73

In What Sense Is The “Faith” In Salvation By Grace Through Faith (Eph 2:8-9) “Faith Only,” Or “Faith

Alone,” And In What Sense Is It Not?

By Allan Turner

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.1

It is unfortunate that the above passage is one of the most contested in “Christendom.” Even more disappointing is that this seems to be true among us as well. As this passage forms the basis for the above questions, I’ll be referring to it frequently.

The Atoning Work Of Jesus Is The “Basis” Of Salvation For years now I have been trying to get brethren to understand that our heavenly Father could not have saved sinful man “just any old way.” After all, the thinking goes, if God is truly omnipotent, then He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, wherever He wants. This means, they think, that there are absolutely no limitations on God; and if there are no limitations on God, they continue to think, then He can save man just any old way. Before I can get them “up to speed” on what the Bible actually says about all this, things can sometimes get a bit dicey, at least until they start to realize the truth that Jesus wasn’t simply “a way” to the Father, but was instead “the way” (Jn. 14:6), which means He could not have saved man just any old way. Indeed, and this in spite of the ecumenism that so easily besets modern-day “Christianity,” the Bible makes it clear “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, ESV). After reminding my brethren that Jesus isn’t just “a way,” but “the way,” and that God’s omnipotence, when properly defined, does not mean there are no limitations on it (e.g., God cannot lie, Titus 1:2), I at least have their attention. I quickly remind them that although God’s omnipotence is not limited by anything outside of Himself, it is, nonetheless, limited by His own nature or character. A God who is perfectly holy cannot lie, and this inability in no way intrudes upon His omnipotence. With this under their belt, I take them to Romans 3:21-28 (esp. v. 26), which is a passage, the real significance of, they begin to understand for the first time in their walk as a Christian, which serves as a reminder of just how shallow the “modern church” can be—so shallow, in fact, that some have begun to call what passes for Christianity in many places today as nothing much

                                                                                                               1 All references are from the NKJV unless otherwise noted.  

  74

more than “Christless Christianity.”2 But for now, listen with me to Romans 3:21-28 and what it says about whether God could have saved us just any old way:

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus [emphasis mine]. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

One of the issues Paul addresses in the above scripture is how (or why) it is possible that a holy and righteous God can justify “the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5) and remain “just” in doing so. Too many evidently just read over what Paul says here with little, if any, appreciation of the deep theological issue at stake. Some of these are preachers and teachers of the word. One of these, a preacher with whom I had a rather lengthy written discussion on the subject of Jesus’ vicarious death, had an interesting response which I will share with you. Let me set it up by relating to you what I had said that elicited his response:

You say, “Some here say that the sins were taken away by a non-substitutionary sacrifice, thus rendering the sinner legally innocent (justified), and thereby canceling the need for punishment...the propitiation ‘turned aside’ God’s wrath by removing guilt,” which is your position as I understand it. My question for you, and I am expecting a biblical response, is HOW could such a sacrifice alone do that?”

He responded, in part, by saying:

When sins are forgiven, sinners are justified. When sinners are justified, they are regarded as righteous, innocent, not guilty. God’s wrath is not directed at people who are righteous, innocent, and not guilty. Therefore, God’s wrath was propitiated…turned away from those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb that was slain. God is still just…for a just God punishes those who die in their sin, and a just God does not punish people who are righteous. And God is the justifier, for He justifies us by the blood of Christ poured out in His sacrificial death. ... Substitution theory requires God to punish the only truly innocent person and let the truly guilty people go free. How is that justice? It is a miscarriage of justice. Imagine if our courts today decide to lock up all the innocent people and let the criminals run

                                                                                                               2 Horton, “Christless Christianity.”  

  75

loose! True justice occurs when guilty people are punished and innocent people are free.

What this brother fails to appreciate is that what Paul is telling us in Romans 3:21-28 is that the only way the heavenly Father could remain just and be the justifier of those who exercised faith in His Son was by sending His only begotten Son into this world to die “for us” or “on our behalf” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). This necessitated Jesus’ bearing of “our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). This means that the Father “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Thus, it is indisputable (or at least it should be) that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’” (Gal. 3:13, ASV; cf. Deut. 21:23). But there’s more. Because God’s law consists not just of commandments to be obeyed, but penalties to be suffered for disobedience, it is precisely these penalties that require us to come to grips with the “how”/“why” question mentioned above; for Paul makes it clear that our Lord Jesus could not have redeemed us from the curse or penalty we so rightly deserve as sinners “without being made a curse [or ‘sin’] for us,” or on our behalf (cf. Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21)—which is something the aforementioned preacher emphatically denies. Nonetheless, it is simply undeniable that what the preacher mentioned above denies is precisely what Peter affirmed when he said Jesus “bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). As a result of passages like those mentioned above, most Bible students, regardless of their theological leanings, have recognized that the very basis of salvation for “ungodly sinners” is, and remains, Jesus’ vicarious substitutionary death on the cross. Therefore, the biggest mistake anyone can make is thinking that God could have saved man “just any old way.” He couldn’t; and everything He’s revealed to us about Himself says He couldn’t, and Romans 3:21-28 is the “smoking gun” proof. Until one understands this, there’s little hope he’ll ever come to terms with the thesis I am here defending, which is: there’s a sense in which we are saved by “faith only,” just as sure as there’s a sense in which we aren’t. But because we’re all quite familiar with the sense in which we aren’t (cf. Jas. 2:24), I’ll be spending most of my time talking about the sense in which we are saved by “faith only”; and it’s clearly this sense in which faith is used in Ephesians 2:8-9.

Saved By Grace Through Faith I believe the NT teaches we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) in baptism (Acts 2:38; Col. 2:11-13) after repentance (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30) and confession of Jesus as Lord (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10). The grace by which we are saved is the atoning/propitiatory death of Jesus Christ on that cruel cross of Calvary just outside the city gates of Jerusalem some two thousand years ago. It is this, a magnificent and beneficent act of mercy and grace, and it alone, that is the sole basis of salvation God has

  76

extended to man, His fallen creature. By “sole basis,” I mean it is the “only ground” for salvation. Consequently, Jesus’ cross-work on our behalf is now, always was, and always will be, the basis or ground of salvation for sin-sick man, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Ephesians 2:5, 8-9 make it clear that faith is the “only means” through which we can access this saving grace. By “only means,” I’m referring to a unique “indispensable kind of condition”3 that is necessary for the attainment of a specific end—like breathing is to air, for instance. Although it is the air (O2) that sustains life, the act of breathing is indispensable to obtaining it. About this Jack Cottrell said, “...the grace conditions specified by God [viz., belief, repentance, confession, and baptism—AT] include at least one that functions as the means by which salvation is received, in the sense of being the properly receptive mental or spiritual state for accepting the gift of grace, namely, faith.”4 I agree with him except for the one proviso that was noted in the first footnote below, for without faith none of the other conditions for obtaining grace could have any effect. Therefore, the argument I will be advancing from here on out is that just as grace is the sole basis or ground “by which” salvation is even possible, faith is the sole means or indispensable condition “through which” it may be attained. As we know, most Protestants make the mistake of believing that faith is the sole “condition” for attaining salvation (viz., that faith is the occasion or moment when salvation is received). To them, being saved “by faith” means the same thing as being saved as soon as you have faith. But as already noted, the Scriptures teach no such thing. On the contrary, one who has faith (Jn. 8:24; Heb. 11:6), has repented (Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38), and has confessed Jesus as Lord (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10), is saved in the watery grave of baptism (Acts 2:38; Col. 2:11-13). By “in,” I mean “at the time of” or “point of” being baptized. To understand the difference between “us” and “them” on this subject, which can be a bit nuanced at times, we will examine four views on this subject.

Four Views On Salvation “By Faith” Ordo Salutis is a Latin phrase meaning “the order or way of salvation.” In this section, we will identify and explain four different approaches to salvation by grace through faith: Calvinism, Free-Will Protestantism, Traditional Restorationism, and something I’ll be calling Biblical Restorationism, which I believe represents what the Bible teaches on this subject. These are not exhaustive (e.g., Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism), but they’re the ones we’ll be focusing on in this study. Before we get through, some of you may be ready to rename Biblical Restorationism as “What-Allan-Turner-Thinks-The-Bible-Teaches-On-This-Subject-Ism.” Be that as it may, I hope to demonstrate that Biblical Restorationism isn’t some sort of man-made “ism” or “think-so” at all, but simply what the Bible teaches on this critically important subject. Calvinism

                                                                                                               3 Buchanan, 380. By “indispensable condition,” I do not mean that other conditions may be dispensed with, but only that without faith none of the other conditions could have any effect.  4 Cottrell, 209.  

