of an Apostle (Php 2:16) – and obedience and fruit will add to our reward (Php 4:17)
But those who burn on judgement day are Christians who did not live the Kingdom-Life.
I know, this text is hardly presented that way. Normally it is a central proof text that a Christian can never be lost – but be critical about my explanation: Do you see a wrong conclusion? Some mistake in what I wrote? (I'm totally open to correction)
Alexander
Jay, In point #4, …three ways to fall away, point "c" says:
"Seek a works salvation (that is, conclude that faith and penitence are insufficient)."
Haven't you just described a huge percentage of our church of Christ people? Replies to these posts on your blog is telling evidence isn't it?
Royce
So, if I understand the gospel to be "worked out" I am on a way to work-salvation and thus falling from grace? I'm jsu asking whether I got you right …
But, maybe instead of putting me in a box, you could show where I am wrong and "restore one who uis falling away" 😉
As I have tried to prove Jr and Anonymous wrong with the scriptures.
Alexander
Let's be a little more precise:
We face a tremendous problem when we reduce the Gospel of our Lord to phrases such as "faith alone" vs. "work-salvation".
What is work salvation according to the scriptures? It the hope that by fulfilling the Law of Moses we might be saved at the end. Is it that what you mean?
You add (or continue to quote) that you mean that faith and penitence were insufficient.
I would say yes and no to that. Because of the different understanding of both faith and penitence in Western Christianity I's say phrases like these are insuffiecient.
Of course it sounds so "orthodox", so firmly rooted in the "Reformation", so "grace-oriented" – but what I critized above is contrary to the words of Christ and His apostles, isn't it.
Now, is faith sufficient?
James says: No – Jas 2:24
Paul says: No – Gal 5:19-26
Jesus says: No – Mt 7:21-23
Actually NOWHERE in the Scriptures ANYONE says we could be saved by faith alone.
Now, if you say, that faith must be obedient faith to be genuine faith, you come closer to the truth. But then, why do you accuse those who speak of necessary obediens of seeking "work-salvation"?
Ah, I see, because obedience is not necessary for salvation, but results FROM our salvation. We obey out of love and thankfulness, not out of fear we might miss the mark (I'm sure Paul was not very concentrated when he wrote Php 2:12, followed by Pphp 2:13, of course – but please meditate on fear and trembling for a while)
But who speaks ior writes that way in the Scriptures? I know, why so many (maybo also you) believe that way:
Because they have experienced a form of work-salvation that was Unbiblical in a different way. It was more like Pharisaism, based on manmade traditions and rules: Such as: Unless you know the correct theology of baptism, your baptiosm is invalid. Or: If you use instruments in worship, you are bound to hell. But that's something entirely different.
A second reason is the wrong idea, that being Born again and trul converted assures you of a salvation you cannot lose anymore. They make salvation a one time event – again, based on theology, namely: Accepting the Gospel of unconditional grace. It is – and I mean it – a faith merely of mental assent. Even if someones says, that true faith will be shopwn is works, the moment when someone "receives" this true faith is his or her conversion; when he or she give mental assent to the message.
But salvation is a process. Almost always when speaking of faith it is in the Present tense speaking of an ongoing obendient love-relationship, something that makes the conversion and New Birth a starting point, but not the finish-line. Now we walk a narrow path, wander through the wilderness until we reach Canaan.
Was faith in the Passover Lamb sufficient for Israels salvation=? It was suffiecient to be fried from Pharaous tyranny. It was sufficient to embark on a journy – but for most of the Israelites it was nit sufficient to reach Canaan. So it is with faith in Jesus. Unless we persevere to the end, we won't make it, Royce.
So maybe yiou can answer me: Am I speakig of work-salvation? Are the Scriptures sopeaking of work-salvation?
Alexander
Royce,
Yes, many in the Churches of Christ have a problem with "c." I need to make a couple of points regarding that. The first is a quote from my ebook Do We Teach Another Gospel?
Second, the curses announced by Paul in Gal 1 are applied particularly to those who teach a works salvation, although he doesn't entirely spare their followers. But it seems clear that the severest judgment will be for those who are in a position of leadership who divide the church based on matters other than faith in Jesus —
The correct understanding is not complicated —
Alexander wrote concerning 1 Cor. 3:9-15:
"I understand him to write of Christians that might tirn out to be gold or straw. So even if a disciple falls away (or a church completely), the Apostles lose some reward but not their salvation.
So the message is not: If you are a Christian you can live a life of straw and be saved anyway (as through fire); but that as a “fellow worker” with God if your work does not remain, you won’t be damned because of that. But a living and fruitful church will add to the reward of an Apostle (Php 2:16) – and obedience and fruit will add to our reward (Php 4:17)"
I'm not familiar with this idea and perhaps I misunderstand, it is your understanding that Paul is teaching that living as a true follower of Christ will increase the reward of the Apostles, specifically those referenced in this passage?
Where does the epistle say he is speaking of false teachers? John calls them antichrists.
Romans 8:35-39 "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
2 Corinthians 3:4-5 “And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God.”
Royce:
I read through the important discussion in this web chain and have decided to wade in a little. I read your comment to Jay: "Haven’t you just described a huge percentage of our church of Christ people? Replies to these posts on your blog is telling evidence isn’t it?"
As I read, your words surfaced for me an issue I suspect the Colossians were wrestling with (see Colossians 2:1-3). Is it possible that, without intending to do so, we can help Satan in his work by discouraging folks (as in announcing "huge percentage" or the like)? Which is more effective, to announce failings or instead urge positively what the risen Lord teaches?
I read much in OneinJesus.info where it seems to me many voices within churches of Christ have a good grasp of the actions of God's grace — and as well a commitment to apostolic teaching, even when it gets difficult to apply. Indeed, I have seen challenges to some of Jay's conclusions at points regarding baptism — that have revealed a deep understanding of grace in that event.
Perhaps many (or most?) are not where you suggest they are. As one voice, I can tell you that the "conservative" congregation I am part of in Katy, Texas knows well and believes that we are saved by grace through faith — a grace we receive in immersion baptism. A grace we depend on day-by-day. And it fuels teaching others and acts of benevolence. I rejoice in such. Is the Katy congregation "exceptional?" I am not convinced of such.
I pray we constantly remember Paul's counsel regarding encouragement and its place in teaching others in Colossians 2:1-3.
I also pray the Lord keeps you safe in the week ahead and blesses your reading of His Word.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
If you don't believe that a "huge percentage" of our coc people don't believe they will be saved because of what they have done you are mistaken. I have had people I love with all my heart tell me near the end of their lives that they fear they have not been "good enough" to go to heaven. One man was for many years an elder in two or three different congregations in the Ft Worth area and did not understand the claims of the gospel.
I ask you Bruce, is it better to enable and encourage unbelief and error or to confront it. Was Jesus helping Satan when he spoke plainly to the religious crowd of his day? Hardly!
One reason our fellowship has languished for so long in legalism and works based salvation teaching is that too few who knew the truth had the gumption to tell that truth to others. I understand why they are reluctant, those who have are featured as Apostates in a church conferences led by so called brothers.
Since I am not your equal intellectually I am a bit confused. Are you trusting in baptism day by day or Christ?
Dear Katy
In a way, yes.
I'm sure you noticed that the church in this passage is the field or the building site, and the apostles are the farmers or builders – while God gives growth.
So he, as a wise builder, laid the foundation in Corinth: That's our Lord Jesus.
When he left, others continnued in this word, namely Apollos and Kephas.
The whole text is embedded in the discussion on the party-spirit, where some in the church prefer Apollos over Paul or Kephas or vice versa. What Paul is saying: We are all working on the same project, we are fellow-workers of God.
Now it is important, that all of these fellow workers build wisely, which means, build in a way that the church becomes strong and mature and brings forth good fruit. If that is so, their effort will be rewarded. If the church fails, they won't get a reward for their work – but they won't lose their salvation because of this.
Part of the responsibility lies with the church, with those who are being taught by the apostles.
And we can go on and include other fellow-workers as well. You can think of your own congregation. You can speak of the missionary or the teachers in the church, who build on the foundation the apostels have laid, Christ. Your church ios also a fielöd and a building site. And some in your church also will turn out to be straw, while others are gold.
A teacher, any fellow-worker of Christ will get a reward if his work remains.
