Several readers have posted comments objecting to Leroy Garrett’s characterization of the Churches of Christ as “sectarian.” The word “sectarian” takes on a variety of meanings depending on the context, but I think it’s clear from Leroy’s writing that he is referring to the well-known tendency of many within the Churches to consider only those in the Churches as saved. Indeed, we all know that many members of the Churches of Christ would draw the circle even tighter, excluding many or even most members of the Churches of Christ.
Now, this raises two or three questions. One is whether it’s fair for Leroy to single out the Churches of Christ as sectarian when so many other organizations are equally sectarian — which is quite the same as telling the highway patrolman he can’t arrest you because so many others are speeding! It doesn’t work, you know. It’s a diversion from the actual question, which is whether you are a speeding (or sectarian). We can’t plead the sins of others as a defense for our own sinfulness.
Another question is whether there’s anything wrong in the first place with being sectarian in this sense. Indeed, if one wishes to argue that only the Churches of Christ (or a subset thereof) are saved, then one may seriously object to Leroy’s criticism. But to pursue this defense, it’s necessary to demonstrate that in fact only those in the Churches of Christ (or some subset thereof) are saved. It’s clearly inadequate to pick at the positions of those who assert a broader view of grace. You can’t prove your position merely by criticizing the position of others. At some point, you have to get serious about your theology and explain just what your position is. Not agreeing with Leroy or Jay is not a theology and proves nothing.
This leads to a very important point. In fact, this may be the most important theological issue facing the Churches of Christ today. It’s just plain not good enough to pick at the positions of others. If your position is that only those in the Churches of Christ (or some subset thereof) are saved, then it’s incumbent on you to set forth a scriptural argument for why that might be true. You do not prove your point by arguing for the damnation of Catholics and Baptists. Rather, you must demonstrate from the scriptures a simple syllogism —
Major Premise: Such-and-such is the test for who is and who isn’t saved.
Minor Premise: The Churches of Christ (or a specified subset thereof) meets this test, and no one else does.
Conclusion: The Churches of Christ (or subset) are saved, and no one else is.
If you can’t state a scriptural case for that argument, you came to your conclusion by tradition, assumption, or something else other than serious study of and thought regarding the Bible. You just can’t plausibly expect anyone to take your teaching seriously if you can’t even state your Major Premise.
In these sorts of discussions there’s a tendency to ask what I call “Well, what about …” questions. If you don’t like my views, it’s easy to try to disprove my position by asking whether I think Catholics or Baptists or Presbyterians are saved. But there is no end to such questions. If I take a few hours to answer those questions, the result is always another series of questions about Wiccans or someone a reader talked to at a coffee shop or whatever.
Such questions are entirely valid when they are offered to help me and the readers sharpen the edges of our thinking about just where the scriptures draw the line between lost and saved. I’m glad to answer such questions, as best I can, when the intent is to refine our understanding of the scriptures. In fact, I’ve often asked myself just those kind of questions.
But when the intent is to make my views look bad so that the reader’s view is affirmed, well, that’s a seriously flawed argument if the reader is unwilling to even state his view of what the scriptures say about who is and isn’t saved. You can’t prove your view is right by attacking mine — when you aren’t even willing to state your own view.
Therefore, such exercises are a colossal waste of time and just plain not interesting. And such challenges are hugely unfair. It’s easy to ask hard questions when you’re unwilling to state your Major Premise and so are immune from parallel challenge!
And that’s why such debating tactics are unfair. You see, every position anyone might take will have difficult questions to answer around the edges. And so, many people refuse to ever state a position just so that their position can’t be challenged — leaving them free to challenge others without fear of having to deal with the same kind of hard questions.
If you think Leroy is wrong, the only response that answers his challenge is to state what you believe the correct Major Premise is and to then argue the Minor Premise. If you can’t state a Major Premise, you necessarily don’t base your views on the scriptures and therefore have very little to offer here except criticism.
As Todd Deaver has demonstrated in Facing Our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ
My own views have been laid out extensively here several times. You’ll find them most easily in a series of ebooks available for free download —
Another presentation can be found at GraceConversation website.