  77

Calvinism is the most familiar and dominant form of Augustinian determinism in existence today. It wears the name of John Calvin (1509-1564), who, although not the “father of the Reformation” was its brilliant systematic theologian. Of predestination, which is the foundation of any form of determinism, Calvin said:

Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death.5

According to Loraine Boettner, the well-known interpreter of Calvinism, Martin Luther (1483-1546), the father of the Reformation, “was as zealous for absolute predestination as was Calvin.”6 To prove his point, he quotes Luther’s Commentary on Romans:

All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.7

Amplifying this, Boettner quotes Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), Calvin’s student, as saying: “All things turn out according to divine predestination; not only the works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly,” and again, “There is no such thing as chance, or fortune; nor is there a readier way to gain the fear of God...than to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of Predestination.”8 Furthermore, Benjamin B. Warfield, who, in the opinion of some Calvinists, was the most outstanding Reformed theologian since Calvin himself, makes his belief in absolute predestination very clear. In a chapter in Biblical Doctrines entitled “Predestination,” Warfield said that Predestination was “broad enough to embrace the whole universe of things, and minute enough to concern itself with the smallest details, and actualizing itself with inevitable certainty in every event that comes to pass.”9 What Calvinists believe and teach on this is not difficult to know. They believe that absolutely nothing happens that God has not foreordained or predestined to happen. If an individual “goes to heaven,” it is because God predestined that he would, independent of anything this individual would do of his own free will. On the other hand, if an individual “goes to hell,” it is because God predestined that he would, independent of anything this individual would do of his own free will. This point is clearly stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith:

                                                                                                               5 Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXI, section 5.  6 Boettner, p. 15  7 Ibid. The sole source for this quote is Lorraine Boettner who doesn’t cite “chapter or verse.”  8 Ibid. Again the only source I have for this is Boettner.  9 Warfield, pp. 13, 22.  

  78

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.”10

If God predestines everything that happens, as Calvinists believe, then it follows that man does not have free will, and it is this denial of free will that makes Calvinism different from the other three views we’ll be looking at. Although there are Calvinists who try to redefine free will as being compatible with determinism (they’re called “compatibilists”), they fail miserably, and always will, for there can be no real compatibility between determinism and free will. An attempted compatibilist example of this is found in an article by R. C. Sproul that appeared in Modern Reformation back in 2001:

One of the conditions that we hear, a necessary condition for justification is faith. Right? And faith involves an active embracing, and trusting in Christ—and in Christ alone. In that sense it involves some action of the will. It involves some step of embracing Christ. Now we’re not saying—Luther isn’t saying, Augustine isn’t saying—that the human will is not involved in salvation. When I have faith in Christ, I am the one who is trusting, I am the one who is believing, I am the one who is choosing him, and I am choosing him freely. That’s not an issue. We all agree on that. The question is, What has to happen before that person will choose Christ, will embrace Christ? When I say I have to embrace Christ in order to be saved—I have to have faith in order to be saved, I have to ask the next question: How do I get the faith? Can I choose to believe out of my dead, sinful nature? Or must I be spiritually raised from the dead and be given eyes to see and a heart to respond positively before I ever will respond positively? What Reformed theology says, what Augustine was saying, is that we are by nature spiritually dead. God can offer us salvation until kingdom come—but he does more than offer it. He resurrects our souls from the dead. He does a divine and supernatural work in us called regeneration. He quickens us, and every mother knows that “quickening” is the sense of the presence of life in the womb. It is the Holy Spirit who changes the disposition of our souls, which prior to this work has no desire for Christ. We’re still choosing. When we’re dead in sin, we’re still alive to sin, and we’re making choices all the time. But the choices are always according to what we want. That’s what freedom is. That’s why Augustine, in a confusing way, said that man still has a liberium arbitrium; he still has a free will. But what he lacks is libertas (liberty); he’s still free to do what he wants. That’s his condemnation. We still choose sin because that’s what we want.

                                                                                                               10 Chapter III, sections III-VII.  

  79

The freedom we lack is the ability, in and of ourselves, to change our hearts that are enslaved to these wicked desires; only God can surgically repair that captivity. In other words, we are in bondage to our own desires, which are wicked, until God changes the disposition of our hearts. Once he does that, he is releasing the will from its prison. And we’re no longer now in bondage. Now we have the desire for Christ, and we freely choose Christ, but not until God—and only God—liberates us.11

I find it interesting that Sproul thinks Augustine wrote in a “confusing way,” but that he (Sproul) didn’t. Like I said, and Sproul’s article is a prime example of it, Calvinists try to redefine free will as being compatible with determinism, but they fail miserably, and always will, for there can be no real compatibility between determinism and free will. Because Calvinists believe God is the only true cause of everything (and it is this idea that forms their concept of God’s sovereignty), man is totally unable to make any contingent freewill choices—not a single one. Thus, even man’s choice to believe in Jesus is something directly caused by God, which is why they call the process “sovereign grace.” When this is coupled with their acceptance of the Augustinian idea of total depravity (the “T” in “T-U-L-I-P”), which says that ever since Adam’s sin (they call this period “post-lapsarian”) the whole human race is totally depraved and completely unable to do anything truly good. Calvinists believe it is not possible for anyone of his own free will to choose to believe in Christ and repent of his sins. Consequently, if man is to be saved, God must directly act upon him (viz., regenerate his heart) in order for him to believe. This means that in the Calvinist system, regeneration always precedes faith; and thus “sovereign grace” is always and completely unconditional (the “U” in “T-U-L-I-P”). If God does it all, and Calvinists say He does, then “unconditional election” is the only game in town; and if so, then it follows that God’s election (or choosing) of those who will be saved from those who won’t means the number of people intended to benefit from Jesus’ work on the cross (i.e., propitiatory atonement) was, and is, limited (the “L” in “T-U-L-I-P”). If, then, the atonement is limited, and Calvinists believe it is, then it follows that God’s choice or election of those who will be saved must be irresistible (the “I” in “T-U-L-I-P”). Thus, God not only irresistibly bestows His “sovereign grace,” but the very means for receiving it. As Cottrell put it:

In other words, both faith and repentance are irresistibly and unilaterally implanted within the elect sinner’s mind or soul, at the same time the regeneration and justification are given. These four items—faith, repentance, regeneration, and justification—are given instantaneously and simultaneously (as well as unconditionally and irresistibly). This is not just a “faith only” (sola fidei); it is a grace only view.12

Thus, when you hear a Calvinist saying he believes he’s saved “by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone,” there should be no doubt in your mind that what he believes                                                                                                                11 Sproul, 29.  12 Cottrell, 199.  

  80

is that man has nothing at all to do with being saved, which in theological jargon is called “monergism.” At monergism.com, after claiming to teach “the gospel and true biblical doctrines of the historic Christian faith,” monergists (and just think of them as being full five-point Calvinists) affirmed the Cambridge Declaration, which says in part:

Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature ... God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace. We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work ... Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature ... Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls 13

The last item in the T-U-L-I-P system is the “P,” which stands for the perseverance of the saints or “once saved, always saved” doctrine. Because of the other four points of the system, there is simply no way one who has been elected unconditionally via an irresistible “better felt that told” grace could ever be lost. Having had no free will to exercise an obedient faith in Christ, they certainly do not have the free will to abandon such faith. Therefore, the bottom line for Calvinism is that from the moment one received “sovereign grace,” he is totally justified and will remain so forever. He is in full possession of salvation from the moment he is regenerated, believes, and is justified. This, then, is one view of sola fide or “faith alone,” and a view completely foreign to the Scriptures Freewill Protestantism

The second view of ordo salutis is Freewill Protestantism (FWP). It differs from Calvinism in that it believes in free will and that God has given conditions which must be obeyed by sinners if they are to be saved. The theological jargon for this is “synergism,” which all true monergists (five-point Calvinists) must, and do, view as heresy. FWP rejects most, if not all, of the T-U-L-I-P system. Interestingly enough, there are Baptist groups that are synergists and Baptist groups that are monergists. This always makes it a bit difficult when interacting with these folks, as it is not all that easy to know which side they are leaning toward. However, most non-Calvinist Baptists have not been able to successfully free themselves from the “once saved, always saved” doctrine, which is the last vestige of Augustinianism (Freewill Baptists are an exception). The first FWPs were the Anabaptists and similar groups who originated at the same time as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, but rejected Augustine’s denial of free will. Modern manifestations of these folks include Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites. As already mentioned, non-Calvinist Baptists are included in this group, as well as most groups who are part of the Wesleyan tradition (i.e., Methodists, Nazarenes, and holiness groups of                                                                                                                13 The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, April 20, 1996.  

  81

various kinds). By maintaining the doctrine of free will, FWP recognizes that grace is truly conditional. However, it demonstrates its agreement with Calvinism in that it advocates the common approach to salvation by “faith alone,” which they believe to always be accompanied by repentance. On the other hand, it differs from Calvinism in that it believes that faith and repentance, although practically inseparable, are genuine conditions, in that they are something that man, himself, must do in order to be saved. Again, contrary to Calvinism, FWP believes faith precedes regeneration, in that the former is a prerequisite for the latter. After this, FWP is practically the same as Calvinism, in that everything done after justification and regeneration falls under the category of sanctification or “good works,” which includes the good work of baptism, which has no direct connection to salvation. It is just one of many good works which an already redeemed people do in order to please God. This, too, is a “faith alone” concept not taught in God’s word. Traditional Restorationism The third view of ordo salutis is that of “Traditional Restorationism” (TR), which is made up of those who are associated with what is historically known as the Restoration Movement (i.e., the Disciples of Christ, churches of Christ, and the Christian Church). As the saying goes, “This is where the plot thickens!” Until recently, TR has always, with very few individual exceptions, championed freewill and rejected Calvinism’s “T-U-L-I-P.”14 Thus, it agrees with FWP that the acceptance of God’s gracious gift of salvation is truly conditional. On the other hand, it has disagreed with FWP as to just what these conditions are. In addition to FWP’s faith and repentance, TR believes confession of Jesus as Lord and water baptism are necessary conditions for being saved as well. Then, after being saved from his past sins by believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized, one must continue to “live faithfully” in order to remain saved. (As will be noted when we get to what I’m calling Biblical Restorationism, it is just what this “living faithfully” looks like that is primarily the difference between these two groups.) Therefore, TR’s ordo salutis eschews any idea that man is saved by “faith alone,” which, as I mentioned earlier, is an idea I do not believe totally comports with Scripture, and this in spite of what James said about man not being saved by “faith only” (Jas 2:24-26). My biggest problem with TR has been not so much with how salvation is received, but how it is retained. Like other views of the ordo salutis, everything that follows justification falls into the category of sanctification (i.e., holiness, obedience, good works), although TRs haven’t always been very clear about whether sanctification is a one-time event that takes place in conjunction with justification or whether it is an on-going process. Many settle on it being a one-time event. Truth is it’s both. Nevertheless, there has pretty much been a consensus that how one performs in the area of holiness, obedience, and good works determines whether one stays saved or loses his salvation. Baptism is generally viewed among these folks as the moment when only past sins are

                                                                                                               14 More and more of those identified with churches of Christ, although still affirming freewill, are toying with, or adopting wholesale, Calvinistic concepts, rejecting in the process the idea that “works” have anything at all to do with being saved and staying that way.  