That's why Paul calls the church in Philippi his crown and urges them to stand firm:
The same he said about Thessalonica:
Alexander
I preached a message on Justification about a month ago out of Phil 3:1-9. I received a lot of feedback that went like this: "My husband and I have been in church for 40-years and are just now learning what grace is."
This is saddening to me; but yet a ray of hope for those who are preaching the Gospel of the grace of God in these days. But can you imagine sitting in church for 40 YEARS and NEVER ONCE hearing the Gospel preached? The churches of Christ are filled with these people.
And unfortunately, even those who are preaching the new and hip "Kingdom of God" lingo these days are turning even that into the new legalism.
Alexander: "For by grace you have been saved a through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8). We have been saved "not a result of works" but by the grace of God that He freely gives to whomever He wills. I truly hope that in the end you have done enough to gain God's favor. Instead, will you not rest in the Lord Jesus?
Jr said:
And unfortunately, even those who are preaching the new and hip “Kingdom of God” lingo these days are turning even that into the new legalism.
END JR
Jr:
That is a very interesting statement. Would you care to explain it a little further? I've been thinking that same thing…I'm just hoping you can verbalize the notion a little better than I can. 🙂
Thanks for your posts,
Alexander:
What you were describing is not the Gospel. The Gospel has nothing to do with what we do and it has everything to do with what Christ has done.
What we need to remember is if we only believe that Jesus died the death we should have died; but we don’t believe Jesus also lived the life we should have lived, we are missing half the Gospel. If we only believe Jesus died the death we should have died; that is He died for our sins and paid our penalty; that leaves us on our own. It clears the deck and puts us in a right relationship with God but we must stay in that relationship with a pretty good life. And therefore in a certain sense we are still maintaining your salvation by works and there is no joy in that. There is no life transforming joy in that. There is no identity transforming or shifting behavior joy in that.
But if you realize He lived the life you should have lived as well as died the death you should have died, then not only were your sins put on Him but his perfect righteousness and record was put on you as well. So there is no condemnation and there can’t be a condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. Therefore, when you understand both of those things you understand the Gospel. The Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone through the work of Jesus Christ alone; double imputation; substitutionary atonement. The historic Gospel.
Royce:
Glad to answer your question regarding whether I am trusting in baptism or Christ. I will answer that of course I am trusting in Christ… which includes the action of baptism. (no, not attempting to be deceptive or evasive)
When I say "baptism" (as immersion) I am thinking Romans 6:1ff. and Paul's comment that in baptism we become one with Jesus in His saving actions. We participate in His death and resurrection! It is more than symbol. We are buried and raised with him. That is why your either-or question should not be an either-or.
I know that some within churches of Christ have embraced a "legalistic" view of baptism (as a work), just as have many Southern Baptists. That is a misunderstanding. And it is worth our time to think through apostolic teaching a grasp it firmly.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Dr Jr
What you understand as Gospel is just part of the Gospel. You leave out half of the message and half of the conditions. I came out from this (Evangelical) background. I used to believe, preach and teach the Gospel the same way you sum it up for almost 20 years, until I found out that's only half of the message.
I must also admit that I never experienced a legalistic church as you describe some churches of Christ to be. The church of Christ I attend – they say – was quite legalsitic some decades ago, and for many years our preacher Scott spoke and taught about grace (used material ob the Abiding Life Ministries), but since two years or so he corrected his course again seeing that this grace-focussed message is an overreaction to a work-focussed Gospel.
Just so you know that I really know what you mean. Now, I hope you will understand what I really mean – which is not a work-salvation:
If we focus on what Christ has done on the cross that's correct. We can do nothing to forgive our own sins or to come into relationship with Christ. This is like standing before a locked door that somenone else has the key to. Christ opend the door for us, so we may enter.
But, Jr, that's only step ONE in salvation. Evangelicals say, if somenone entered, he is saved. But he is only as saved as the Israelites whoe crossed the Red Sea. But How many of those got saved in the end (how many reached Cannan)? How many died in the wilderness because of sind and rebellion?
Is it enough to just enter the room? Is it enough toe leave Egypt and trust in the Pasover Lamb? Is it enough to be baptized and trusting the shed blood of Christ?
Both extremes you present are wrong, Jr.
Jesus did NOT live a holy life on our behalf so that our own unholyness won’t matter.
And Jesus did not leave us on our own when he departed to Heaven, so that we’d have to struggle on our own.
He sent His Spirit, and the Spirit of God is God’s enabling Grace. So we are put into a position from where we CAN live holy lives, and we are called to do so.
The problem many Christians have – esp. in non-charismatic, conservative churches – is that the Spirit of God is not a reality in their thinking and theology. They confess to receive the Spirit in baptism or at the time of conversion (depending on the denominational doctrine), but then they don’t know what to do with it. The Spirit is reduced to an article of faith so to say, but they still live out of their own strength. This results in the misery you described, but that’s neither the Biblical Gospel, nor what I believe.
What I believe can be illustrated by the following verse:
So the righteousness required by the Law will be fulfilled if we live by the Spirit. So it is not about a pretty good life but about a righteousness that surpasses the the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mt 5:20). And it is not about a raighteousness that is only ascribed to us although we live unholy lives, but a righteosness that is real in works of faith, obedience and love (thus matching Jas 2:24).
It is a righteousness that involves our will, our faith, that requires obedience. But it is nothing that is beyond our reach! We can and shall live this way in the power oif the Spirit!
Whoever says we can’t live this way denies the New Law, Paul is speaking of. He says: „But we cannot live this way because of our sinful nature. This is a Law of death, we cannot escape, we will always be ruled by.“ But that’s not the Gospel. The Gospel does not end with Rom 7 but with Rom 8!
But living by the Spirit is nothing that happens automatically. We can live by the flesh also, so we have to choose whether we want to live by the flesh or by the Spirit. In the same chapter Paul says:
Do you see? We have the choice – and salvation is not something that is all done by Christ alone. We have to „use“ the „tool“ Christ gave us. He does not obey where we have to obey so we don’t have to obey. He does not lovem where we ought to love, so we don’t need to love. He does not have faith, where we should have faith, so we can lack faith without consequences.
You continue to write:
I answered part of it in the lines above. This is a misunderstanding of the atonement, Jr. A misunderstanding and a misleading misrepresentation. We receive the Spirit in order to be able to live a holy life. But we did not receive Christ in a way that all holiness required of us is already accomplished and fulfilled. Read with me, what Peter said:
It is a tremendous and overwhelming truth that we have become partakers of the divine nature. But listen, Peter said not: „You have received the full holyness of Christ so you may rest in Him.“ He said, on the contrary: Since you have all of His power, make every effeort to ADD (supplement) to your faith (faith PLUS, my brother!!> every virtue and love.
He says somthing else, too: Who lacks these things is not a person who has never really believed, but who has forgotten that he was cleansed from his sins.
And also: If we live that way, we will priduce the fruit necessary to inherit the Kingdom.
And that’s totally in line with James (Jas 2:14-24), John (1Jo 3:1-6 – whoever remains in Christ [our responsibility!!] does not sin – please read also John 15:1-10), Jude (Jude 1:20-25), Paul (Rom 8:1-14, Rom 11:22, Gal 5:16-25 – Note, it is our responsibility to walk by the Spirit, otherwise we will do the works of the flesh and greatly endanger our salvation), Hebrews (Heb 3:12-14, Heb 4:1-6 – the rest lies in the future, and it depends on faith and obedience that we may enter). And first of all, Jesus Himself teaches no other Gospel (Mt 7:21-23, Mt 25:14-30 and Mt 25:31-46, Mk 9:34-38 – Jesus demands self-denial and life different from the sinful society around us; Lk 6:46-49, Lk 8:19-21, Lk 11:27-28, Lk 13-22-30 – STRIVE to enter the gate, does not sound like “rest in Jesus”; John 14:15-25, John 15:1-10; Rev 31-6) … etc. etc.
You may go through the whole New Testament and see for yourself, whether Christ makes obedience a condition for salvation or not. Once I realized that He indeed does, I repented from the false teaching that came out of my lips. With fear and trembling (something recommended in Ps 2:11, Php 2:12, Heb 12:28 and other verses).
So there is NO DOUBLE IMPUTATION, that allows us rest in Jesus, that’s a false Protestant teaching, we should oppose in love but with all earnestness.
Alexander
Dear Jr, I was unable to find the context of this quote of you (quoted by JFM); but I assume that you notice that I don't write out of an argumentative Spirit, but because it really is about the core of our message. We should be very diligent to present it in a correct and soul-winning way.