One more point, and then I need to finish unpacking. I think I’ve answered every question that has been posed in the comments regarding Catholics, etc. in previous comments in response to the very same readers. This time, rather than re-answering the questions, I challenge anyone who disagrees with Leroy’s contention to state his or her own Major Premise and show where the scriptures support that view.
If you can’t, I urge you to read the books linked and — more importantly — to seriously question why you have a position that you can’t even state, much less defend from the scriptures. How can you so vigorously disagree with Leroy without having a well-thought out position of your own?
I pray that God gives us all deeper insight into his word and the character of his Kingdom.
Jay, is it not still fair to ask whether or not Leroy (and others like you) think that the churches of Christ are any worse than the other denominations who believe, teach and defend whatever particular doctrines that are particular to them? Are they just as in need of repentance?
You make a valid point about the whole speeding ticket thing, but a cursory reading makes it seem as though you believe that repentance is primarily incumbant upon the churches of Christ.
Is that true? Or, do you believe that all of the other denominations who insist on remaining true to their own beliefs are just as sectarian as the churches of Christ?
Or, are we the only ones who need to repent for not being willing to accept the teachings and practices of those of whom we disagree?
Do you not see the inconsistency here?!
Beautifully stated, Jay! Nice return from vacation. We’ll see if anyone can respond to your questions.
I can see that some churches of Christ are too narrow in stating that only those who are mebers of their own subgroups are saved – yet, until now I have never met one (only read about them). Certainly the churches of Christ in Europe that I fellowship with don’t share this attitude.
BUT I have met members of churches of Christ who went to another extreme. One even preached in our congregation. Let’s stick with the analogy of speeding.
We strive to keep the speed limits of 1Ti 2:12, but I see more and more churches passing us left and right shouting at us: “You are moving to slow! We are in the 21st century!” And – NO – we won’t follow them, and thus our fellowship breaks apart. Now you tell me, Jay: “Who must repent?”
In other words: We cannot paint a picture with the broad brush: The narrow minded churches of Christ must change their attitude. We must be more specific: They should change where they are wrong, where they speeded. But I don’t think someone who is speeding in a different area has the moral standing to call to repentance others without being willing to set the necessary steps himself.
Unity works both ways! We ALL (yes, me too) are not exactly where we ought to be – we must grow twoards unity. But we only grow, as long as we are willing to submit to the Word of God. Those speeding at 1Ti 2:12 are as guilty of splitting the churches as those who make premillenial eschatology a term of fellowship.
And – still UNANSWERED by you, Jay – we cannot fellowship with infant-baptizing churches in the sense of being one or in unity (we can cooperate on different other levels, though), because we cannot take out the One Baptism from the terms of unity in Eph 4:3-6. The infant-baptizers left the common ground – indeed, if you have read the struggles of Zwingli and Luther with the questions of baptism, how they once were critical of infant-baptism but still in the end kept the tradition for more or less political reasons (later justifying it theologically) this becomes obvious. Had they been more courageous and consistant, then ALL protestants today would baptize believers only for the remission of sins. Baptist theology of separating the conversion from water-baptism would most likely not have developed. But, alas, both major reformers backed away and left the job of restoration unfinished.
Therefore we have Presbyterians and Methodists, who stand outside the boundaries of Eph 4:3-6 – and we must respect and teach this “speed limit”. Therefore unity in the sense of this text is impossible unless they return to scriptural baptism. See, Leroy mentioned both groups as churches we ought to spiritually unify with, that’s why I point that out. Leroy’s understanding of unity is obviously lacking some scriptural basis.
Alexander
Not to be dense, but as a member of the Church of Christ who should we be calling on to repent of sectarianiam? I mean getting on to Leroy and Jay about calling us to repentance for our sin issues because they aren’t calling on others to repent of their sin issues is pretty silly. Yes, all groups have “sectarian” tendencies and “sectarian” members (those who feel thus and so are the sum total of the saved). But how can we call others to repentance before we ourselves have heeded the call. To demand that others get their house in order before we do is unBiblical and hell bound.
“Sectarian” is generally regarded as a perjorative term, and to accept that label is to admit defeat in an argument. But Jesus was sectarian (John 14:6). So Christianity as a whole is sectarian by excluding Jews. So, churches of Christ are certainly sectarian, and they should be. The question is do they draw the lines in the right places.
