We’re working our way through Leroy Garrett’s book: What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved?
Now, by “saved” Garrett doesn’t mean that he questions the salvation of the individual members of the Churches of Christ. Rather, he is concerned to save the Churches of Christ as a “viable witness to the Christian faith. What must it do to escape extinction in the decades ahead …?”
In the preceding post, we began a discussion of how a Christian can fall away. We considered falling away for a loss of faith in Jesus or for a loss of repentance, that is, for rebellion by continually deliberately sinning against the known will of God. We didn’t have room to get to the loss of trust in God, that is, a loss of hope. How might a loss of trust damn?
(Gal 5:1-6 ESV) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Seeking to be “justified by law” causes a Christian to fall away from grace. What’s the opposite of this? Well, if “by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.” That is, if our faith includes trust in God to honor his covenant to count faith as righteousness. The “hope of righteousness” is confidence that God will count our faith as righteousness and be righteous to honor his promises to us.
We need to repeat a scripture from the last post —
(Gal 3:5-11 ESV) 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith — 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? 7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Paul is not using Abraham as a mere example or “type.” Rather, Abraham is the first to receive hope by God’s counting faith as righteousness. Paul’s point is that we are counted righteous because we have faith — because God is honoring his covenant with Abraham to do that very thing!
(Gal 3:14 ESV) 4 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Paul teaches the same lesson in Romans 4. It’s a critical part of his theology. But we don’t have to be an expert in theology to get the gist of the argument: God saves those with faith in Jesus. A four-year old can understand that much. This doesn’t have to be hard.
To have a true, saving faith, we must trust God to keep his promises. And the Galatians did not. Rather, they added boundary markers to faith in Jesus. They insisted the penitent, baptized believers had to add to their faith circumcision, holy days (Gal 4:10), and other marks of being separate from the world. And Paul responds by declaring them damned — indeed, as teaching a different gospel — because they sought to gain salvation by demanding obedience to particular positive commands rather than relying on faith in Jesus.
Who does that sound like? I have trouble seeing how that heresy differs from the “marks of the church” teaching that typifies much of the Churches of Christ. We teach that beyond faith (faith, hope, and love) and baptism, we must also have weekly offerings, a cappella music, the right name over the door, etc. or else be damned. These are not what get us saved but rather are essential boundary markers, that is, practices that show us to be the one true church — the Lord’s church, the household of faith — and only us. And those churches that are just like us in every way except for, for example, instrumental music, are thus damned — faith in Jesus, baptism, and all notwithstanding. You see, to us, faith is not nearly adequate. It’s just one of hundreds of obligations that must be satisfied perfectly to be saved.
And that’s a lack of faith/trust in God’s promises. That’s relying on our own holiness, rather than Jesus’, to be saved. It’s refusing to believe the simplest thing: God saves those with faith in Jesus.
We read a similar curse in Romans —
(Rom 3:7-8 ESV) 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?–as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
To someone with the “boundary marker” mentality, that is, who is steeped in the Galatian heresy, someone teaching grace as I’ve tried to explain it sounds like an antinomian, that is, to such a person, I sound as though I condone sin. But Paul declares those who condemn teachers of grace as sinners for being antinomian are justly condemned! You see, if you teach that grace is lawless, than you deprive God’s children of hope. You destroy the joy of their salvation. You teach that they cannot trust the promise to save those with faith in Jesus, and so you destroy believer’s trust in the promises of the scripture.
I know of members of the Churches of Christ who once went to sleep in tears each night, not able to believe that they’d not gotten all the rules right. You see, the Galatian heresy forces us to either be tender-hearted and so feel crushed by the weight of all the rules that come out in the church publications and tracts — or else to be hard-hearted and arrogantly conclude that we really have mastered the rules!
Grace, however, allows us to think of God as a loving father. And this leads to a story. We have a couple at church who just adopted a child from Ethiopia (formerly known as Abyssinia) who is HIV positive. They knew that before the adoption and chose to love him anyway. What could be more God-like?
Now, having adopted that child, they’ve learned that he has many serious diseases and conditions. It’s going to be tough. And, do you know what? They aren’t going to send him back to Ethiopia. No, even though his health is only getting worse, they are going to love him all the more — but they are also going to do everything in their power to bring him back to health. But as an HIV sufferer, he’ll never be truly in good health. He can get a whole lot better, but not well.
When God adopts us, we’re a mess. And sometimes, we become an even bigger mess afterward. But he doesn’t send us into the Abyss. No, he just loves us all the more, but he also works with us to bring us back to health. But even though we’ll never get fully well — we’ll not defeat the sin problem in this life, not totally — we’ll get better because of God’s loving ministrations.