Now to this quote of yours:
New and hip "Kingdom of God" lingo. Probably I am one of those you mean. To me the Kingdom of God became real and relevant only after the change of my understanding of the gospel. Maybe my views are not representative of the people of statements you recall. But the Kingdom of God became the key to understanding the gospel. Let me explain:
First: The term euangelion is a very political term. It is the announcement of the bith of a king, his victory or his ascension to the throne. And how fitting is the term euangelion to describe the message of Jesus, who was born a descendant of King David, won a tremdous victory over the powers of darkness and ascended to the throne at the right hand of His Father.
Second: That's why the Gospel is a Gospel of the Kingdom: Over 100 times within in the gospels Christ or the narrator speak about the Kingdom of God. The word Grace appears less than 10 times, and Jesus never even used it once. Having realized that I said to myself: "We obviously preach a different gospel than Christ did."
Third: Confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) means confessing Him as King: He is a ruler, a Lawgiver, a King over a real kingdom with real citizens. But when we only talk about grace and unconditional love, we blind our listeners to the reality of His Kingdom. Living in His Kingdoms means we have to become separated from the world and its lifestyle (1Jo 2:15-17, Jas 4:4, 2Cor 6:14-18, Acts 2:40, and many more). This is one of the main reasons for persecution (Acts 17:5-7). But we came to understand the titles Lord and Christ more or less disconnected from His Kingdom and made the gospel a "good news" for sinners who don't really want to change their lives.
Fourth: To repent and to believe in Christ actually means to become loyal to the King of Kings: The prase "Repent and believe" were not religious words but everyday langauge. Flavius Josephus once urged a rebel to repent and believe in him (Life of Josephus, verse 110). The context is clear: "Come over to my side! Be loyal to me! Fight for my cause!". The call to repent and to believe is a call to loyalty (as the Greek word pisteuo also includes in its meaning). You see how different this is from modern gospel-preaching? Repentance and faith don't focus on a finished work of Christ, but on the Lordship of Christ.
Now we can sum up the Gospel-Message in a few very clear and dramatic sentences:
1) The Kingdom of God is at hand, God will judge the nations and reveal His reign over all the earth through His Son Jesus Christ (Mt 3:2, Mt 4,17).
2) Therefore everyone who is willing to forsake his old way of life will be pardoned because of a full and free atonement, a ransom paid by the King Himself when He died in the cross for the sins of the world (1Jo 2:2).
3) Whoever therefore changes his mind and is willing to submit to the just and peacful rule of love, the Kingdom of God, may come and receive full forgiveness of sins in baptism (Acts 2:38-40).
4) From that day on you are counted as citizen of God's Kingdom and are called to live worthy of this call: Be faithful to the King and obey His laws, and proclaim the gospel of the Kindom to all nations until He returns (Mt 28:18-20). The New Birth through the Spirit of God enables us to live this New Life (Rom 8:1-4).
5) If anyone looks back after having taken the plough, he will be counted unworthy (Lk 9:62)
6) If anyone allows Mammon to be more important than God, he will be counted unworthy (Mt 6:24).
7) If anyone denies Christ before men, he will be denied also (Lk 12:9).
This means: Entering God's Kingdom also requires living under God's rule. If we are not willing to submit, we won't inherit the Kingdom when Christ returns. Period.
So, maybe you see the necessity of obedience for salvation a bit clearer. We have to preach the gospel of the Kingdom, not a gospel of forgiveness of sins. This is only step ONE of the whole story. Forgiveness of sins is a necessity, a means to an end, but not at all what is on the heart of Christ. The center of His message is the Kingdom.
If you call that legalism, I challenge you: Show me one verse in the Bible that a) contains the word legalism/legalistic and b) would apply to this summary of the gospel. And then count how often our Lords speaks against lawlessness. You will be surprised, brother.
Alexander
So your view is that Christ’ sinless sacrificial blood that is holy, righteous, and powerful isn’t the sacrificial atonement that takes away your sins, your view is that your good outweighs your bad.
To a holy sinless God all our righteousness are like filthy rags, our good does not outweigh our bad, doing good does not undo our bad, only His blood removes sins. Romans 11:6 “And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”
You seem to think all Israelites were genuine believers. There were Jews among them who were not genuine believers and God showed them that He is capable of knowing the wheat from the tares. Elijah even thought that he was the only genuine believer left, Romans 11:3-4 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”
You keep quoting work out your salvation, we should be living out the salvation we have, not work to get salvation, you leave out Philippians 2:13 “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” We have assurance that God will complete what He has begun in us, Philippians 1:6 “being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.”
There are two kinds of fear, godly fear as in we are in awe of God, and there is the fear of torment and condemnation. Philippians 2:12 is not to walk through life terrified, God is love and there is no fear in love, Romans 8:15 “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 1 John 4:18 “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.”
Do you keep all of God’s laws or do you need God’s mercy?
Psalm 130:3-4 “If You, LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared.”
I know I don’t keep all God’s laws, but I also know that each day I am God’s work in progress until the day of Jesus Christ!
Alexander:
You wrote, "salvation is not something that is all done by Christ alone."
This is an astonishing statement. This is not good news. Do you not understand that we are lawbreakers? As James says, if we break one law we are guilty of them all. Why should we pick up the yoke of slavery yet again? What is Christ worth to me then?
Who's righteousness is it that gains me favor? It is hardly mine. Instead, "be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Phil 3:9).
And I want to make something clear from my point of view. Never have I said, nor ever will I say that "we don't have to obey." I do not claim that we can live an unchanged life, for as John tells us, "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6). Nobody can claim Christ and live an unrepentant life in darkness, unless they are a liar. I just wanted to make that clear.
BUT, I am still a sinner. I sin every day of my life. So do my sins count against me any longer? By no means! Jesus died for all of my sins, past, present and future. "For NOW there is NO condemnation…" In Christ I cannot be condemned, period. He died for my sins past, present and future and there is nothing or nobody that can pluck me out of His hand (John 10:28-30). Christ said, "I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39b). I am, right now, "raised us up with him and seated…with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6). I will never lose such a position.
This is why a doctrine that says one can lose their salvation is so damaging; namely, because it makes Christ's life and work powerless. It diminishes and trivializes the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God and the righteousness of God. It puts salvation into the hands of men. This is religious slavery at its finest. Moralistic deism.
Jesus did not die just to give me an opportunity to be reconciled to God. When I was granted belief, by the sovereign work of God, I was reconciled to God perfectly. I am of the belief that Jesus actually saved people by His sacrifice; that being His Bride, the elect. It saddens me that so many believe that Christ died for nobody; but only a "chance" at salvation.
You speak of Rom 8 and the Gospel. Indeed! And does it not say, "and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified" (v.30)? Are we to believe that we lost predestination? That we lose our calling? That we lose our justification? That we lose our glorification? Certainly not.
Lastly, I do want to address the Spirit part of your response. I could not agree more with your position of the Spirit. That is, the Spirit lives inside of us to enable us to live according to the Word. I do not disagree in the slightest. Yet even our Spirit-wrought works are not what saves us. Christ did. When we do good works, that is simply what we are supposed to do. It is the fruit of our justification and in the end we simply say, "We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty" (Luke 17:10b).
Grace to you –
Dear Jr
Believe me, I fully understand that you are shocked. But belive me also, that discovering this was as shocking to me. I wonder if I can answer this briefly. And I don't want to ignore Anonymous' post either. Where shall I start? Maybe with Anonymous:
Where did I say that? Actually on the contrary: If we reduce the atonement of Christ to just a full paid price for our sins, I think we reduce the meaning of His cross and resurrection.
One aspect indeed is that His death is the penalty for our sins, and this we accept in faith and baptism for the remission of sins. I would never dream of questioning this.
But this focusses only on the death of Christ, on His shed blood. But the resurrection is equally important:
When we are united with the death and resurrection of Christ, we see that He has been raised for our justification, so we are put in the position of living righteous and holy lives. That's also part of the atonement, also an important aspect of God's Grace.
So I certainly don't think low of what Christ has done for us. But being made righteous is a call to live righteous lives. And we have to choose daily between the desires of our flesh and the way of the Spirit. Thus obedience becomes a daily challenge, and it is challenged daily, because our flesh is opposed to the Spirit.