There are many statements in scripture that make a point of the form “Only X will be saved” or “All Y will be condemned.” The debate boils down to defining X and Y in those biblical statements.
Interesting parallel with this and the closed theology conversation, particularly with Baptism.
Why can we so easily say that God exists outside of time, and then limit God’s grace only to the temporal progression of our experience?
Specifically, for a God who experiences all time continuously, the baptized infant’s faith that comes 8, 18, or 80 years later, makes the baptism true. God experiences the future belief at the time of the infants baptism, thereby validating the infant baptism.
A deeper question is whether the baptism was valid all along, or only at the point of future belief – that is the open verses closed discussion. But both would say (I think) that God experiences the future belief and the infant baptism simultaneously – making no seperation in “time” between the baptism and the belief!!
To insist that one must discern a five-digit access code from the narratives of 27 different books is to force DaVinci Code logic on God’s plan of salvation. To assert that over 99 percent of all professed followers of Christ are disqualified due to technicalities is to portray God as the chief of all pharisees. To exult in the question, “Do you think that one church is as good as another?” is to admit that we are convinced we (the Church of Christ) are better than everyone else. We are fond of saying that our “religious neighbors” are sincere, but sincerely wrong. What’s the matter with people who can never consider that possibility in the first person?
Rob, I’ll assume that you believe not everyone will be saved. And I’ll assume that you believe you personally will be. My question then is how do you know you will be? What distinguishes you from someone who will not be saved? If you can’t answer that, then you can’t know that you are saved. I don’t think that is the message that scripture is communicating.
Of course if my above-stated assumptions are incorrect then we should be having a different conversation.
I would be really interested to hear Hank’s and Alexander’s answer to Jay’s direct question above: what is the “major premise” you would use to draw that line of salvation? Compared to answering that question, it’s relatively easy to say, “But certainly we can’t countenance [x] doctrine!” Jay’s post gets to the heart of this discussion, and so far very few people have been willing to engage with the question that’s been posed.
This is my answer to
Eph 4:3-6
It is a description of unity in the Spirit, but it describes what all saved persons have in common:
They are part of ONE BODY … not isolated Christians, but liked together as member in mutual service.
They share ONE HOPE … through the resurrection of Christ, a heavenliy inheritance that is going to be uncorruptable awaits us, given that we hold hast to and suffer with Christ.
They have been born again and filled with ONE SPIRIT … which is the great promise of the New Covenant, the new birth.
They share ONE FAITH … which is this conviction of unseen facts, and a loyal response to them.
They obey and bow to only ONE LORD … Christ the King and law-giver of the new covenant.
They have been washed in ONE BAPTISM … for the remission of sin and the entering into a covenant-relationship with God through Christ.
This makes them children of ONE FATHER … because they have been born again by water and spirit and the calling on the name of the Lord who is the head of the body and our eternal hope.
What is commonly left out is baptism, isn’t it? And that’s what I objected to when Leroy (and someteimes Jay also) extenmds fthe reight hand of felloship to methodists and presbyterians.
And other aspects deal with the One Lord – especially when such clear and specific commands as in 1Co 14:37 are being explained away and nullified (ordination of women as pastors) – Paul (not I) says, that such persons won’t be recognized, which means, they put themselves outside the limitations of the sevenfold unity summed up in Eph 4:3-6. In a way One Lord leads us back to CENI, but we need to be careful to understand this guideline the way it was intended to be understood: As a way to come to unity and not to make divisions. Why? Because we have to obey ALL that He has commanded, and therefore we need to be eager to clarify what this ALL is. It is about an attitude towards the One Lord we need to cuiltivate, not about perfection in all things. Churches however whose theology focusses in IOEA (= Ignore, Omitt, Explain Away) have a terribly wrong attitude towards Christ – and that’s one of the marks of liberal theology that can be found in almost all denominations (even among churches of Christ).
Alexander
Hank,
My audience is the Churches of Christ. I’m a member of a Church of Christ. The question put to us by Br. Garrett is whether the Churches of Christ need to repent. The answer, I believe, is yes.
Are there other denominations that have error they should repent of? Of course. But they are not my audience. And there are countless articles by Church of Christ authors urging them to repent. Our periodicals and tract racks are filled with essays demanding repentance by others. That point has been repeatedly been made — and sometimes made quite well.