  82

remitted. Thus, it is generally held that every sin one commits after baptism causes the child of God to be lost once again; and if not quite lost, then in a sort of temporary limbo. There are differences on just when this occurs, but not on if it occurs. It is claimed that without specific repentance of specific sins the blood of Christ can no longer cleanse the Christian of his sins, and 1 John 1:5-9 is the proof-text for such thinking. It is claimed by those who hold this position that even a sin a Christian is not aware of, and therefore cannot specifically repent of, causes him to be lost. Anyone who disputes that this is what 1 John 1 teaches is identified as a “continual cleanser” (i.e., a TRist who has departed from the faith and imbibed Calvinism). In a discussion I had with a preacher of this persuasion, I asked:

[Is a Christian] who [has] met all the “conditions” he knows of concerning sins he knows of (viz., repenting and confessing), but is [still] “guilty” of something he is truly unaware of (a particular sin), walking in the light, or is he walking in darkness? Does a penitent heart/disposition/spirit, without specific repentance of an as yet unknown particular sin condemn him at that point? In other words, is he still, at that point (the point described above), walking in the light, in your opinion?

He replied”

I don’t think so. Walking in the light includes recognizing that light shining on my sins, instructing me as to their nature, and how I must deal with them. When I do that, it acknowledges that I am imperfect, but trying to be perfect, and not settling for less. It is not my job to go further than God does, which is what I understand you to be asking of me, in reconciling in matters He has not spoken to. A penitent heart NEVER condemns one, but claiming that is enough makes it possible that He is missing the complete picture. I am still asking for the passage which comforts me when my heart is right, but I have not complied with God’s terms of forgiveness... (not to assume you and I would define that last point alike, but before I have confessed and repented of it).

In another situation, I heard a TR preacher upbraid another one in his sermon for teaching that walking in the light is not sinless perfection. Afterwards, I talked with him about what I thought were his misrepresentations of the preacher he was critiquing. Discussing the issue for a while, I asked him, “Do you believe that walking in the light is sinless perfection?” After a long pause, he said: “No, but it’s dangerous for us to say so publicly because those in the pews who are not as studied as we are will take this and run off into Calvinism.” I was shocked and sickened by the hypocrisy and clerical superiority I saw and heard that evening. Even though he didn’t personally believe that in order to be walking in the light one needed to be doing so sinlessly, he knew the TR position and the expediency of touting it publicly. Unfortunately, the belief that individual sins automatically cause a Christian to be lost and that good works cause one to remain saved are simply two sides of the same post-baptismal legalistic works-righteousness so frequently espoused by TR. If I’m not mistaken, this is a form of Galatianism, the idea that says we who are saved by grace stay

  83

this way by works of the law code. As we discovered last year in our study of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), the proponents of NPP believe that when it came to being saved, the Jews were “in by grace, but saved by works,” and this is why we think some of our brethren who espouse NPP have no trouble with such a depiction, in that it reflects what they believe about being saved; namely, upon obeying the gospel we’re saved by grace through faith, but then we stay in by good works. Indeed, I’m convinced this is at least one of the reasons why some of our preaching brethren are so comfortable with NPP, even to the point of not being able to discern between Israel’s election to service, which was unconditional, and its election to salvation, which wasn’t. Biblical Restorationism The fourth view of the ordo salutis is the view I am here defending. I believe it is the view taught in the Scriptures. I’m calling it Biblical Restorationism (BR) because I recognize I have a historical connection with the Restoration Movement (RM).15 I would like to see those associated with the RM get themselves up to speed on what the Scriptures say about the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. But having said this, my allegiance is not now, nor has it ever been, to RM, TR, or even BR. Like everyone else assembled here today, my allegiance is to Jesus Christ. When it’s not, I am not what I am supposed to be, for in becoming a Christian, I was not added to the RM, TR, nor BR, but to the “My church” of Matthew 16:18 (i.e., Christ’s church, or the church of Christ). It is in this blood-bought relationship, and it alone, that I was, and remain, saved. My beef with TR is not with how one becomes a Christian, for they believe faith in Christ, repenting of one’s sins, confessing Jesus as Lord, and being baptized in water (BRCB) are all necessary in order to be saved from past sins. Instead, my primary difference with them is how one stays saved. TRs believe that in order to be saved from their past sins by grace through faith, they are required to BRCB, and they are right. With this debt removed, they see themselves as being free to start the process of keeping the law—this time the law of Christ—all over again, and that it is by this means (coupled with continued access to God’s grace) that they remain saved. It is just here that my differences with TRs are most critical. Although most would never go this far, I have known TRs (preachers, of course, and isn’t it always?) who believe it is yet possible that one who has been cleansed by God in baptism will live perfectly so as to never again need access to saving grace. So far, none of those I’ve spoken with have claimed to be in this “elite” number; but they continue to hold out the possibility that it may yet occur. As already noted, most TRs reject such a “holiness doctrine” outright, acknowledging that one will continue to sin after baptism, rightly citing 1 John 1:5-10 as their proof. However, I do not believe the Bible teaches that one is initially saved only from his past sins, and this no matter how prevalent this view is among my brethren. As I see it, it is this aspect of the ordo salutis that is presently causing most of the problems among brethren. For even though there are brethren who have found the “golden mean” on this subject, there are two polar extremes that appear to be much more prevalent: (1) that                                                                                                                15 Actually, this is what Cottrell called it in Set Free.  

  84

espoused by the “law-ers,” and (2) that advocated by the “grace-ers.” But what do I mean by the terms ‘law-ers’ and ‘grace-ers’? It is to the answer of this question that we now focus our attention.

The “Law-er” Vs. “Grace-er” Divide When Paul contrasted “law and works” with “grace and faith,” his main concern was to contrast the two possible ways of being saved—either by grace through faith, or by law through works. Therefore, there are, theoretically, two, and only two, roads to salvation. Of these, and this is Paul’s point, one has been thoroughly and permanently blocked by our sin; namely, “works of law” (i.e., works done under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, which always come up short). The other, which is “by grace through faith,” is the only road that continues to be open. When one misunderstands or fails to apply this truth, brethren will continue to be divided along the “law-er” vs. “grace-er” divide. By “law-er,” I mean a brother who believes that one is justified/saved by “precise,” “perfect” (these are his terms) law-keeping, which is something one should know can’t happen because of the universality of sin. Giving lip-service to grace, which is what he does when he says out of one side of his mouth that one is not saved “exclusively” by precise, perfect law-keeping, while continuing to cling through the other side of his mouth to precise, perfect law-keeping as a means of post-baptismal justification or salvation, that makes him, in my book, a “law-er.” Truth is, no one has even been nor ever will be saved by precise, perfect law-keeping, and any attempt to teach otherwise is a step that put one in the “law-er” camp. By “grace-er,” I mean one who believes that under grace he is no longer under law to Christ, period. This is a big mistake. Some of these folks have gone on to the next level and have imbibed, and now openly spew forth, Reformed theology (viz., one is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone). And if it hasn’t already happened, and in some cases it has, it won’t be much longer before we hear these folks teaching “once saved, always saved,” for where there is no law, they tell us, there is no sin. These, then, are marching in the direction of the other polar extreme. The remedy for this ever widening divide—a divide I believe to be exacerbated by the modernism-postmodernism debate presently taking place in our culture—is to be found in the correct exegesis of all the “we are no longer under law, but grace” passages in the Pauline corpus, the very exegesis of which those on both sides of the “law-er” vs. “grace-er” polar extremes have failed to make. Thus, in what follows we will examine and attempt to correctly understand these passages.

Obedience And Law The Bible makes it clear there never was a time when man was not under a law code, and this describes our situation under Christ (cf. 1 Cor 9:21). This law code, although it has

  85

many of the same laws as those found in the law of Moses, is nonetheless different from it. But one must not think it is this difference that makes law under Christ any more doable, as the “law-ers” appear to believe. Law (and here I mean not a law code per se, but a system of justification by perfect law-keeping), is not viable for sinners as a means of justification. Jesus, the only one who ever kept law perfectly (and thus merited His justification, so to speak), paid the penalty for all of us who have sinned by failing to keep law perfectly. This, of course, includes all of us, for we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (cf. Rom 3:23). This means we all rightly deserve the “just desserts,” “curse,” or “penalty” of our sins. This, then, is what grace is all about, and as such, it has been manifested to every man (cf. Tit 2:11-14). But not everyone has been saved by such grace, for it can only be accessed by personal faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God (cf. Heb 11:6), for all who come to Him must not only believe that He is (there’s the “mental assent”), but that He rewards those who diligently seek after Him (there’s the “trust in” and “reliance upon” part). Thus, a faith that will not obey isn’t faith—at least not the saving kind. On this, I am in agreement with my “law-er” brethren. Where I sharply disagree with them is on what this faith looks like in action, which my more radical “law-er” brethren think looks like perfect law-keeping with a bit of tweaking here and there through the avenue of grace when needed. For example, one of these has argued:

If I do not keep the law perfectly, I have sinned. In order to have that sin forgiven, I must avail myself of God’s free gift of grace. In order to avail myself of God’s grace, I must meet a few conditions. In order to meet those conditions, I must have faith. In order to have faith, I must do what it is that God’s word expects of me. In order to do what God’s word expects of me, I must keep His law perfectly.