Walking by the Spirit does not happen automatically, so there is a good deal of responsibility on our side – but we cannot say, that we are not apable of livibng holy lives, because we are empowered by God's Spirit. If we live by the flesh, if we give in to our carnal desires, we will lose our salvation. This has become very clear to me, that's why holyness is such an earnest call in the NT (e.g. Heb 12:14).
Don't misunderstand me: Living a holy life is only possible in the Spirit, thus when I am speaking of obedience in faith, I am speaking of grace.
Well, yes and no. The Israelites are used as a type of the church in 1Cor 10 and Heb 3. The passover Lamb typifies the Lamb of God slain for us. Those who put the blood on their doorposts show faith in the blood of the Lamb. They leave Egypt and get "baptized" in the Red Sea and the Cloud – do you get the idea? This is what we would call a conversion process. Evangelical theology stops exactly here: Once they are through the Red Sea, they are considered saved. Once a person has accepted Jesus as His savior and got baptized he is saved. And no one can take that from them, they say.
But the crossing of the Red Sea was not the end of the story. There came years of rebellion and repentance and more rebellions, and a whole generation died in the wilderness because of – as Hebrews says – disobedience and disbelief. And this story is written for us as a warning: Now what can this warning be? A child could sum it up: It is is not enough to be converted, you have to persevere unto the end.
Now to Jr:
It is not good news if it is not what you wanted to receive as good news. I know that as long as you confuse the works of the Law (Rom 3:28) with obedience of Faith (Rom 1:5) you will never understand it. I am NOT speaking of the (mosaic) as James (Jas 2:10) does or Paul (Rom 3:28) or Peter (Acts 15:10-11). I am speaking of obedience to Christ.
What is Christ worth to me?
Is he just a sacrifice for my sins?
Is all only about His shed blood?
Or is He also Lord and King?
Or is He also the one who sent His Spirit to give us the New Birth, to write His law upon opur hearts, to enable us to live holy lives.
I do not Speak of the Old Covenant, of the old Law engraved on Stone-Tablets outside of ourselves.
I Speak of the New Covenant, of the Law written on our hearts through the Spirit.
Brothers, it seems to me, that you have not really grasped what the New Birth all encompasses and means! Otherwise you could not say things that are not true of you any more, such as:
This is, you are still in Rom 7 – but we live in Rom 8! When Paul said there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Rom 8:1) he is not confirming Rom 7 but just adding the forgiveness of past, present and future sins! This would be no Good News at all: This would mean we are still sinners – which actually means: Under Bondage. (I am sure you disagree when I put it in such words, but that's what you say.)
But the Good News is that we are being changed. Rom 8 is not Rom 7 + Forgivness, but the death of a sinner who rises to a new life. It is Rom 6 continued. In the beginning of Rom 7 Paul again says:
You see, we don't have to live according to the flesh anymore. We are dead and risen to a new and spiritual life,
which is capable of holyness.
If we still call ourselves sinners and point to the weakness of our flesh, we in fact deny the work of the Spirit in us. The flesh is still there, and it is oppesed to the the Spirit, but we can and shall live by the Spirit and thus destroy (kill) the desires and works of the flesh.
If we don't do that, however – please take that very seriously – we will die:
Do you think our flesh likes that? By no means. So whenever we hear this side of the Gospel we will feel rebellion rising in us. This is the spiritual struglle we are in and we are called to fight victoriously in His power. And if there is a fight, there is also the option to fight carelessly and to be slain. That's what happens if we let the flesh have its way.
There is great comfort in these verses for people who struggle along, who want to love and follow Christ, but because of weakness ore misleading teaching that makes them careless fall on the way. There is forgivness and plenty of grace for those who love Him and want to obey him.
But Christ said other things, too: A branch that does not bring fruit, will be cut off and burned (John 15:1-10). A servant who buries his talent and does not bring fruit will be cast into the darkness (Mt 25:30). A leader who does not bring the right food ath the appointed time, will be sent to hell (Mt 24:45-51). Five out of ten virgins will be shut out of heaven (Mt 25:1-13). Those who practice lawlessness are doomed (Mt 7:21-23). And many more texts say exactly the same.
Forgiveness is there. But it is nothing that is granted regardless how we live and believe. The wicked servant whom was forgiven so much was ungracious to another servant. Then the King said, I take back my forgiveness – and Christ said explicitly: That's what our Father will do to us, if we don't forgive one another! (Mt 18:34-35)So forgiveness is conditional!
Why not? Does the Lord say he will deny some disciples of His before the Father if they deny Him? He does. Does He say, that a plant that grows from the Seed of His Word can whither and die? Indeed, He does. So, what makes you believe, that "predestination" is something we cannot lose?
We are called IN CHRIST, if we step outside of Christ, we are outside the conditions of this calling. Predestination is nothing of the sort how Calvinism teaches it: "I choose Alexander to be saved and Jr to be lost (or vice versa)." God calls all people in Christ. So predestined are all who come to Christ. It is no "excluding" election, but more like a "conditional election". The only thing personal in this is God's foreknowledge.
Do you notice the order? Those he foreknew comes first.
You know, that God foreknows every word that will come out of your mouth – but he does not make you say it. So God knows whether you will persevere in faith and obedience – but He will not believe and obey for you.
The same Paul remarkably often says (to Christians as a warning!), the unrighteous won't inherit the kingdom. I will never ever again preach a Gospel that invites people to live lukewarm, disobedient lives in the mistaken opinion, that all sins (past present and futere) are covered and paid for anyway. That's NOT what Christ has died for! That's mocking God!
Just to sum it up:
Your Gospel leaves out very important aspects of Grace:
It focusses on forgiveness not on transformation.
Since you still regard yourself as (more or less) helpless sinner, you don't even realize the power of the New Birth in you – and are (by your own teaching) doomed to sin. There is no freedom from sin in your Gospel (How do you understand Rom 6 ?).
And because you still feel bound in the "old man" you also refer to works in the sense of the "old system" (Mosaic Law) and don't understand the new Covenant and its power, nor the new way the Law is written and can be lived out.
You don't see Christ as King and Lord who demands obedience (Mt 18:20), but mainly as a covering for your sins. Thus you miss the whole point of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Actually all Kingdióm-Parables must be rather obscure to you, because they flatly contradict your theology.
Although you quote scripture after scripture, you miss the context in which these texts are embedded. The whole story, the big picture.
I don't say that to accuse you of anything or to make you look bad. You are holding to a standard theology among Evangelicals. And Millions belive the same way you do. A theology I basically grew up with – and one of the reasons I found a home in the church of Christ is that we don't teach that way. I also think this is of major importance than the doctrines of baptism or a-cappella worship. The importance of this topic is the only reason I really go into so much detail, writing far more than is handy to read in a blog.
Alexander
Another verse concerning our calling and predestination:
I really like 2Pe 1:3-11. This sums it up very nicely. And in this passage these words were written: We shall be all the more diligent to make our calling and election sure.
He says, that doing all he wrote in the verses before (about, virtues, love, steadfastness or godliness) will save us from falling.
Those who do this will in end enter the Kingdom.
So, is our election in any way "endangered"? I'd say it is conditional. The whole Gospel is conditional.
Even God's Love is conditional:
Forgiveness is conditional, as our Lord frequently points out.
That's easy to understand, isn't it?
And God's election is based on His foreknowledge, says Paul (Rom 8:29) and also Peter:
And His foreknowledge includes our reaction, how we meet His conditions in our life.
So maybe "conditional" is a good word to describe the difference between the Gospel how I understand it and how Evangelicals present ist. I am aware of strong statements, that say:
a) God's Love is unconditional
b) God's forgiveness is unconditional
c) Salvation is unconditional
d) Election is unconditional
I think this turns out to be the main difference between us.
This and maybe the understanding of salvation as a one-time-event (converted and assured of salvation) or a process (persevere to the end to be saved).
Maybe this can simplify our debate …
Alexander
I'm just going to address two points for the sake of length. The first will address a straw man, the second will address the word "foreknew" in Romans 8:29.
1) The straw man you have built is the following: "I will never ever again preach a Gospel that invites people to live lukewarm, disobedient lives in the mistaken opinion, that all sins (past present and future) are covered and paid for anyway."