But that is not the question put to us by Br. Garrett.
Now not all denominations are as sectarian as the Churches of Christ, but some are. We are not alone in insisting that only we are saved! But most denominations do not make such a claim.
Should those denominations that deny the salvation of others also be called upon to repent? Of course. Does the Church of Christ have standing to make such a request? No. We can hardly ask others to repent of their sectarianism until we’ve done so.
Finally, no one has suggested that we should “repent for not being willing to accept the teachings and practices of those of whom we disagree”! That’s not Leroy’s or my point! The point is that we can disagree about many (not all) things and still be brothers in Christ. For example, we can disagree about instrumental music and still see one another as brothers in Christ.
You see, one of the largest logical fallacies of the sectarian Church of Christ position is that we must agree on all practices and teachings to be united — which is obviously absurd as soon as the teaching is stated plainly. If we don’t have to agree on everything, then — obviously — we only have to agree on some things.
Thus, the discussion should thus move to what those some things are. And every time I make that point, I’m met with diversion and avoidance.
ao,
Thanks for your earlier comments. I thought they were excellent.
Alexander/aBasnar suggests Eph 4:3-6 as the Major Premise. In this, he would find agreement with countless 19th Century Restoration Movement sermons. And I agree with him — although the highly abbreviated nature of Paul’s teaching in Eph 4:3-6 requires some modest elaboration.
Amen!
Amen!
Amen! Indeed, as Christians and only Christians possess the Spirit, evidence of the Spirit in someone’s life is evidence that they are saved. Barton W. Stone made this point repeatedly in his teaching in the early 19th Century.
Amen! But I’d point out that the “unseen facts” are that Jesus is Lord, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, that he died, was buried, and resurrected on the third day. I’m not trying to be absolutely precise here; I just want to avoid the common 20th Century interpretation that “faith” consists of all commands found or implied in scripture.
Amen! I would quibble that the “new covenant” is not described in scripture as “law” but as the Spirit writing God’s law on the hearts of God’s people (Jer 31; Heb 8).
Again, amen! But I would make a couple of points —
1. There is no requirement in scripture that the convert’s intention in being baptized be to have his sins remitted. In the normal case, that is in fact one of many things that happens at baptism, but submission to baptism in obedience to God’s will is entirely sufficient. (I fear starting a whole new series of comments re-arguing this point, which we’ve covered extensively many times here.)
2. Baptism no more has to be performed perfectly than we must have perfect faith or perfect repentance. God accepts us based on our willingness to submit to Jesus as Lord, even though our submission will necessarily be imperfect. He judges our hearts. Hence, a flawed baptism will work if the convert has a genuine faith that prompts a genuine repentance — meaning that the convert was baptized in accordance with his understanding of God’s will.
Obviously, if someone were to be wrongly baptized in conscious rebellion against God’s known will, he’d not be saved at all, not because his baptism is flawed but because he’s hasn’t submitted to Jesus as Lord. But surely this is an extraordinarily rare event!
Moreover, the baptism that saves — the sine qua non of an effective baptism — is the baptism of the Spirit. It’s the Spirit’s work that saves, not the water. And God decides whether to send the Spirit, not the person conducting the baptism less than perfectly.
Amen and amen.
Alan,
I usually just read these days rather than comment because my reasoning pales in comparison to Jay’s. But in response to your questions from this morning, I believe I have been forgiven by God and reconciled with Him, not by accomplishment but by invitation. How might I contrast myself, you ask, with someone “who will not be saved?” Well, I RSVP’d in the affirmative. There are certainly people who reject God. For whatever reason, they choose not to return to a relationship with Him. I don’t rate my status in contrast to theirs. I simply pray they reconsider.
Does this mean I put no import on obedience? It doesn’t mean that at all. I celebrate with everyone else when someone is baptized. But do I fret when the person who has the honor of doing the baptizing fails to say “for the remission of sins” during the proceeding? I do not. Nor do I issue edicts on any other alleged imperfections in the process by our group or others.
I had the great honor of spending an afternoon with brother Garrett a couple of years ago. One of the topics we discussed was the idea of “available light.” This is not the same thing as universal atonement, though some argue that it is. I guess the best way to describe our conversation is not that he changed my mind, rather he simply helped me reorganize my understanding of grace. By its very nature, or should I say, by His very nature, God can forgive imperfect understanding of process just as easily as He can willful and deliberate sin.