This is grace. A loving father expects his children to grow in his will, to become more and more obedient, but no father expects perfection. And every father knows that children will sometimes rebel. And when they do, we try to hold them close and love them all the more. We fathers figure the best cure for rebellion is a passionate love than cannot be shaken.
Now, I’ve known a few kids raised by parents who had no grace in them. The kids could never please their parents. They weren’t allowed to make mistakes or misunderstand. Sometimes they were punished for not guessing what the parents wanted. And these kids wound up messed up in serious ways. Many died young from suicide or drug overdoses.
Which kind of parent is God? And what kind of person would you be if you taught parents to raise their children without grace? And what kind of preacher are you if you teach your members that there’s no grace for hundreds of rules, buried in the silences of scriptures — rules that even the conservative Churches can’t agree on?
(Gal 2:11-12 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.
When leaders of God’s people teach that we should break fellowship over marks other than faith (faith, hope, love), they stand where Peter stood.
Yes, Garrett is right to call for repentance. Indeed, how could he love his brothers in the Churches of Christ and do otherwise?
Jay,
A preacher friend once told me he had an elder whose wife and daughter were killed in an auto accident. He naturally took the man under his wing to comfort his grief, but begin to notice something else was wrecking this poor man’s soul. The elder finally confessed that he was terrified that his wife and daughter had not asked God to forgive them of their sins the morning before they died.
That is the poison of law keeping. It can make forgetting to say one’s daily prayer a falling from grace. I am sure some are saying “Well, that is an extreme case”. It is no more extreme than some of the other reasons many CoC leaders, and members, have people eternally damed.
it is frustrating to try to keep earning your salvation that is so easily lost to the Boogieman that is only going to allow so few to enter heaven.
Narrow is the way!!!
Many especially the young have simply given up and go to various denominations for some comfort.
John is right. I have heard several other Christians express the same kind of concerns. In fact, I used to feel that way too.
Jay:
It has interested me to see just how close in thought you have been in this essay and others in the “What Must…” series to work of the seventeenth century French Catholic priest and mystic Louis de Montfort.
His famous words seem to echo here: Sola fides sufficit (“Faith and good intentions are quite enough.”) (Louis de Montfort, Secret of the Rosary, Liverpool, UK: Montfort Press, 1992).
Louis de Montfort’s phrase is also the foundation for a 2009 article in revertconvert.blogspot.com (the Joyful Catholic) that challenges sola scriptura. What she writes sounds much like what you are pleading in this series of posts.
Is that what you have intended? If so, have you given up sola scriptura? If no, how do you separate yourself from sola fides sufficit?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Thanks, John. I was once where that man was — worried that if I failed to pray often enough for forgiveness, I’d surely be damned. It was hell on earth. Imagine the Kingdom of Heaven interpreted by preachers so that it becomes hell in the here and now. It’s dreadful theology.
Bruce,
I am not the one here who builds doctrines from the early church fathers — as the Catholics do. I reject such reasoning.
The article you reference says (I guess this is the one since you cited the blog and not the article),
http://revertconvert.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-reason-sola-scriptura-is-bad.html (Notice how I courteously provide the full citation).
This article demands that we honor the interpretation of scripture by the Magisterium. (See definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium).
Are you SERIOUSLY contending that I’m arguing for this? You can’t be serious. Disagreeing with you does not make me a Catholic.
Bruce
If you’re going to make an attempt to draw some sort of parallel between Jay’s current series and the “famous words” of Louis de Montfort, then I recommend you spend some additional study time reading Montfort’s works, ideology, and more importantly, the context that gives meaning to his Sola fides sufficit phrase. As someone who has studied Montort’s works in-depth, I’m at loss to understand how you have observed parallels between the contextual meaning of Sola fides sufficit and the insights from Jay’s latest blog entries. Maybe you can respond with some additional thoughts. Regarding sola scriptura, based on what I’ve read of Jay’s writing, unlike his conservative CoC brothers, I suspect he’s generally a champion of that specific doctrine.
Regards,
Doug
Alabama John, on August 25th, 2011 at 3:14 pm Said:
it is frustrating to try to keep earning your salvation that is so easily lost to the Boogieman.
John , do you think it should be easier to earn salvation, than pay for a new car, When you make the down payment, you have to keep up with the payments or it will be repossessed.
Unless someone just gives it to you, then I suppose you are not obligated to the giver in any way. unless you expect to receive another gift.
That’s too bad, Jay. Because then you are interpreting the scriptures with a 2000 year gab, both culturally and linguistically. And by such a “selfconfident” approach you are bound to miss the point(s).
Theat’s why I always check whether my conclusions are in harmony with the 2nd century church of Christ. I distrust the 20th century church of Christ as much as you do, Jay – but I distrust the 21st century progressive church of Christ even more! That’s why I listen to the 2nd cetury church of Christ. I don’t want to have a 2000 year gap in my interpretation of the Bible, I strive for the oringinal understanding thereof, based on the writings of those who were but one ore two generations removed from the Apostles.