This is a straw man. The Gospel I proclaim to people would not say they can live lukewarm disobedient lives. That's ridiculous. Some people may believe that, but I don't. So let me repeat what I had written in the previous comment of mine:
"And I want to make something clear from my point of view. Never have I said, nor ever will I say that “we don’t have to obey.” I do not claim that we can live an unchanged life, for as John tells us, “If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). Nobody can claim Christ and live an unrepentant life in darkness, unless they are a liar. I just wanted to make that clear."
So let's put that straw man to rest. Perhaps you can argue that point to one who actually thinks it, but I don't. My point is that even though we are obedient it does not earn us our justification.. Even our Spirit-wrought works do not justify us. Only Christ justifies. We bear fruit THROUGH justification, not FOR it. Anything else is works-based salvation. Period.
2) You brought up "foreknew." Now this is where I would like for you to do some word study because what you propose it to mean is brought about by a false supposition. With all due respect, you are completely misinterpreting the word and its throwing off your entire exegesis of the verse.
I want to challenge in the minds of anyone who thinks that this term “foreknew” as a verb is the same thing as the noun (to simply have "foreknowledge"). If you say the verb form is the same as the noun form you are incorrect and you need to look at the text of Scripture and realize this is an active verb. This is something God is doing, and every time God is the subject and this is the verb, in the New Testament, the object is personal it’s never actions. To simply say God knew who was going to believe; there is no example of that statement in the New Testament. It’s not there. It doesn't exist. It’s not an untrue statement, but it doesn’t answer anything and it doesn’t tell us what it means for God to foreknow someone.
Romans 8:29, 11:2, and 1 Peter 1:20, all refer to personal objects, never events. This means that, for you to interpret Romans 8:29 using the ‘foreknowledge defense,’ you have to explain how this one usage is the exception, and why, in the context, if must bear a meaning seen nowhere else.”
Example: It says God foreknew Christ. Does that mean just God had knowledge of what Christ would do? No, this is an active verb; it’s something that God does. So "those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." And these whom he predestined he also called, and these whom he called he also justified, and these whom he justified he also glorified. Here is the "golden chain."
Here is the important point: God is the one doing every single verb. Foreknew. Predestined. Called. Justified. Glorified. God does each one; it is the exact same audience in each one. Those whom he foreknew, He does all the other things that result in their glorification. It is a certainty and it is all to God’s glory.
Now we know, for example, that one of those things is justification. And we know that the Bible says that we are justified by grace, we’re justified by the blood of Christ, and we’re justified by faith. So obviously the means by which these things come into play come into our experience only by God’s sovereign capacity to do these things.
I don't say this to make you look bad but your interpretation is stifled by the man-centeredness of your theology. And it is this man-centered theology that the churches of Christ need to dig their way out of.
Grace to you –
Jr
We are called, "not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace" (2 Tim 1:9); "having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph 1:11); as with Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls" (Rom 9:11); "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16); and praise God Almighty we are born-again "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13).
Alexander:
I believe our salvation is a one-time event (converted and assured) AND I believe in perseverance to the end to be saved. Simply put, those who have been saved WILL persevere to the end. "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you WILL bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6).
If anybody does not persevere, they were never saved to begin with. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).
Lastly, concerning sin:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 John 1:8-9)
So yes, I'm a sinner; but thanks be to God I'm a justified sinner. (Rom 3:21-26)
Dear Jr
It seems we are coming back to the beginning.
It boils down, that you more or less follow the Calvinistic understanding of the Gospel, which I don't.
BTW: I won't discuss the election and foreknowledge issue under this thread in too much detail. The Early Church writers (until 4th century) basically understood election to be conditional based on foreknowledge. It was Augustin in his controversy with Pelagius who developed the doctrine of election, which was adopted by the Reformation (both Luther and Calvin). But maybe Jay will open a discusion on this subject one of these days.
One of the reasons I don't believe in this, are the consequences of statements like this one:
I have seen people lose faith, go into the world or live worldly lives. To say the have never been saved to begin with is a very strong statement. See, today you and I seem to be standing firmly in the faith. But tomorrow you or I will be found under those who are fallen away.
Will you have the courage to tell me then: "Well your faith in Jesus during the last 23 years was nothing bnut an imagination!"? If that is so, how can I claim any assurance of salvation unless an emotional feeling inside my heart? There is no assurance.
Or would you accept such a statement, when you fall away? That I or somenone else would say: "Well, Jr has never really been born again." That does not work, does it?
OK, you point to a scripture (1Jo 2:19). But this scripture is talking about people who are heretics, who didn't believe that Christ came in the flesh. He is calling them Antichrists (1Jo 3:18) – please consider the unique situation, Jr!
Would you make the same statement about Demas, a co-worker of Paul who fell in love with the world again (2Ti 4:10)?
Or what about the people in Hebrews:
If you want to describe genuine faith, you might very well use these words:
a) They have been enlightened
b) They have tasted the heavenly gift
c) They have shared in the Holy Spirit
d) THey have tasted the goodness of the word of God
e) and the powers of the age to come
I mean, honestly, how much more can you want? Believe me, I have read quite a few commentaries who tried to explain this away in a very dishonest way.
Taken as a whole, I can't believe in Calbvinism.
Alexander
We will NEVER thirst again.
Jesus will NEVER cast us out.
God’s hand protects us, we shall NEVER perish.
God has justified and glorified us.
We are more than conquerors through Christ, NO POWERS are able to separate us from God.
We will NOT be put to shame.
We are saved by God’s grace, not by works.
God CONFIRMS us to the end.
God WILL COMPLETE the work He has begun in us.
God is faithful to PRESERVE us for heaven.
We have an inheritance that does not fade away reserved in heaven.
Fine, Anonymous.
And what about the other verses?
I know all these texts. But why should I comment on your texts if you have no answers to mine?
None of your texts rule out our responsibility in salvation.
YES, YES AND DOUBLE YES: We cannot do it without His Spirit and Grace.
BUT, BUT AND DOUBLE BUT: This does not mean our free will is done anway with, or that our obendience comes automatically!
AND ANOTHER DOUBLE BUT: This does not mean, that those who live by the flesh will inherit the Kingdom. And it's the church and every single Christian that is warned to lose what it has receicved.
SO, PLEASE!!! Don't put verses of Scripture in conflict against each other! Read the totality! Read it in its natural sense! There are no conflicts in Scripture, so you don't need to quote your texts against mine!
We have both sides in Php 2:12-16 – a last try:
Work out your own salvation – these are Paul's words, not mine. I will take them seriously.
With fear and trembling – Maybe an illustration will help: If you go rock climbing, you have to do it with fear and trembling, this means: You have to check the ropes and all means for your safety. You have to climb carefully not carelessly. You are safe as ,long as you follow the rules, but you may fall if you don't.
Fear and trempling is very "dear" to our Lord: Ps 2:11, Ezr 10:3, Ps 119:120, Is 66:2, Is 66:5, Heb 4:1, Heb 12:28-29 …
The Greek word is Phobos – we know it from arachnophia and other phopias – consider this: What does this tell you?
Is Paul overstretching his cause or is there a valid reason for such strong words?
Now comes the second side of the coin: We can't do it on our own.
The reason we received the Spirit is not that we may speak in tongues or perform awesome miracles, but to be able to live holy lives.
He works in us that we want to do His will and taht we are able to accomplish it.
Praise be to God!
But – again back to us – This does not work automatically: We have to obey, We have to do all things.
And we have to work on our attitude.
I'm serious.
And Paul is very serious about it.
We are called to live blameless lives as God's children.
This is our testimona to the world.
The Stars are for orientation and navigation – we shall show the world the way.
If we don't do this, we are useless like salt that is not salty anymore – and I am sure you remeber what our Lord said about unsalty salt: Mt 5:13
Paul is aware that he could have worked in vain. This is in stark contrast to Php 1:6, isn't it? But there is no conflict.
It is just so, that there are two sides of the coin:
From God's side ALL is done, which is necessary for our salvation.
But from our side God requires faith and obedience in His power.
We have to hold fast to the word of life. If we don't all the effort of the apostle to teach us the gospel has been in vain. There won't be any fruit, his work will burn (1Co 3:5-15 – a passage that is misunderstood by most Evanglicals)
You quote verse after verse that show God's provisions – and I can and will not speak outr against a single one of them.
But there are as many or more verses that speak of our responsibilty. I number of them I quoted frequently. They are as true as yours. Take them seriously!
Alexander
Not all Israelites were genuine believers.
But why should I comment on your texts if you have no answers to mine?” – Alexander
Are you serious, you’re going to play that old COC denomination game…Wow!!