To which I replied: “No, no, no! God does not expect us to keep His law perfectly in order to be saved. If He did, we wouldn’t be talking grace” and we would all be “crispy critters,” so to speak. Yes, a system of justification by perfect law-keeping demands we keep the law perfectly, and if it were not for the system of justification by grace through faith made possible by the blood of Jesus Christ, we would all be destined for hell, and rightly so. Many “law-ers” take the position that when initially saved we have simply transitioned from one law system (viz., the law of Moses) to another law system (viz., the law of Christ), and that precise, perfect law-keeping is still required in order for the sinner to be saved. But how? A sinner has violated the law. That which could have justified him (viz., perfect law-keeping) is the very thing that, without God’s grace, condemns him. If perfect law-keeping is what is required under law to Christ, as some “law-ers” allege, then we are still under a system of justification by precise, perfect law-keeping, which means, if it were true, that we are doomed to hell. “Law-ers” are quick to counter: “Not so! For under Christ we have access to grace, if we continue to meet the conditions for such grace—conditions that require precise, perfect law-keeping. In other words, the “law-er’s” hallmark is salvation by grace through faith plus works. On the other hand, the “grace-er”

  86

counters by claiming works have nothing at all to do with being saved. Both are just flat wrong!

Saved By Grace Through Faith, Apart From “Deeds (Or ‘Works’) Of The Law”

“Law-ers” believe and teach that one is saved in the Christian dispensation by “works of law.” According to them, when Paul said, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28), he was speaking exclusively of the law of Moses when he said “deeds of the law.” Thus, the contrast they believe Paul to be making is between the law of Moses and the law we are under to Christ. This is a mistake, for several reasons: (1) the very context itself, which is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles alike, and therefore must include more that the law of Moses, and (2) the fact that nomos is not “the law,” as many translations read, but simply “law.” Nevertheless, when “law-ers” hear Paul argue that one isn’t saved by the “deeds of the law” (Rom 3:20, 28), they believe he is speaking exclusively of the law of Moses. He isn’t, and it’s clear he isn’t; for if he were, how could the Gentiles be condemned as sinners, in that they never were under the law of Moses? Their misinterpretation permits them to then turn around and argue that a Christian is indeed saved by “deeds [or works] of the law,” which is, in point of fact, the very opposite of what Paul actually said about it—and if you don’t think so, you may be a “law-er.” Truth is, I’m as opposed to what the “law-ers” believe and teach on this as I am to what the “grace-ers” espouse, which is that Christians are simply no longer under a law code, period. What, then, did Paul believe and teach about this critical issue? When Paul says, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28), it is imperative we properly discern just what Paul means by “deeds of the law” (erga nomou). What he means is not that difficult to understand, in that “deeds of the law” are works done in response to one’s law code. For the Jew under the OT dispensation, this was the law of Moses. For the Gentile, it was the heart code articulated in Romans 2:14-15. For Christians under the NT era (both Jew and Gentile), it is the law code we are subject to under Christ. The “law-ers” reject this explanation because they insist that as Christians we are saved by obedience to the law code we are subject to under Christ. Although I have many things in common with “law-ers,” it is here where we part company. Like them, I believe obedience is necessary in order to come into—and stay in—a saved relationship with the blood of Christ. Even so, I do not believe that such obedience is to the “law code,” but to the “gospel.” Hence, it is our response to the “grace conditions” set forth in the gospel, and not our response to the law code, that sets us free from sin; for under the law code, anything less than perfect obedience would cause us to be back under the curse and penalty of sin. Initially, these “grace conditions” are belief, repentance, confession, and baptism. In the watery grave of baptism, God, the Father, forgives us and raises us up as “new creatures” in connection with His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This forgiveness is not, as most TRs have thought, just the forgiveness of past sins. It is, instead, the forgiveness of sins, period, which means that we are no longer lost (i.e., one goes from being 0% forgiven to 100% forgiven).

  87

We remain this way not because of precise, perfect law-keeping (for “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” 1 Jn 1:8), but by continuing to meet the “grace conditions” set forth in the gospel—namely, continued belief, repentance, and confession of Jesus Christ as the Lord of our life. These “works” of grace (i.e., “grace conditions”), although commanded, must not be confused with the “deeds of the law” which Paul contrasted with faith. Instead, they must be seen as the “faith” that is “apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28). This is why sin no longer has dominion over us, for although we are still under a law code to Christ, we are not under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. Instead, we are under a system of justification by grace through faith (cf. Eph 2:8-9; Rom 6:14). It is in this way, and this way alone, that sinners can be 100% justified, which is illustrated in Romans 4:1-8 by the faith of Abraham.

Abraham: The Faith Paradigm Par Excellence Contrary to what many of the Jews thought, Abraham was not an example of a man who precisely kept or perfectly obeyed the law code he was under before God. In Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus), it is said that “Abraham was a great father of many nations, and no-one was found like him in glory, who kept the Law of the Most High, and entered into covenant with Him, and established the covenant in his flesh, and was found faithful in testing” (Sir 44:19-20).16 Then, in 1 Maccabees 2:52, the writer asks, “Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness?” And the Damascus Document, dated at 150 B.C., says that Abraham “was accounted a friend of God because he kept the commandments of God and did not choose his own will.”17 But if any of these testimonies from Jewish sources are anything other than relatively—as opposed to absolutely—true, then Paul’s argument in Romans 3:28 and 4:1-4 would be false. And if Paul’s argument was false, then “boasting” would not be excluded after all, and this in direct contrast to what he said in 3:27. So, although it is clear that some of the Jews thought Abraham had kept the law perfectly, this was decidedly not the case, and it was such thinking that Paul was addressing. Truth is, Abraham never lived under the law of Moses, thus the law code to which he was amenable was not “the law,” if this expression is to always be thought of as “the law of Moses,” as so many wrongly believe. As was pointed out earlier, it’s a mistake to think that one of the keys to understanding Paul is that when he wrote about “the law” he was referring exclusively, or even primarily, about to the law of Moses. He wasn’t! At times, contextually, he was; but not exclusively. Any interpretation of Paul that thinks this way is misdirected and destined to misunderstand other things he said as well. Paul’s point is that when it comes to law, and by this he meant any law a man finds himself amenable to before God, the choice is, and always has been, 100% justification by grace through faith, or 0% justification by law-keeping or “deeds of the law” (i.e., “works”).

                                                                                                               16 Cited in Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5, Kindle Loc. 2733-2734.  17 CD 3:2-3, cited in J.D.G Dunn, World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 38a: Romans, p. 200.  

  88

Once again, the “works of law” (erga nomou) of which Paul spoke were not limited to the works done under the law of Moses, which were always short of the perfection demanded under that system (with the exception of Christ) . Instead Paul used the phrase to refer to the always less than perfect works (viz., performance) of man under any law code he finds himself under before God. When this is understood, one will appreciate that the “faith” (or “faith in Christ”) that Paul contrasts with “the works of the law” is not a contrast between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant per se, although this is certainly a contrast that can be made. However, it is not Paul’s point in these references. Instead, the contrast is between justification by grace through faith, which is the only way a sinner can be saved, and the works done under a law code, a system of justification by perfect law-keeping (cf. Eph 2:8-9), which are “works” or “deeds” that will always come up short. Paul makes this clear when he blends the no-glorying idea of 1 Corinthians 1:29 with the because-all-have-sinned fact of Romans 3:23. Further, this is exactly what he does in Romans 3:27-28, where he says: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” His point here cannot be that this is just the way it is now under the New Covenant, for the truth is, this is the way it has always been. Thus, when what Paul says here is combined with what he said in Galatians 3:10-14, it seems nearly impossible for one to believe that Paul, when referring to deeds or works of the law, was not referring to deeds or works being done under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping; namely, the do-what-is-right-and-I’ll-bless-you blessings and the do-what-is-wrong-and-I’ll-curse-you cursings of law (cf. Deut 30:19). Hence, there should be no mistake about whether Paul believed it was possible for anyone to be saved by “works of the law”—he didn’t! (cf. Gal 2:16). And if you don’t know that, you’re probably a “law-er.” I’ve emphasized “possible” in the above sentence because Paul dealt, over and over again, in the things he wrote whether it was possible for a man, based on “works of law,” to stand justified before God, but always with a “not” in front of them. In other words, “not of works” is a recurring theme in the Pauline corpus (cf. Rom 3:20, 28; 4:2; 9:32; Gal 2:16; 3:10; Eph 2:9; Tit 3:5). Contrary to what some think, Paul did not equivocate on whether a man could stand before the law of God “blameless” in his doings (i.e., by his “deeds” or “works”). Instead, Paul’s point in Philippians 3:1-7 was that he was the paradigm par excellence of what a work-righteousness religion was worth in the sight of God, which was nothing, absolutely nothing at all! As a member of one of the strictest sects of the Jews, Paul had thought his “righteousness” placed him in a situation where he could be “boasting” before God. But now, in Christ, he recognized all such feeble “righteousness” was but worthless “rubbish.” If TRs actually believed this, instead of just giving lip-service to it, they would not fall into the trap of going about defending their own brand of works-righteousness. If you think this too harsh, or just flat wrong, you probably fit nicely into what we’re calling the TR camp.