Alexander
Doug,
I have not noticed anyone else posting under the name “Doug” but I also have been posting under the name “Doug” for a while at Jay’s site. It might get confusing having two Doug’s so if you plan to continue posting here, please let me know and I’ll change my identity.
Doug
laymond,
In buying a car you have a contract that is very clear on how much you pay, when its due, and the penalty for not following the agreement. Anyone can read and understand it exactly.
Reaching heaven should be just as easy to understand.
We should be able to to understand easily what is expected and required of us to enter the state of being saved and to continue being saved.
So:
(a) The contract of a loving God is very simple and clear. God loves us and wants us all to be with him in heaven. We make it difficult.
(b) God is a jokester and enjoys watching us squirm trying to interpret every word, phrase, what is impossible to interpret so all but a few are going to be allowed in heaven. The devil wins very easily.
(c) We can only be saved by the letter of the law and if one thing is missed at any time, you are lost. This assumes that the English version of the Bible is perfect even though we know books are missing. Irregardless, God will hold you in error whether you obey anything you don’t have or not. Ignorance is no excuse.
I choose A and do not live in fear but in anticipation of eternal bliss!
As simple as this sounds, it does not answer one single question of the following:
What does heaven mean (and what about the new earth)?
This means: What are we looking forward to?
Further: How? How are we going to be with Him in eternity?
How then shall we to live?
You know, no one doubts that this is God’s will, since we all know 1Ti 2:4 and other similar texts. But what we are discussing is the role of baptism (Mark 16:16), obedience (Rom 1:5) and sanctification (Heb 12:14). Here something is required from us besides “faith” – or if someone wants to be very accurate: “Faith works” – but I don’t think it is wise to include all of this in “faith” since this is not the way common people understand the term. For them “to believe” or to have “faith” is more or less a mental activity apart from our works; and Protestant theology has its share in this misconception.
Therefore such statements are of little value.
I agree that God is not that kind of a being. But He is a communicating God, a God who speaks and wants to be understood. Sometimes it takes a little more effort – silence, time, humility, submission – to get His message. And the disputes we have sometimes are between those who invest more of these virtues and those who invest less of them.
I cannot admit that the interpreation of a scripture by a person who is shallow, superficial and worldly has the same weight then one of disciple who e.g. sufferered for our King (that’s why I really appreciate the Early Church’s writings).
Scripture is quite clear that ignorance is an excuse. While I agree that the position you sum up is very different from the NT teachings, I must anyway point to Mat 28:20: We are to learn to keep all that Christ has commanded. Two things: All means All. And second: learning is a lifelong process, moving from ignorance to knowledge and maturity. The latter does not reduce the “all” to “some”.
Alexander,
Enjoyed your thoughtful reply post. Thanks.
To answer your 5 questions about eternity, who knows, Who cares, simply TRUST! Isn’t it a wonderful surprise to look forward to. To think you have to study to know these things to be acceptable is wrong. it can only lead to one more opinion, that’s all. Does it make you a scholar or serious student to have an opinion? Most time just the opposite. Some of the especially less spiritual are the most edecatd. They depend on themselves, their teachers, and their abilities too much.
I was never a member of those 7 churches specifically written to and neither was any of my kin. My blood up until 2 hundred years ago was far from there but not far from the Holy Spirit, Christ and our God.
Christ appeared to many after His crucifixion.
Don’t think only those of the early churches suffered for Christ. In every generation up to today there are those that suffer(ed) just as much. Not taking anything away from the early Christians, as they are written in our Bible and should get the credit they deserve. So should the later on sufferers even though not written about and disappeared into history. Unsung heroes.
The question asked is: How does a Christian fall from grace? By being too much a follower and worshiper of law, most twisted and made law by man and the Church above all else.
That is the sin we must flee and ask forgiveness for.
Jay:
That is not the weblog article I was referring to. She wrote a 2009 article that made me think of you. But to get to the point again…
Yes, you are sounding more and more like an advocate of sola fides sufficit (“Faith and good intentions are quite enough.”) Louis de Montfort wrote a study that is as thoroughly postmodern (in the seventeenth century!) as anything I have read.
Let’s not make this about “disagreeing with Bruce Morton.” Let’s make this about you facing a very tough question with candor. It is a watershed question facing churches of Christ… and all religious groups today.
So… are you suggesting we embrace sola fides sufficit (which seems like the case and seems like what Leroy Garrett is proposing) or no? And if no, how do you differ?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Doug,
I’ve renamed the other Doug “Doug2” — until he picks another sobriquet.