I believe I have given answers and anyone can look back through my comments to see.
You told Jr that what James spoke doesn’t apply to us since he was speaking from Mosaic law.
According to you “love your neighbor as yourself”, “Do not commit adultery”, and “Do not murder” does not apply to us.
Sorry, you just don't understand, Anonymous. But maybe that's because I am a poor communicator …
Concerning the Mosaic Law:
We are definetly not under the Mosaic Law anymore.
The big question of Acts 15:1-29 was the question whether believers from the nations are bound to circumcision and the mosaic law.
The answer was a resounding NO. Only 4 necessary things are binding, that are actually part of the covenant with Noah and thus binding to all men anyway: No idilöatry, no fornication, no blood and strangled meat.
But then there is the New covenant and the New Law which is the filfillment of the Old – So what Paul refers to in Rom 13:9-10 is summed up in the one doubke-command, which is still from the OT. But then we also have to see hopw we are toe read and understand the OT-Laws in the light of the NT – that's hoe Jesus gave us a handful of examples as an exgetical guidleine in Mt 5:21-48. In this He goes to the essence of the Law which goes far beyound its letter.
Now, when James is saying whoever trespasses on is guilty of the whole Law (Jas 2:10) he is giving this as an OT-illustration to a church problem. In the next verse He speaks of the New Law, the Law of Liberty (Jas 2:11), and this Law he mentioned before already and called it the perfect Law of Liberty (Jas 1:25). This is the NT, the Law written in our hearts, the Law made perfect in Christ for Christ is the end (=Fulfillment – telos) of the Law.
And Peter says that trying to keep the OT-Law in an OT-manner = seeking righteousness by being perfect in keeping the law, is a burden, no one can bear (Acts 15:10-11). And Paul says frequently that we are not under the OT-Law anymore.
The OT-Law was good. But it conflicted with a different law, the Law of sin in our flesh (Rom 7:21-23). And this made Paul desperate (Rom 7:24). The Law did not make us righteous, because of our weakness in the flesh, bound by sin.
Now, the Good News is, that this flesh has been crucified with Christ (Gal 5:24) and we received Christ's New life in baptism (Rom 6:4). We put on Christ, so to say (Gal 3:27).
That's the New Covenant, that's why the Law has been written onto our hearts and beconmes a part of ourselves in the Spirit (Jer 31:33). And the reason He wrote the Law onto our hearts is that we keep the Law (Ez 11:19-20). This Law, written onto our hearts, is the essence of God's will, but trasformed onto a higher level as Jesus describes in the sermon on the mount. It's about the essence of the Law, not the letter.
We can make two statements, that are bot equally true:
We are not under the Law of Moses – this applies to the letter of the Law (e.g. Acts 15:1-29).
We are to fulfill the whole Law and Prophets – this is true when it comes to the essence of the Law (e.g. Mt 5:21-48).
We must not confuse these two statements. We have to keep that in mind when studying the OT.
Maybe you know all of that, or maybe you don't. I have the impression, that the New Covenant is one of the least understood topics in Scripture, especially among those who focus on forgiveness of sins and deny the necessity of keeping God's commands in order to be saved.
If you only look at the idea and reason of the New Covenant, it should be obvious:
It's not the Law, that is bad – we are bad.<
It is us that need to be changed not God's demand for righteousness and holiness. See, the NT does not expect less from us, rather more!
So He changes us in a miraculous way so we CAN fulfill His will in His power.
The Spirit is given to us, so we OBEY his commendments (Mt 18:20 – we shall learn to keep ALL of His commands).
Do you understand the concept?
Does anyone who reads that, understand the idea?
Or is that too strange, too new, too weird, too complicated?
Since I understood this (which took me some time), I began to understand the Gospel-Message. And that's one of the reasons, why baptism became very dear to me. The way baptism is tied into this masterplan of salvation is astonishing! And it is no wonder, that those who don't understand the concept of the New Covenant also downplay the role of baptism in salvation. Which – on the other hand – does not mean that all in CoC have grasped the idea of the New Covenant.
So, Anonymous, I really try to avoid any aggressive tone in my wrintings – if may passions sounds offensive, be sure I don't want to offend you or anyone.
I just ask you: Do you erally understand what I mean? Can you sum it up and repeat it the way I tried to present it? The way you answered so far gives me the impression you can't. This may be bcause I am a poor communicator – or it may be that you are too defensive, or read something into my words I diod not say, or put me in a theological box where I don't belong. It is really hard for me to tray to express myself when I have the feeling I am not heard and not understood. Of course, writing in a blog is a limitation to a real conversation.
So, stupid and simple: What does Alexander say, how we are going to be saved? Can you explain it to an outsider of our discussion? You may start with: "There is a weirdo in Jay's Blog, who really believes …" 😉
Alexander
Maybe. But that's not the point. You could also say: None of them was born again – but that would not be fair to say, since the New Birth is part of the New Covenant. But actually the text you quote (Deu 4:32-40) does not say anything about genuine or ungenuine faith. But again, that's not the point.
Paul and the letter to the Hebrews use the Israelites as an illustration, as a warning for the church whom they address as saints, brothers – genuine believers.
Let me try to explain it again.
Paul could have a bit started earlier: The Passover Lamb is a type of CHrist whose blood saves us. Now all the Israelites who put their trust in the Passover Lamb are a type of the church and every single Christian who puts his trust in the blood of Christ.
Aren't you very committed to the teaching that it is enough to trist in the shed blood of Christ? This text is addressed to people who believe this alone is sufficient. It is not about the question of genuine belief or not (this question is nowhere addressed in the Scriptures), but whether the trust in the shed blood is enough.
Paul even goes on to liken the crossing iof the Red Sea to baptism. And he is not asking the question whether these baptisms were perfect or imperfect. They were baptized in Water (Red Sea) and Spirit (the Cloud) – so he likens this crossing to a baptism that had the effect of the new birth. Paul is addressing born again Christians.
And he is basically saying: Being born again is not enough.
Then Paul likens the Manna (Spiritual food) and the Watr from the rock (Spiritual Dring) top the Lord's Supper (he ist talking about immediately after his discopurse on the Israelites).
So Paul is speking to Christians who
a) believe in the shed blood of Christ (Passover)
b) were baptized (Crossing of the Red Sea)
c) Partake of the Lord's Supper regularly (Manna and water from the rock)
Do you get the idea? Now comes the shocking part:
Most of the Israelites did not make it. Watch out: Paul is not comforting the Corinthians with words such as:
"But you know, their faith wasn't really genuine. If you have genuine faith and have really been born again, this cannot happen to you!".
Or: "They just had an imperfect baptism."
On the contrary: He is addressing genuine believers in a true and living church of Christ! He says: And this might happen to you, if you act in the same stubborn, carnal und rebellious way as the Israelites in the wilderness!
Do you notice how Paul is inclluding himself here in the "We"? We must not do any of these things (strong words), otherwise we also will be destroyed by the destroyer.
Who is the destroyer?
Well, who judged the rebellious people of God? God is the destroyer! Oh boy! Do you get the message here?
Oh we are sometimes so confident that this would never happen to us. No, we have been saved, we are truly born again, we trust ibn Christ's blood, our baptism did not lack anything, we are regular church goers …
Don't be deceived! This can happen to you to! It has been written down for your instruction, as a warning to you!
Now, we don't need to be afraid. There is grace along this journey as well. He will help us, He will give us all the power we need to resist the devil and to go all the way through the wilderness until we reach Canaan.
So, Anonymous: Is there anything wrong in my understanding of this passage? I don't think so. It is easy to understand, and in the letter to the Hebrews, chapters 3 and 4 you have the same story with the same conclusions.
So we are not once saved always saved. That simply is not scriptural. And that's why restoring those who are falling away is so tremendously important to save their souls.
Alexander
So Paul is speking to Christians who
a) believe in the shed blood of Christ (Passover)
b) were baptized (Crossing of the Red Sea)
c) Partake of the Lord’s Supper regularly (Manna and water from the rock) – Alexander
I believe there are many people that attend churches who
believe Jesus shed His blood
have been baptized
partake of the Lord’s Supper
who do not believe Jesus took away all their sins on the cross. I absolutely believe there are people who attend church that are not genuine believers.