No Longer Under Law

  89

In contrast with this, when we become obedient to Christ as our Lord and Savior—and obedience is a concept Calvinists don’t like associating with salvation—we receive, according to Paul, a “righteousness of God” that is not our own (cf. Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 5:18; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). The chart below depicts this process.18 This righteousness is not derived directly from the Lord’s perfect life, as Calvinists and some brethren believe (and by “some” I mean the “grace-ers”). Instead, this righteousness derives from the fact that Jesus’ sacrificial death satisfied the debt we owed for our sins

(cf. Rom 5:18). In this way, according to Romans 4:5, and this way only, we, “the ungodly,” and this includes both Jews and Gentiles, have been justified (cf. Acts 13:39; Rom 3:24; Gal 2:16; Tit 3:4-7); and if God has so justified us, who is it, as Paul asked in Romans 8:33, that can bring a charge against God’s elect and make it stick? Therefore, we who have been redeemed by grace through faith in baptism for good works (cf. Eph 2:8-10; Col 2:12) are no longer hupo nomon, that is, “under law” (Rom 6:14-15; Gal 5:18). Here, then, is where it is important for us to understand how Paul is using “law,” for how is it that Paul can say we are no longer “under law” as he does here, but then turn around and say we are “under law” toward Christ? (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21). Making sure we’ve solved this conundrum is mainly what the rest of this lecture will be all about. The sense in which we are saved by faith alone, and the sense in which we aren’t, is key to understanding this issue.

—End of Part One— There are plenty, particularly the Calvinists, who think Paul’s point in these “not under law” passages is that the Christian is no longer under law, period. This is clearly false, for

                                                                                                               18 Chart taken from Set Free: What The Bible Says About Grace by Jack Cottrell, p. 129.  

  90

Paul taught unequivocally that Christians are “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). There are others, and more than a few of these are brethren, who believe Paul uses “law” in such passages as an exclusive reference to the law of Moses and, thus, believe that Jews were no longer under the law of Moses, which was certainly true. In fact, and there can be no doubt about it, the Old Covenant dispensation, with its law of Moses, was fulfilled and terminated by Christ’s death on the cross (cf. Col 2:14). Therefore, it is a categorical error not to understand that the OT was kartegeo (or done away with) by Christ. But, and this is so important, this is not the way Paul is using “law” in these passages. Instead, it is clear that Paul is using “law” in Romans 6:14-15 and Galatians 5:18 to make the point that we are no longer under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. Listen to what Paul said in Romans 6:14-15: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!” In Galatians 5:18, he said the same thing, but in a slightly different way, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” Now, if Paul isn’t talking about two systems in these verses (viz., the law system and the grace system), then what? I’ve tried to point this out to my “law-er” brethren to little avail, as they almost always try to make it an OT vs. NT thing. Even when they acknowledge that Paul was referencing two systems, it is still difficult for them to see these two systems as anything other than an OT vs. NT comparison. When I say, “no longer under,” as I did above, I am not saying we are no longer under law, and neither was Paul—for we are indeed “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). What I mean is that we who have “obeyed the gospel” are not under a “system” (and “system” is the optimal word here) that requires perfect law-keeping in order to be justified/saved. This winds up meaning (and I’ll explain this in more detail later) that we are no longer interacting with God in just the “Creator-creature relationship,” a relationship that would have us all condemned and on our way to hell. Instead, we are interacting with God through the “Redeemer-saved relationship,” a relationship that has us justified with a righteousness that is not our own—namely, a righteousness we have not earned by keeping law perfectly, a righteousness given to us by God (cf. Rom 3:21, 22; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). In addressing the fact that we are justified with a righteousness that is not our own—and not by perfect law-keeping—Paul said to Titus:

4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (3:4-7)

Then, writing to the Ephesians about the same thing, he said:

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace

  91

you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. (2:4-9)

These passages, if they mean anything, and they mean a lot, teach us that a man isn’t saved by his perfect doing (i.e., “works of law”), for under such a system all are found wanting. Therefore, there must be no doubt that Paul makes it clear that the righteousness of God (viz., the imputed righteousness, or righteousness that is put to our account) that is ours by “grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (cf. Rom 3:21-24) is a righteousness “apart from law” (viz., apart from a system of justification by perfect law-keeping). Thus, for someone to come along, as “law-ers” have a propensity for doing, and dismissively argue that such a system never existed (but is, instead, the invention of those who want to teach their brand of salvation by grace through faith) is to demonstrate a total lack of appreciation for, and understanding of, the “Creator-creature relationship,” a relationship that says the whole duty of man is, and always has been, to fear God and keep His commandments (cf. Eccl 12:13). That this was true during the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations, as it is now during the Christian age, is a truth that cannot be misunderstood without serious consequences, for it is why all mankind, both Jew and Gentile, is declared to be “under sin” (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22). What the “law-ers” among us need to understand is that if the system of justification by perfect law-keeping was never more than the invention of a BR’s fertile imagination, then there is no law, and there never has been. But if there is no law, then there is no sin either (cf. Rom 4:15; 5:13), and if there is no sin, then how could anyone be declared a sinner? And if, then, there are no sinners, why did the divine Logos have to take upon Himself flesh, live among us, and die so we sinners could be set free from sin? Remember, where there is no sin, there is no need for a Redeemer who—in order to be qualified for His work on the cross—had to flawlessly perform the requirements of the law system to which He was amenable, for it was only then that we could be redeemed by His perfect, unblemished sacrifice. No, the truth is that man, whether Jew or Gentile, has always been amenable to God’s law code. At the same time, a Gentile was never, unless under indenture to a Jew or a proselyte, amenable to the law of Moses. Even so, he was, just like the Jew, a sinner (cf. Rom 3:27-31; 2 Cor 5:13-14; Gal 3:13). As a result of all this, it must be necessarily inferred that Paul’s use of “law,” unless the context demands otherwise, is not to be understood as referring exclusively to the law of Moses (i.e., the OT), and thus was not being contrasted with faith in Christ (i.e., the NT), which would have made it no more than an OT-NT thing. Yes, it is certainly true that because the covenant with Israel had changed, the OT was no longer in force, and anyone who was “in Christ” who tried to put himself under it had “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). The reason Paul doesn’t talk much about the New Covenant his letters to the Romans and Galatians is not because it isn’t important (fact is, it’s vitally important), but because the contrast he’s making between “works of the law” and “the law of faith” is not the difference between the OT and the NT per se. Instead, it is the distinction between two

  92

entirely different ways of salvation: “law,” a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, and the “law of faith,” which is a system of salvation by grace through faith. Miss this, and,... well,... you’ve just missed it!

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24 This brings us to the test case—the harmonization of Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. Those who believe the “works of the law” vs. “law of faith” contrast is only referring to the change in covenants, argue that what James says about “works” in his epistle proves their case. They believe this, I think, because they have failed to understand that what Paul was contrasting was two ways—two systems—of salvation, with one permanently blocked by man’s sinfulness and the other the only way sinful man has ever been saved. But if what these “law-ers” think is true is in fact true, then perhaps what James said about this is the proof they claim it is. On the other hand, if what I think is true is in fact true, then what James said must be in complete harmony (that’s right, “complete harmony”) with what Paul said. So it is to these two men and their epistles that we now turn. If what I believe Paul said about not being justified by “works” cannot be harmonized with what James said about being justified by “works,” then my understanding of how Paul used “works [or deeds] of the law” cannot be correct. But before any attempt to harmonize these two passages can be undertaken, more work needs to be done. First, it is helpful to go back and make sure we understand what Paul means by the “works,” “deeds,” or “works of the law” he contrasted with grace and faith. This means we must return to Ephesians 2:8-10 and Colossians 2:12, with a couple of other passages worked in to eventually flesh it all out. In these two passages we learn that one is saved by grace through faith in baptism for good works. These “good works” (Eph. 2:10) are, I believe, key to correctly interpreting James 2:24. But before we can fully appreciate this, we must understand that there are two ways in which we relate to God. The first way we relate to God is as “God, the Creator,” and it’s the way in which we, as creatures, have no choice. The second way we relate to God is as “God, the Redeemer,” and it is in this relationship we must make a choice.

The “Creator-Creature Relationship” Because of the nature of the “Creator-creature relationship,” every human being is obligated to “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl 12:13). We owe this to God simply because He is the Creator and we are His creatures made in His image. From the chart on the next page,19 it can be seen that, as creatures, we are all required by God to do “works of law.” Some smart aleck who doesn’t want to retain the proper concept of God in His mind (cf. Rom 1:18-25) may think that because he isn’t a Christian he is not obligated to fear God and keep His commandments; but he’s wrong, dead wrong, triple-D wrong! As a creature, Mr. Smart Aleck falls under the necessity of God’s precepts, and has, like all of us, failed in his                                                                                                                19 Taken from a chart in Set Free: What The Bible Says About Grace by Jack Cottrell, p. 210.  