Doug,
My apology…I’ve read Jay’s blog entries for some time but have never left a comment until last night. As the newcomer, I need to be the one that choses a unique identiy. No identity theft intented…appreciate the gracious response.
Thanks.
Bruce,
I’m not familiar with the writings of Montfort and have no desire to become familiar. Therefore, I am unequipped to answer whether or not I agree with him about anything. The important question, I’m sure you’d agree, is whether I agree with scripture.
The scriptures say,
I not only agree with these passages, I celebrate, indeed, revel in them!
I’d caution that there’s a strand of 20th Century CoC teaching that detests those the preaching of “sincerity.” Indeed, it’s such a hot-button word that I try to avoid it. But the scriptures demand sincerity —
But as the 1 Tim 1:5 says, what must be sincere is faith in Jesus. Not just any faith and not just any belief system.
I am troubled that there are those who not let Paul preach a three-point sermon on love that issues from —
1 a pure heart and
2 a good conscience and
3 a sincere faith
This, he says, is the “aim [or goal] of our charge.”
Paul continues,
May we all heed the warning.
I know churches that would brand such preaching heresy!
Doug2,
Pick what name (other than “Doug”) you prefer, and I’ll be glad to edit your previous comments to reflect your choice.
Jay:
That was eloquent, but it did not answer the question. And perhaps part of the challenge is that you are thinking “Montfort” versus what his point is (it is not important that you or I be well-versed in Louis de Montfort’s writings).
All that you quote is true… And Louis de Montfort (and Vatican II) quotes significant portions of Scripture too. But that does not address what is at the heart of the question here. Sola fides sufficit represented a represented a careful, powerful challenge to the very heart of the Reformation. It urged the “faithful” to not “take issue” with anything beyond faith in Jesus. From what I can tell you (and Leroy Garrett) are there too, Jay.
I was highlighting the example of seventeenth century Catholic theology because it is (surprisingly) postmodern!, it lines up well with an Americanized Gospel, and it is emotionally easy to embrace. And when we embrace such, we do not realize how close we become (churches of all names) exactly what Catholicism was about in the age of Reform!
I encourage you to take a little more time with the dilemma that ought to be very uncomfortable to you.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
And the dilemma is what exactly? A choice between what and what else? Are you saying I’m too close to the Reformation or too close to the Catholics? To orthodox Catholics? Or to a particular Catholic?
Can we go back to talking about the Bible?
Let me explain it with simple words – I have never read Montfort either:
“Faith is essential, all other things can be relegated as matters of opinion and freedom.”
In the end, Leroy’s position (and in part yours) boil down to exactly this. Therefore your call/request to simply go back to the Bible is not really honest, because you refer only to the portions of the Bible that confirm and underline your “faith only” theology. “Sola fides sufficit = Faith alone is sufficient”.
“Let’s therefore end all controvetrsies on baptism, the one church, women in leadership and the like – we all have faith and this should be sufficient! Isn’t that the message?”
But then I have a problem with the NT which speaks of learning to obey ALL that Christ has commanded (Mat 28:20); and 1Co 14:34-37 speaks of one of these commands; in fact all of the apostles’ writings are the commands of Christ (2Pe 3:2; 2Th 2:15) Therefore “faith alone” won’t unite us, Jay, but strict adherence to the Word of God without adding to it nor taking away from it.
Yes, in this sense we shall be talking about the Bible. But so far this is not the case, because “faith alone” is taking away from scripture.
Alexander
Small correction: I just remembered I HAVE read a book of Louuis de Montfort, called “The Golden Book” – a book on the veneration of Mary. Quite strong stuff ….
Alexander
Alexander:
Thank you for chiming in. Yes, you summarized well.
Jay:
And why was sola fides sufficit so important in the seventeenth century? It represented a way to “call the faithful” back from all the splintering of the Reformation — as a result of all of that sola scriptura emphasis.
So…do we need to chat with others? Absolutely. Let’s not “stand off” and keep our distance. Let’s chat often… about apostolic teaching. Let’s sift through the divisions and listen to the Word together. That is what the Reformers were about.
It is NOT what seventeenth century Catholicism was about. Instead, they chose an easy path of “faith in Jesus… and good intentions — and we will all be fine!” If we take Leroy Garrett’s approach, we will find ourselves looking less like Reformers and more like folks who believe sola fides sufficit.
Is that clear enough, Jay? Disagree all you wish, but the history is there for the reading….
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
The problem that I see is that many make commandments out of incidentals – and such commands multiply like the proverbial rabbits.
That is why there is so little agreement on exactly what is required – which results in the divisions we all deplore.
(Jay, please note the change of my email address. My former address is no longer operative. I doubt it will “bounce back” to you, if used, but will not reach me as I can no longer access it due to an unfortunate experience with a password manager program through my own negligence. Thank you.)
Jerry