Do you notice how Paul is inclluding himself here in the “We”? We must not do any of these things (strong words), otherwise we also will be destroyed by the destroyer. – Alexander
When Moses returned angry, all Aaron could think to tell him was I threw the gold in the fire and out popped this calf, Exodus 32:24 “And I said to them, ‘Whoever has any gold, let them break it off.’ So they gave it to me, and I cast it into the fire, and this calf came out.”
Aaron sinned with the people, why didn’t the Lord destroy Aaron, according to you he should have been destroyed. I believe the Lord knew there were tares among the wheat, Exodus 32:26 “Then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, “Whoever is on the LORD’s side—come to me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.”
Man is to keep two greatest commandments and all the others hang on them, Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
God’s requirement of perfection is, Matthew 5:48 “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” We are commanded to be perfect and the measure of that perfection is God Himself.
Not only do we sin by breaking God's commands (sins of commission), we also sin when we don't do the things God commands us to do (sins of omission). James 4:17 “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
We sin unintentionally and it is still sin, Numbers 15:29 “You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.”
When we do something good so we can make ourselves look good, we sin. When we do something because refusing it would make us look bad, it is turned into sin. We may be able to fool others, sometimes ourselves, but God knows it.
Anything we think makes us significance other than the Lord Jesus Christ is an idol. A career can be an idol, a home, a person, a car, money, even ourselves can be an idol. Anytime we say I worked hard to get my money, or I worked hard to get this house, or I worked hard to get this car we take the glory away from God.
We sin not only when we murder, but when are unjustly angry. Even if this anger takes no action. If we feel a flash of anger it is still a sin against God. Resenting someone, even only for a moment, because they took the parking spot you were going to pull in, is a sin, When we yell angrily at someone at home after it’s been a hard day at work, we sin. Sinful action doesn’t have to occur, we have still sinned against God.
Do you always love your neighbor as you should, do you always keep what you say to someone, do you always help someone you see needing help, do you ever see someone with something and want it too and covet, do you ever eat in excess which is gluttony, do you ever hear another person gossip about someone and have even a little interest, are you ever lazy, have you not given a deserved compliment to someone out of pride.
The greatest command is to love God, completely, continuously, with every part of our heart, soul, and mind. When we fall short of this, we sin. When we are distracted by this world and what is in it, we sin. When we take God for granted, we sin.
How many times do we break the commandment “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”? Anytime we are not content with what he has given us. Anytime we are angry about what life has dealt us. Anytime we fail to give God the glory. Anytime we want control over our lives instead of searching out what God has for us. Anytime we rely on man’s understanding instead of on God. Anytime we sin we rebel against God and break His command.
When we cut a person off in traffic, rather than letting him in, we sin. When we fail to offer help to a neighbor, we sin. When we shun the people not wanting to be bothered by them, we sin. When we consider the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” we must consider our sins of omission. The command is not “When you interact with your neighbor treat him with love”. This command is broken many times by omission for every time by commission.
Other commands are “do not steal”, “do not bear false witness”, and “honor your parents”. When we get creative with our tax report, or bring the office’s supplies home to use, shave a little time off the clock by leaving early or taking long breaks, or don’t tell the clerk about an error, we commit the sin of stealing. We can steal not just money and valuables, but also time, privileges, and honor.
We sin when by our silence when we fail to stick up for someone. When we pay a person false complements, exaggerate qualifications, or hide faults, resulting in a false representation of a person, we bear false witness and sin.
“Honor your father and mother” is more than just a command for children to obey their parents until they become adults. When we fail to respect our parents, we sin. When not listening to our parents, we sin. When we hold resentments, we sin, if they have hurt us through their sin and we fail to forgive our parents, we sin. When we place ourselves above our parents, we sin.
Jesus is our perfect standing before God, 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ did not deserve death, we do! It is only the righteousness of Christ that can satisfy the perfect demand of God’s law, Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” I am a sinner saved by God’s grace, Praise God!!
Luke 18:9-14 “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
OK. Let's see if I got your logic right:
We sin, we sin and we sin – therefore we cannot meet God's standard of perfection.
So Christ's persfection is imputed to us, so we are perfect in God's eyes even though in reality we are not.
So we can sin, sin and sin again – but this does not affect our standing with God because we are saved by faith through grace and our works have nothing to do with it.
Is that basically, what you think?
This means: You paint us as black as possible to paint grace as white as possible. That's extrensitic. And it denies the fact that through the New Birth we are called to overcome sin.
So I disagree: No, we don't have to sin daily – at least not intentionally. The power of God's Spirit is at work in us and this makes us even more responsible to lead holy lives (Php 2:12-14) – if we don't, and if we don't bring the fruit of the kingdom, we will be cut off and burned. So we are not all that black anymore, and grace is not as unconditional as you make it appear.
To some other details:
Aaron died in the wilderness as most of his generation did. That he was spared at this incident was God's decision. He did not spare Moses when he made this terrible mistake of hitting the rock instead of speaking to it.
That's astounding. Does Paul make any such differentiation in this text? Did he say the people died in the wilderness, because they did not believe correctly? Not really. He said why they died:
They practiced idolatry, they indulged in sexual immorality, they put Christ to test and they grumbled. Not one word about their lack of faith – but four clear statements on their lack of obedience.
Now, can Christians who believe that Christ died for all their sins (if that is it what makes faith genuine) do all these things? Yes. Christians are warned not to grumble (Php 2:14), not do fall into sexuall sins (Eph 5:3), not to put Christ to test (1Co 10:22) and not to serve idols (1Co 10:14).
And to whom has this letter been written? To an Apostolic church, sounded on sound undefiled doctrine. Note how he addressed the Corinthians:
He calls all of them saints who experienced the Grace of God. He makes no distinction between genuine and supposed believers at all. And more than that:
This last verse clearly speaks of baptism and the New Birth. Now, you say that the "ungenuine" believers don't believe that Christ died for all their sins. Well, baptism is in the name of Christ for the remission of sins – so these people knew why they were Christians! Nowadays this might be less clear, esp. if you separate baoptism from repentance – but back then it was crystal clear.
And although these people once were sinners, have been forgiven and sanctified, Paul says in the same chapter:
Paul opens his second epistle to the church, 2 Corinthians 1:1 “To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia.”
Paul knew that there were not genuine believers among them, 2 Corinthians 13:5 “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.”
Jay will you please correct my typing – 2 Corithians 2:1 to 2 Corinthians 1:1.
Thank you
Anon,
Done.
BTW, I'm lobbying Theobloggers to add a plug in that gives commenters 30 minutes to edit their own comments. But WordPress just released a new version, which will likely obsolete many existing plug ins — so be patient.
OK, Anonymous.
I know this verse, but please tell me: Where do you see the word genuine?
I'm serious. Paul is speaking of being in the faith. This is not about having genuine faith but about maintaining faith. Let me explain:
You can be "in Christ", like a branch on the vine. Does nat mean, your salvation is settled? No, because Jesus says we have to "remain in Him" – if we don't we won't bring fruit and will be cut off. There is this double-sided relationship in tha parable of the vine and the branches: "Christ in us – We in Christ"; and Paul mentiones the "Christ in us"-part in 2Co 13:5.
In the parable of the seed Jesus says:
and in time of testing fall away.
Jesus does not question whether the faith is genuine or not. He acknowledges the faith but laments that it did not last very long.
That's the point: Faith and salvation are not static, it is not a once-for-all-thingy that once you came to "genuine" faith you can never be lost again. Faith is a living and obedient relationship with Christ. Love can grow cold and Christians become disobedient (Mt 24:12). Christians can hold fast to the word of life or can have believed in vain if they don't (Php 2:16). Christians have to persevere in faith, love and obedience until the end (Mt 24:13).
So the question we should ask ourselves is: Do we still have this living faith? Do we still produce fruit? Are we still in Christ? That's the point in 2Co 13:5 read in the light of these other scriptures.
If they are not in Christ, they are (literally) "rejected" ones. In the following verse Paul says that he is not rejected, but in 1Co 9:27 he admitts that if he himslef would not live up to Christ#s standards he would be a castaway (same word there). So even for Paul, salvation is nothing he took for granted.
Does that make sense to you?
Alexander
Where does the passage say “still” in the faith? Paul said to examine whether you are in the faith.
Obviously there were those who professed to have faith who were not true believers.
You can be “in Christ”, like a branch on the vine. Does not mean, your salvation is settled? No, because Jesus says we have to “remain in Him” – if we don’t we won’t bring fruit and will be cut off. In the parable of the seed Jesus says: Luke 8:13 “But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.” – Alexander
These have NO ROOT, John makes it clear that there are those who are not genuine believers.