  93

keeping of them. As a result, he is spiritually dead (there’s the first D). If he continues in this condition until he dies physically (there’s the second D), the end result will be eternal death (there’s the third D), for as the Scriptures so clearly point out, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23a). As creatures, we have all failed to keep God’s commandments, and without the Creator deciding to step in and redeem us (and we’ll simply call this “original grace”), we would, as sinners, have no hope of salvation. Thank God, then, for His wonderful grace! This means that when we finally get around to relating to God as our Redeemer, we do so first as sinful creatures who are, as a result of our sin, not just lost, which is bad enough, but totally unable, apart from God’s redeeming grace, to save ourselves. But it is a mistake to think that because “none” of us creatures has ever kept God’s law code perfectly, that this is somehow proof that it (i.e., God’s law) is of such a nature that it cannot be perfectly kept by “postlapsarian”20 creatures who have become almost completely, if not totally, depraved. Such, after all, is a reflection of Reformed theology and not what the Bible teaches.

The “Redeemer-Sinner Relationship”

In our “Creator-creature relationship” (apart from God’s redemptive work), we were all, each and every last one of us, dead in our sins and the uncircumcision of our hearts (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14-15). Thus, it is our works done under law to God, both good (obedient) and bad (sinful), that I believe Paul to be contrasting with grace in Ephesians 2:8-9. Guilty as the result of our own imperfect doing, in that our obedience (i.e., “good works”) always falls short under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, we need God’s grace, not more of our own imperfect doings. Because He loved us so much, the Father, acting as our Redeemer, even before the foundation of the world, devised the Scheme of

                                                                                                               20 A term relating to, or characteristic of, the time or state after the fall of humankind.  

  94

Redemption whereby in the fullness of time He would send the divine Logos, as His only begotten Son, into this world to shed His blood so that we could be justified apart from works, deeds, and doings of law (i.e., imperfect works done under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping). This way (or system) is grace, praise God! As such, it is the only avenue open to us whereby we, as sinners, can be saved. This great and glorious Scheme of Redemption, which in other times was not completely revealed, has now been revealed in the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This grace system (viz., a system of justification by grace through faith) is qualitatively different than the law system, and provides for sinners the only way we can be redeemed, saved, justified. As the chart on the previous page demonstrates, the grace system is the complete antithesis of the law system. Where the law system requires “works [or ‘deeds’] of law,” the grace system requires “the obedience of faith.” Where the law system has “law conditions,” the grace system has “grace conditions.” Where the law system necessitates the doing of precepts in order to be justified/saved, the grace system requires the sinner to meet the conditions necessary to access God’s grace (viz., faith, repentance, confession, and baptism). Consequently, for one to argue that there are no conditions connected with receiving and maintaining access to God’s grace is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject of grace.

Grace Conditions These “grace conditions” are further amplified by returning to Ephesians 2:8-10 and Colossians 2:12. In these two passages, we are taught that one is saved by grace through faith in baptism for good works. Therefore, it is never right to think that one can be saved by grace through faith apart from any further obedience (i.e., at the point of faith). We must know and understand that faith, in addition to being the means of salvation, is also described as a “work” (Jn. 6:29), in the sense that it is something we must do, have, or exercise, in order to be saved. This is made absolutely clear in Colossians 2:12 where we learn that one who has faith in Jesus and His resurrection is not saved unless, and until, he is baptized. This means that baptism, as the place and time when God initially saves us, is a “grace condition” (viz., a work, a doing of something, if you will) which must be done by the one who is exercising faith, and we’re talking about the faith that saves. Thus, even though faith remains the sole means of salvation by grace through faith, faith alone (i.e., faith as a “grace condition” or “work”) will not, does not, and cannot save—it never has and it never will! However, and this is so very important, when by faith one submits to baptism, his faith is not in the waters of baptism (i.e., in some sort of “baptismal regeneration” à la Catholicism’s doctrine of infant baptism). Instead, one’s faith is in the gracious and effectual working of the Almighty God who promised to justify (forgive) and regenerate (renew) the obedient believer in the watery grave of baptism. It is therefore in baptism, and not at the point of believing, that we obtain or experience the “double cure” we so desperately need, for not only does a sinner need justification, but he needs regeneration as well. Consequently, baptism is not a “work of law” in the Pauline sense, as it has

  95

nothing to do with the obedience required of us in our “Creator-creature relationship.” In other words, baptism is not a law commandment, but a “gospel/grace condition” that the Redeemer requires of us in order to be saved. By adding to this a few more passages, we come to know every one of the “grace conditions” which must be obeyed in order to, unto, or for the purpose of, salvation. Along with belief, the Scriptures inform us it is necessary for one to repent of his sins (cf. Acts 2:38; 17:30). This “grace condition,” “imperative,” “command,” “work,” etc., although given much lip-service by many, is a much-neglected concept. It is too frequently thought of wrongly as some sort of “given” (or formality) on the way to the much more important task of getting baptized. Little thought, it seems, is given to the what and why of it. In the “Creator-creature relationship,” we are dead in sin. In the “Redeemer-sinner relationship,” we who are dead in sin are required to become dead to sin, which is the stuff of repentance. The what of such repentance is understood by the Greek word itself, which is metanoia, a word that means a change of heart/mind that brings about a change in action/behavior. In repentance, we turn from our sinful ways with the desire to do the Lord’s will in all things (viz., those “good works” He prepared for us “beforehand”). In such a condition or state, we are wanting, ready, and willing to have our sins remitted, and it is a fact that we cannot be saved from sin, even by an all-powerful God, until we are ready to be through with sin, and this explains the why of repentance. In the work of repentance, we acknowledge it is not God’s fault that we are sinners, but our own. Repentance is owning our sins by taking personal responsibility for them. When one meets this condition, he is ready to have his sins taken away by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, and not until. This means that repentance is a “grace condition”—not a “law condition”—which must be met before one can be saved by God’s magnificent grace. A third “grace condition” is the confessing of “Jesus as Lord” (Rom 10:8-10). In this passage, Paul refers to confession and faith as being equally necessary in order to, unto, or for the purpose of salvation:

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Thus, confessing Christ is necessary in order for the penitent believer to be saved. As with faith and repentance, the confessing of Jesus as Lord is something that does not end at conversion, but continues throughout our entire walk of faith. With the addition of baptism, which is, unlike belief, repentance, and confession, a one-time event in which God remits our sins and raises us up as new creatures in Christ, we have the full complement of “grace conditions” which must be met, done, or performed in order to be initially saved, and those things which must continue to be done (with the exception of baptism) for one to remain saved. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no other “grace (or gospel) conditions.” I know that most of us have thought

  96

that “living faithfully unto death” is an additional requirement, and it most certainly is when thinking of the “law conditions” or “necessity of precepts” we owe Jesus in our “Creator (Lord)-creature relationship,” which is the law code we are under to Christ. But as I have tried to make clear, these “law conditions” are owed to our Creator (Lord) separate and apart from the “grace conditions” we sinners must satisfy when calling on the name of the Lord, our gracious Redeemer, for salvation.

The “Good Works” Of Ephesians 2:10 In addition to these “grace conditions,” we are still obligated, as creatures, to keep the Creator’s law code. Thus, for one to argue that, under grace, law is no longer a requirement, or in force, as the “grace-ers” and others do, is to compound an already fundamental error. Even though we are saved by grace, Christians are still under law to Christ (cf. 1 Cor 9:21). However, our obedience to such law conditions, although still owed to God, can no longer be viewed as the “conditions” by which one is justified or saved. It is obvious, then, that when Paul taught that we are “not under law” in Romans 6:14-15 and Galatians 5:18, he had in mind a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, not the “good works” we have been saved to perform under law to Christ (cf. Eph 2:10; 1 Cor 9:21). This will become even clearer as we consider what James had to say about the works that justify, prove, or demonstrate our faith. So, when Paul, in Ephesians 2:8-9, says, “not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” and “not of works, lest anyone should boast,” and does so in contrast with salvation “by grace through faith,” he is referring to man’s performance under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping; namely, the deeds, works, or works of law which we, as creatures, have failed to perform perfectly, which would naturally involve both our good works (the things we get right) and bad deeds (the things we get wrong). Having been saved by grace through faith, but not at the “point of faith,” as many have mistakenly thought (and I’ll address this point in just a moment), one is able to do, according to Ephesians 2:10, those “good works” of the law which the Father “beforehand” created us to do in connection with Christ. These “good works” (i.e., “the obedience of faith”)—which do not include the bad works (or sinful deeds) necessarily implied in the “works of law” (i.e., man’s performance under law) mentioned in Ephesians 2:9—are prescribed by the law code we are obligated to obey “under law to Christ.” These “good works” are the very same works that James says are done by those who Paul said (and James agrees) are saved by grace through faith. These “good works,” as Paul referred to them, or “works,” as James called them, are not done in order to be saved, but because the one doing them has been, and remains, saved or justified by the blood of Christ. On the other hand, if a Christian refused to do these “good works,” works of law he is obligated to do in his “Creator (Lord)-creature relationship,” he would no longer be walking in the light and, as such, would no longer have access to God’s grace through the precious blood of Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn. 1:5-9). Nevertheless (and some [and this includes both “law-ers” and “grace-ers”] just can’t seem to get their minds wrapped around this), at the same time one is doing these “good works” of the law code (a law code that can no longer save sinners), there are, and

  97

remain, “grace conditions” which must be obeyed. Without obedience to these, one simply cannot be, nor remain, saved/justified. This means that these “grace conditions,” contrary to “law conditions,” are things (i.e., “works”) which we must do in order to access the grace available to us through the Lord’s magnificent sacrifice. It is in this way (i.e., by these “grace conditions”) that we are saved (by believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized) and remain saved (by continuing to believe, repent, and confess Jesus as Lord).