I believe we need to get over the notion of doing things “in a worthy manner.” Surely we want to be pleasing to God, but we will never be right enough or good enough to earn a place at the table. We are invited guests and I don’t dare protest who purposes to sit beside me in the presence of our gracious host.
Paul didn’t get over the notion of doing things “in a worthy manner”.
I could go on. There are many more examples. But perhaps the most conclusive passage comes from Jesus himself:
So there is much more expected of those who would enter the kingdom of heaven than merely RSVP’ing in the affirmative.
Himself: “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon 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 every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
It is the attitude of worthiness I was addressing, not the attempt.
On that we agree. After we have done everything, we should say “I am just an unworthy sinner.” That doesn’t relieve me of the responsibility to do my duty.
Jay, perhaps I may be a tad sensitive and slightly defensive whenever I come on to your self-described “progressive” blog. But NOWHERE do I see Leroy coming within ten feet of even alluding to the fact that the wicked problem of sectarianism (as he understands it) may be shared by ANY churches other than the coc from which we’ve all come. He writes as if the non progressive coc’s are the ONLY churches in need of repentance and who must act quickly in order “to escape distinction.” But, if there are scores of other denominations in the same boat (as he sees it) don’t you think it may have helped his cause to at least mention the fact that the coc is not tho ONLY one in need of “being saved.”
Surely he knows that the congregations he is writing about err…., appealing to, for the most part believe that Leroy needs to do some repenting himself in order to be saved. And I just think he probably would get a better listen were he not so inflammatory and sarcastic. If he truly hoped to bring about the change he declares to be desirous of, he probably should have taken a less divisive tone. While we all know that there are untold articles, sermons, and event entire lectureships of blasting the “progressives” / “liberals” / “change agents” out of the water — Leroy, to me, has merely “blasted back.” And while many of the “progressives” (as you and others call yourselves) may really enjoy the read… I just believe that Leroy would have had a better shot at bringing change had he at least in passing, mentioned the fact that the other denominations who have refused to progress (change their beliefs) in any number of beliefs and practices are equally sinful (in his estimation). Having chosen not to do so, he makes it seem as the the book is merely his attempt to get some stuff off his chest.
Jay, you write that:
“Finally, no one has suggested that we should “repent for not being willing to accept the teachings and practices of those of whom we disagree”! That’s not Leroy’s or my point! The point is that we can disagree about many (not all) things and still be brothers in Christ. For example, we can disagree about instrumental music and still see one another as brothers in Christ.”
But, it just doesn’t seem as though that is all he is saying. He didn’t say that we can reject (not accept) the teachings and practices of those of whom we disagree. Did he? What did he say? What he did say is we ought to invite those same people to address our assemblies. And like I said, the only way that would seem possible for me is to have the “visiting” preacher promise not to invoke the sinners prayer, or play his guitar. I mean, how else can we accept the brother without accepting his teachings and/or practices?? Tell us how?
You see, you and I can read the same work and come away with totally different viewpoints. Perhaps that is why you are met with so much “diversion and avoidance.”
Hank wrote,
Hank,
You are truly avoiding the issue. First, I don’t know a single Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian who considers Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians the only saved people. Yes, they’d consider the Churches of Christ in error on any number of issues, but they wouldn’t refuse fellowship over most of them. In my experience, the issue that breaks fellowship is our sectarian attitude (as far as they’re concerned) is the fact that my conservative brothers consider them all damned. It’s hard to fellowship someone who considers you damned!
Second, sharing the pulpit with “denominational” preachers is just not that challenging. Our preacher was once asked to speak at a local, very large Baptist Church as part of a pulpit swap program designed to build bridges among congregations in town. Of course, we were expected to open our pulpit to preachers from outside the Churches of Christ.
He spoke to the Baptist Church, and we heard from a Methodist and a Baptist preacher — and both the sermons were excellent. Both preachers were sensitive not to tread on our scruples. They didn’t invite anyone to say the “sinner’s prayer” or preach once saved, always saved. They just preached the gospel.