True believers remain, continue.
No one who goes on to live a lifestyle of sin has ever been a genuine believer, those who do have NEVER known Him.
Those born of God CANNOT live a lifestyle of sin for His seed REMAINS in them. Our life is no longer characterized by sin, we hate it when we sin and acknowledge it.
Do we mess up, absolutely we do, sometimes we fall flat on our faces, we are a work in progress, God doesn’t leave us laying on the ground injured, but picks us up.
The true believers overcomes the world through faith for Jesus tells us, John 16:33 “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
I have a thought here. If I'm wrong, please help me out. This thought is seemingly unrelated, but I'll try to share my understanding. The only sin of which man cannot be forgiven is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I've often wondered about what this blasphemy might mean, but I think it's right under our nose if we're willing to study the interactions of Christ with the Pharisees. In one of Jesus' first recorded miralcles in Mark 2, we find a man lowered through the roof in order to be made able to walk again. The first thing Jesus did was pronounce forgiveness of sins. That was blasphemy to those there and they made no secret of their disdain. They denied the ability of Jesus to forgive sins. However, Jesus gave a physical sign of who he was by performing a physical miracle. Now I submit a question to you: which was the greater miracle? You see, later on, the Pharisees eventually accused Jesus of performing miracles by the power of Satan. Regardless of whether it was a physical or spiritual miracle, the Pharisees were in complete denial ofthe power of Christ. Now, let's put this in the context of our discussion here. There are those who claim that Jesus' death was completely sufficient and that our obedience does not contribute to our salvation. There is another camp that believes that salvation is something be attained in the future and that salvation is a process. I tend to lean toward the former based on the writings of Paul from Romans 6, onward. Our salvation in that passage is almost exclusively referred to in "past tense" language. If this is the case, then our faith must be that Jesus had sufficient power to do what he said he did. However, I am bound by the fact that if I don't bear fruit, then I will be cut off and that I will be deemed a fraud for not doing what the Holy Spirit has empowered me to do. How do I reconcile the two, true teachings here? First, if we claim that our salvation depends upon our obedience then we deny the power of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, as he HISTORICALLY did what we could not do for ourselves. However, if we claim that we can "continue in sin so that grace may abound" we deny the power of the Holy Spirt given to us at the moment of our salvation to lead us into holy and righteous lives. Either way, we are guilty of denying the work of God! These two concepts give me motivation in two highly encouraging ways. First, if I place my trust in the historical fact of Christ's life, death, burial and resurrection, then I will live in a way that that pleases him out of gratitude. When I feel weak and don't have the motivation to do right, I am reminded by that same historical fact that Jesus HAS given me salvation AND the Holy Spirit that empowers me to do right, even though I may not feel like it. This is why it is CRITICAL that we not become distracted from the truth that is the historical fact of Christ's life, death and resurrection.
Our faith in the accomplished work of Christ must ALWAYS precede obedience. If we obey simply based upon what Christ "will do" (yes I've taken Rom. 2:7 into account) then we deny what HE has already done. If we disobey because we claim we don't have the power to do right, then we are simply doing what the Hebrew writer says is "trampling underfoot the blood of Christ". All said, it is truly "grace through faith" that saves.
You can't take just one verse, Anonymous, and draw conclusions that contradict the concept of faith. You have way to interpret scriptures that is not uncommon, but actually very problematic.
The concept of faith is that it is not static. It is probably best illustrated by the parable of the vine and the branches – or in general to be found in the words of Jesus first. So if someone who is a beliver should check ehether he is in the faith, then it is not about genuine faith (a question never raised) but about maintaining faith. If you disagree, you disagree – just stay remain to the Lord until the end.
On of the problem I locate in our discussion: You seem to tie faith always to the accomplished work of Christ. This is the foundation of everything, of course. But I tie faith to the person of Christ, which makes faith a relationship of love and faithful obedience. Recognizing that without Him I can do nothing "forces" me to stay "in Him", but I also know that I can indulge in sin and build a wall that separates me from Christ which is the road to hell if I don't repent.
The accomplished work of Christ is beneficial only to those who believe. If you tie belief to a sort of "genuine belief" that believes that Christ dies for all our sins (preesent, past future – as some say), then at least it seems that sins cannot make you lost again, because they are already "preforgiven".
If however you tie faith to the person of Christ in the sense of a living, obedient laove-faith-relationship, then the forgiveness of sins is no less real or powerful, but it becomes conditional. If I turn away from Christ, I turn away from His life and eternity.
How much have these two texts in common other that people turn away from Christ and His church? Nothing. There are so many reasons why this can happen. In John's letter it is about people who never really were "orthodoc´x" Christians, but Gnostics who crept into the church – a problem the churches faced in these days (as mentioned in the other letters of John and the letter of Jude and in 1+2 Timothy).
But about the ones who died in the hot son, the Lord said:
So the seed has been sown and it grew up.
This means: The seed – the word of God – has been received in faith and a plant started to grow. This is the new life. This plant has alle the power in itself to grow and to bloom and to bring fruit. That's God's work in us.
It had roots (otherwise the plant would not grow), but they were not deep enough; so when the Lord said it had no roots He meant they were not seep enough, not that they had no roots at all.
So here it is about born again Christians. The Lord never questions their faith, neverquestions the plant, never questions the seed. He just states their roots don't reach deep enough.
You must understand Johns style of writing, too, anonymous -niot just grab verses out of context. The same John says that we all sin now and then and that we have to confess them (1Jo 1:9) and we have to pray for brothers (!) who sin in order to save their lives (!!!) (1Jo 5:16).
Again, please don't take singele verses without understanding the concept of faith. … More a little later
Alexander
Boy, I really was in a hurry at the last post (so many typing errors – I hope it still made sense to you).
Well, now I am back, a little more relaxed. I thought up an analogy in the meantime:
Focussing on the complete work of Christ is like looking at the foundation, statics and and the roof of a house. You can look at it and say: It is a perfect house, the roof will never leak, the walls will stand firm for eternity on solid ground. There as absolute security – we have a Kingdom which is unshakable. And God handed us the keys to it completely for free.
And every sentence of this analogy is completely and 100% true.
Yet, there is another aspect which is equally and 100% true as well. You have to be and remain in the house in order to be safe. As long as you are outside the house, the foundation, statics and roof profit you nothing. This is the meaning of "abide in me" in the parable of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-16). How do we abide in Him? By obeying whatever He commands (John 15:10). If we continue in sin, we will be cut off the vine as dead and fruitless (although we already have been on the vine through the New Birth). Back to the Analogy: We will be thrown out of the house again.
Now, does that in any way diminish the perfectness of the foundation, statics or roof of the house? Not at all. Nor does being cut off the vine in any way diminish the perfect sacrifice ofthe perfect Lamb of God.
Does that make sense to you, Anonymous?
I want you to know and understand, that what I am talking about is really a paradigm shift. I used to believe exactly the same way you do (honestly – I used the same verses in exactly the same way), and it took me some years to grasp the difference between the Gospel of the Reformation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Once I got it, I was all shocked, disillusioned at first. But then I discovered great joy in it, because now I know it is not about having "genuine faith" but about maintaining faith.
As I have told Royce: The quest for "genuine faith" actually leads you back to focussing on works in order to have that security of salvation. Why? because ALL say: "Genuine" faith will be shown by its works. So how can I be sure I have "genuine" faith? By looking at my works. And if by any chance I should fall from grace some day, everyone who believes this doctrine would say: "Well, Alexander never really was born again."
I really urge you to think this through: If someone tomorrow can claim, I have never really be born again – How can I claim to be saved today, even if I have works and fruit to proove my faith is "genuine"? Isn't that a real dilemma?
So, it is not about a verse here and a verse there or even a list of proof-texts. It is about understanding the concept of faith. It is not as the Evangelicals think it is – we have to start reading the Gospels again, hear it from our Lord Jesus Himself. And then we may return to Paul and John.
Please, think this through before you refer to verses I used to understand the same way as you do. There really is nothing new in this for me – first try to grasp the concept. I hope the analogy of the house at the beginning of this post serves as an eye-opener.
God bless you
Alexander
Dear Jody
Thank you, I think this sums it up quite accurately. There are two sides of God's Grace, and both are equally important.
Could you follow the analogy of the house in the above post?
Alexander