The Obedience Of Faith Paul begins his Roman letter by mentioning “obedience to the faith” (1:5) and ends it with “the obedience of faith” (16:26). The Greek phrase eis hupakoen pisteos is exactly the same in both places and means “obedience of faith.” These passages serve as bookends to everything Paul writes in this letter. I believe the “obedience of faith” of which he speaks is, and I know there is disagreement about this, the obedience that results from our subjective (personal) faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. There is, then, no room for anyone who is saved by grace through faith to think that he is no longer amenable to law. It has been, is, and always will be, a sin to violate God’s law code, and without continued faith, repentance (which involves the confession of sin [1 Jn. 1:5-9]), and confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior, one will no longer be walking in the light. These three conditions are “grace conditions”—i.e., conditions without which we cannot remain saved. On the other hand, and in contrast to these “grace conditions,” Paul’s “works of law,” which are man’s response to law, whether good (obedient) or bad (disobedient/sinful), are works which cannot save sinners, and this because the universal plight of us all, both Jews and Gentiles, is one of falling short of God’s glory. This means that Paul’s “works of law,” which he contrasts with grace and faith, are—when it comes to the subject of how sinners are saved—no longer in play. Once again, and the nature of the discussion requires the repeating of these qualifiers, Paul is not saying that God’s law code has been done away with, for he makes it clear we are under law to Christ. Instead, he is saying, and he does so repeatedly, that the law system is “estopped,”21 which means the law code has been permanently prevented from doing what it always had the potential, theoretically, to do, which is keep man justified with God. This does not mean there was something wrong with God’s law code, however (cf. Rom 7:12, 16; 1 Tim 1:8). On the contrary, the problem was, and is, our sin, for the law was not designed by God to save sinners, although it theoretically could have. Thus, God’s law has been, and is forever, prevented from doing, at least theoretically or potentially, what it always had the ability to do, which is to keep us on the straight and narrow and thus holy and righteous. The only alternative for sinners is God’s grace system, the basis of which is the cross of Christ (i.e., “Christ and Him crucified”). Under such a system, law is free to do what it always—except for the sin problem—had the ability to do, and is to teach us how to live righteously before God and, in the process, bringing glory to Him.                                                                                                                21 Technically, estopped is a legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct, allegation, or denial.  

  98

If what I've presented up to this point is true, and I believe it is, then it cannot contradict anything else taught in the Scriptures, and should, especially, permit us to harmonize the two otherwise contradictory passages listed below:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28). You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (Jas. 2:24).

We know how Luther resolved the problem. He simply declared James to be uninspired and his book to be non-canonical. As none of us would opt for Luther's “solution,” there must be some way to harmonize these two passages without doing violence to either of them. Many of the “law-ers” mentioned earlier believe Paul was referring exclusively to the works of the OT law, therefore excluding them from justification, while James, they think, was speaking of the works of the NT law, thus including them as conditions for justification. Consequently, it is often referred to as the “faith plus works” position. The view I have most often heard expressed by brethren who are neither “law-ers” or “grace-ers” is the one that thinks the difference between the two kinds of works has to do with the motivation for each. In describing this view, Jack Cottrell, who does not himself hold the position, wrote:

The “works of law” Paul excludes are works done with certain wrong motives, while the “works of faith” James requires are works done with the right motives. The works in each case can be the very same with only the motives differing. The main difference is that Paul is condemning any works done with the express motive of gaining heaven thereby (usually called “meritorious works”), while James is saying that works done simply out of the motives of faith are still necessary for justification.22

Although this was a view I myself struggled with, I was never able to make it fit what Paul and James had to say about it. The view I am here defending is that Paul and James are not talking about two different kinds of works at all. Instead, they are speaking of “good works” (i.e., acceptable works) which are the same for both (especially consider Paul’s use of “good works” in Ephesians 2:10). So, the question is this: “What is the explanation for the different ways Paul and James relate faith and works to justification?” The best answer, I believe, is that faith and works are both related to justification, but in different ways. In other words, both Paul and James are referring to the same faith, the same works, the same people, and the same justification. They are in complete agreement on all of these things, which are all somehow, someway, related to each other. The difference, then, is in the way they have chosen, by inspiration, to express themselves, and this derives from how the relationship between these two things is to be understood. Paul is emphasizing the immediate, direct, inherent relationship between faith and justification, while James is emphasizing the necessary, but indirect, relationship                                                                                                                22 Cottrell, p. 280.  

  99

between works and justification. Like James, we can say that justification is by works, but only in a secondary, indirect sense, in that works are the natural, necessary expression of, and evidence of, saving faith. It is important just here to keep in mind that the works (i.e., “good works”) under discussion are the “law conditions,” and not those works which are required in connection with the “grace conditions.” Paul’s effort is to deny that justification is equally related to the “law of faith” and the “works of law,” while James’ effort is to demonstrate that justification is related to the “good works” of the law, but only in that such works are the natural, inevitable expression of genuine saving faith. So, Paul does deny (in his context) a system of justification by faith plus works, and this because “works of law,” as he uses the term (viz., imperfect works done under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping) are permanently prevented (again, the legal term is “estopped”) from having any soteriological value, while James, in fact, affirms justification by a faith that works (and once again these are the “good works” Paul mentioned in Ephesians 2:10). Therefore, we are not just talking semantics here, as the “law-ers” claim. Paul denies that one is justified equally by the “law of faith” and “works of law,” while James affirms that one can be justified only by a faith that works—namely, genuine saving faith begets or produces the “obedience of faith.” It always has, and it always will. Thus, this “obedience of faith” is not just obedience to the “grace conditions” which are works we must do in order to be saved, and stay that way, but also obedience to those “good works” which we were created in Christ Jesus to do—works “of God” that He determined “beforehand” we would do in connection with His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So instead of thinking we are saved by “faith plus works,” I think it much more scriptural to think we are saved by a “faith that works.”

Salvation By Grace Through Faith Is Not Just For Now, But Forever I said all that to say this: everything we receive by believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized we retain by our continuing faith, repentance, and confession of Jesus as the Lord of our lives. Consequently, we do not merely become justified by faith at the point of baptism, but we remain this way by our continuing faith in the atoning propitiatory work of Jesus Christ for us on the cross. Because we can rest upon God’s promise that we remain 100% justified by such faith (both now and forever), we are able to concentrate on our sanctification (i.e., doing God’s will, living a holy life, doing “good works”): “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10). Given a 100% righteousness that is not our own, we are free from the doubt of whether we are “good enough” to receive our home in heaven (cf. Jn 14:1-3). We aren’t! Instead, we are sinners saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9) in baptism (Col 2:12) after we have both repented (Acts 2:38) and confessed Jesus as the Lord of our life (Rom 10:10). This is all we need, and it’s illustrated by the chart on the next page.23 It shows the two aspects of the double cure (viz., forgiveness/justification and sanctification) in terms of percentages: (1) the percent one is doing good works or deeds, and (2) the percent one is forgiven or justified.                                                                                                                23 Cottrell, p. 77.  

  100

Prior to rendering obedience to the gospel, one is 0% forgiven, for without the blood of Christ the debt of punishment we owe continues to accumulate and must be paid. But because man is not totally depraved, there are different levels of goodness prior to conversion. When measured by the law code of their “Creator (Lord)-creature relationship,” some may be 18% good, some 33%, another 41%. Only God knows this percentage, but it’s always going to be less than 100% for the sinner. Cottrell (and remember it’s his chart) arbitrarily chose 25%. On the other hand, at the point of baptism a dramatic change takes place for the penitent believer who has confessed Jesus as Lord, for he goes down into the watery grave 0% forgiven and comes up 100% forgiven. He is now totally forgiven and justified, for there

is simply no “in between.” One is either completely forgiven, or he is totally unforgiven. This is critical, for from the point of conversion onward one stays 100% forgiven as long as he continues to exercise saving faith, for in doing so, he continues to meet the “grace conditions” laid down by God (viz., continuing to believe, continuing to repent, and continuing to confess Jesus as Lord). But someone looks at this and says, “That looks like ‘once saved, always saved’ to me.” Another pipes in, “That’s Calvinism!” But the truth is, it’s neither. Instead, it’s simply what the Bible teaches about the “perseverance of the saints.” But this phrase gets the “law-ers” even more riled up, in that this is “sure enough the “P” in the Calvinist “T-U-L-I-P,” and thus,” they think, “proof positive that the whole thing is Calvinism, pure and