Meanwhile, we had hundreds of visitors from other denominations who joined us in some wonderful a cappella singing before and after the sermons. They learned to respect our a cappella practice and we learned that men of good will can preach the gospel regardless of denominational label.
And the Baptist Church where our preacher spoke was delighted to hear a message from a non-sectarian Church of Christ who was pleased to share a lesson from God’s word with them.
It was a good, healthy experience — and we’ve been shunned by several among our Church of Christ brothers because we took an opportunity to speak God’s word to the Baptists at the price of letting them speak God’s word to us. Evidently, the Church of Christ perspective is that they’ll stop teaching error if we’ll just refuse to have any kind of relationship with them at all — and what how well is that working for us?
The relationships built from that experience served us well when we cooperated with the Baptists and Methodists in serving refugees from Katrina (unlike the other Churches of Christ in town, who kept themselves “pure” by refusing to cooperate with “the denominations”). And no one brought a guitar.
Finally, I remain convinced that the reason I’m hearing so much diversion and avoidance is because the conservative readers cannot state their Major Premise. And when humans are challenged to re-think a closely held viewpoint to which they are emotionally attached, the natural, human reaction is to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance — the dawning realization that a viewpoint — which to many defines their identity — is indefensible.
What I hear when i try to talk with my conservative friends, preachers, elders, deacons is they don”t want to read or talk about anything they consider error as it is a waste of their time.
Don’t want to discuss it.
Jay, I am not avoiding the issue. I simply disagree with the compromises in truth you and your church were/are willing to make in hopes of unifying yourselves with the Baptists and Methodists. I stated that the only possible way I could envision the “pulpit swap” not causing major problems would be if the Baptist pastor promised not to invoke the “sinner’s prayer” and if the Church of Christ guy promised not to teach what the Bible does regarding baptism.
Brother, don’t you think that for a preacher, who would normally preach baptism for the forgiveness of sins, to not speak about baptism for “the sake of unity”, has compromised the truth?! We’re not talking about “hand clapping” or “mic’d singers” here. You see, many of us here STILL believe that you can’t really preach the gospel without teaching what the book of God declares regarding baptism. (You sure can’t teach a sinner how to be saved without baptism). I just don’t understand how you can honestly consider baptism v. the sinners prayer to be “scruples”
You wrote:
“…sharing the pulpit with “denominational” preachers is just not that challenging. Our preacher was once asked to speak at a local, very large Baptist Church as part of a pulpit swap program designed to build bridges among congregations in town. Of course, we were expected to open our pulpit to preachers from outside the Churches of Christ.
He spoke to the Baptist Church, and we heard from a Methodist and a Baptist preacher — and both the sermons were excellent. Both preachers were sensitive not to tread on our scruples. They didn’t invite anyone to say the “sinner’s prayer” or preach once saved, always saved. They just preached the gospel.”
Do you really actually believe that our rejection of the “sinner’s prayer” is merely one of “our scruples”?!
Suppose your “preacher” and the Baptist pastor “swapped pulpits” for an entire year, would that require that nobody be taught how to become a Christian for an entire year??
For real?….
Hank,
Quite obviously the idea of a year-long pulpit swap is not on the table here or anywhere. The Baptists would be no more interested in it than we would be.
Just so, I can share fellowship with my good friends down the road by sometimes eating in their home and perhaps even cooking on their grill — but that doesn’t mean they want me moving in!
Think about is this way: how many Churches of Christ would you be willing to swap preachers with for a day? How many for a year? There are also differences in teachings among Churches of Christ. Does that mean even a CoC preacher may fill your pulpit if you agree with him on every single doctrine? Does he have to sit for test? Is there are creedal document he must sign?
The point of a pulpit swap is that we disagree but not about essential doctrine (you, of course, disagree with me about what is essential). But I wouldn’t want a preacher in my pulpit every week who isn’t in substantial accord with my congregation’s views. Nonetheless, I can celebrate the fact that our differences don’t have to be fellowship differences by symbolic, gracious acts of sharing.
If there were a Christian Church in your town, where the preacher agrees with you on everything other than instrumental music, would you let him guest speak in your pulpit if he promised not to speak on the instrumental question?
Pingback: One In Jesus » What Must the Church of Christ Do to Be Saved? How Does a Christian Fall from Grace? Part 1