  101

simple.” No, it’s not Calvinism. It’s what the Bible, not Calvinism, says about the perseverance or security of the saints, and I’ll get to these passages in just a moment. But first I want to make a point I’ve stressed in previous seminars, and this is that Calvinists ought not be given carte blanche when it comes to defining biblical concepts. Brethren have allowed the Calvinist to define practically all the terms having to do with soteriology. Thus, when they hear perfectly good biblical terms and concepts having to do with predestination, imputation, salvation by grace through faith, the assurance the Christian has of everlasting life, etc., they think these are Calvinist terms and concepts. And they are, for Calvinists have been wrongly defining these terms for centuries. But they are Biblical terms, too, and we must let the Bible define these terms and concepts. The truth is, too many Christians have heard so many sermons criticizing denominational doctrine, like the Calvinists’ “once saved, always saved” doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, that they have very little idea what the Bible actually says about salvation and the Christian’s joyous hope of persevering to the end. For example, in Hebrews 10:22-23, the Bible says: “Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of hope, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.” This passage, along with others, flies in the face of the tenuous “maybes,” “I hope sos,” and “I don’t knows” that Christians all too frequently mutter when asked if they believe they are saved, and this is precisely the sort of answers you get from those exposed to the “faith plus works” doctrine so prevalent in Traditional Restorationism. Christians who are not continuing to meet the “grace conditions” should have no false assurance that they will persevere to the end and experience the joys of the coming new heavens and earth. In fact, such ought to understand that the only thing that awaits them in their fallen-from-grace condition is “a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries” (Heb 10:27). But if this is the actual condition of most Christians today, is it any wonder that the Lord asked, “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8b). Let there be no doubt that the faith He mentions here is not the mental assent so many think about when they contemplate faith. You know the kind I’m talking about, the kind that says, “Oh, I believe, all right!” But do they? Do they trust in, rely upon, and obey the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Will they do this no matter what? If not, they do not have the faith that saves—that real nitty-gritty faith that says, “I will serve the Lord no matter what happens” (cf. Dan 3:17-18), for this is the only kind of faith that can “cut the mustard,” if you catch my drift. And it is only this kind of faith that thinks (heart, soul, and mind) like Paul in Romans 8:31-39:

If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 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

  102

things we are more than conquerors through Him who loves 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.

So, the good news of the gospel is not just that Christ died for us, which was totally undeserved and, therefore, unbelievably magnanimous and magnificent in itself, but that in His resurrected state “He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He ever lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25). As such, Jesus, our Savior and High Priest, serves as our “Advocate with the Father,” being Himself “the propitiation for our sins” (1 Pet 1:1-2). The term “propitiation” literally means “an offering that turns away wrath.” Jack Cottrell, in his excellent book, The Faith Once For All, explains this nicely:

In pagan circles these terms [speaking of the several Greek words from which is derived “to propitiate,” “a propitiation, a propitiatory offering, that propitiates God”] had the connotation of appeasing or placating angry deities. This crude pagan connotation must not be carried over into the biblical usage, however, not because the term means something different in the Bible, but because the God of the Bible is different from the false heathen deities. He is not merely a God of wrath but is also a God of love and grace who takes the initiative in providing the offering that turns away his own wrath. He does not wait in an angry pout until the anxious sinner brings him an offering he deems suitable, nor does the kindhearted Son “win over” the hard-hearted, angry Father through his death on the cross. We must not think the term “propitiation” carries only such primitive connotations. The terms are used often in the Septuagint, where they do not have “the usual pagan sense of a crude propitiation of an angry deity,” something which “is not possible with the God of Israel.”24

This is well said, for one must not think of God and our redemption in such primitive terms. We must know that the idea involved in the use of this term is the idea of a sacrifice that turns away wrath, and if the God who has revealed Himself to man was not a God of wrath, then there would have been no need for a propitiation of that wrath. That Jesus was, through the work He was sent here to do (a work which culminated in His death on the cross), the propitiation for our sins is the beginning of the good news of the gospel. Nevertheless, our blessed assurance and hope must not focus on His earthly work alone, for He lives now, in His glorified state, ever to make intercession for us as we serve Him here on this earth. Praise God for the sacrifice of His only begotten Son for us on that cruel cross of Calvary! Praise God that Jesus ever lives to make intercession for us at the right hand of the Father on high! Praise God, that Jesus, who was and is Himself God, came to this earth and lived and experienced death as a man, and that in addition to being the perfect and complete sacrifice for our sins, He is able to make sympathetic intercession for us at His Father’s right hand! Indeed, praise God!

                                                                                                               24 Cottrell,  The Faith Once For All, p. 265. Further note that the quoting Cottrell does here is from Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 155, with Cottrell’s observation that Morris’ treatment of propitiation in this volume is simply unsurpassed.  

  103

*** With the perseverance and security of the believer firmly in the hands of the One who has proved Himself trustworthy in every way, and knowing that this is not Calvinism we’re talking about, let us get back to the chart on page 28. At the point of conversion, the new Christian’s level of goodness (personal holiness and righteousness) does not immediately shoot to 100%. What is different about it is that it does begin to go up as the result of regeneration. The new Christian has not just been sanctified or set apart in a moment in time, but has begun the sanctification process. This line is not straight because the level of one’s goodness has its ups and downs from day to day and week to week. Even so, the level of “good works” he has been created in Christ Jesus to do (cf. Eph 2:10), namely, the very “works” that are required of him “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor 9:21), do not, and will not, this side of our eternal reward, rise to the level of perfection. This is why it is so important to understand the nature of salvation by grace through faith, for without such a reality, those of us who will always be less than perfect this side of the “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13), would be men most miserable. And it is the TR’s failure to fully understand this kind of salvation that has caused many of those in its ranks to practice a religion best described as something akin to a hands-wringing phobia. Failing to understand that a system of justification by grace through faith is qualitatively different from a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, TR has become in far too many cases a religion of neurotics who can’t quite shake that Satanic monkey on their backs that is always telling them they just aren’t ever going to be good enough to be eternally saved and, therefore, ought to just give up now, quit playing church, and go on and enjoy themselves, partying hardy and having a big time. On the other hand, BRs, if it be permissible to call them that, are not wanting to deny their heritage and jettison TRs from their ranks. Instead, they are trying to get their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to appreciate the only true heritage that really matters—a blood-bought relation with the totality of God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). When TRs and BRs begin to truly understand their differences, they will know that the “law-ers” and the “grace-ers” among them are the polar extremes of these differences, both of which are wrong. At the same time, there is truth being taught by these two polar extremes that is true even though those espousing it are clearly wrong. This makes the process of getting these two extremes corrected a bit dicey, and what we see on Facebook is but an example of what I’m talking about. A “grace-er” posts his views and almost immediately a “law-er” posts his counterviews. Before brother “InBetween” gets around to posting something, the CoC creed-book has been brought out, dusted off, invoked, countered, and re-countered. By this time, any sort of serious Bible study has been pushed aside in favor of ad hominem aspersions. If bro. “InBetween” does get around to posting something, he is often attacked by those on both sides of the polar extremes. Needless to say, real substantive Bible study seldom ever happens. And even on those rare occasions when it does, bro. “InBetween” is summarily charged with being a Calvinist, or at least harboring Calvinist tendencies. After all, it is said, when one looks like a Calvinist, quacks like a Calvinist, and waddles like a Calvinist, he must be a Calvinist!

  104

The Facebook experience outlined above is a pretty good metaphor for the trouble that ails us on this and many other subjects. And, of course, it’s preachers on both sides and in the middle, for in case you haven’t noticed, preachers are most always the problem. I believe it is high time we hunker down and get ourselves up to speed on just what the Bible says about becoming saved and staying that way. Is it “faith plus works,” as so many believe; is it a “faith that works, as I believe; or do works have absolutely nothing at all to do with it, as some among us are now claiming?

A Faith That Works As I’ve already said, I believe we are saved by a “faith that works,” not a “faith plus works.” At the same time, I totally reject the idea that “works” have nothing at all to do with it. Again, this is illustrated by the chart on page 28. Faith works. If it doesn’t, it isn’t faith, or at least not saving faith. Any brother who claims works have nothing to do with being saved may be real smart (and many of them are), but he doesn’t know the first thing about being saved by grace through faith. As we said at the beginning of this study, grace is the basis or ground for salvation, while faith functions as means of obtaining it. It is in this sense, and this sense only, that it is perfectly scriptural to think of faith as “faith alone” or “faith only.” However, in addition to being the sole means of obtaining the free gift of grace, faith is also a condition one must meet in order to be saved. But, and here’s the rest of the story, faith is not the only condition for being saved, as many in the religious world believe, for one must repent, confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized in order to come into a saved (present tense) relationship with the blood of Christ. Once one has been saved, he immediately (notice the chart on p. 28) becomes 100% forgiven, justified, or saved. In this event (viz., at this point in time), he is given a righteousness that is not his own, and this is illustrated by the dark line on the chart, which is what God does, compared with the gray line, which is what we do. “What God does” (bestows grace) and “what we do” (the “good works” under law to Christ) are different, and in this respect the “grace-ers” are right. But they are not altogether right, and this is where they go terribly astray. They say, “Why can’t you folks see that the two lines on the chart are different?” “For if you did,” they continue, “you would see that our works (“works of law”) have nothing to do with it!” And once again, they are right (and I sometimes think it is this rightness that makes them so smug), for our righteousness—which will always be a relative righteousness—has nothing directly to do with it. This is precisely what Paul was saying in Romans 3:28 and Philippians 3:9. But because “law-ers” see the contrast in these passages as being between the law of Moses and the law of Christ, they seem to always fail to see the truth the “grace-ers” have discovered. But there’s more. Because the “grace-ers” and “law-ers” alike have misunderstood Paul, they just keep on batting, back and forth, the same old man-made think-sos about “grace vs. law” and “faith vs. works.” So, although the “grace-ers get some things right, they still have failed to properly understand what Paul said about this crucial topic, and in doing so, they are no better than the “law-ers” they continually rail against.

  105

Grace Conditions With reference to what I am going to be saying under this heading, I ask you to take another look at the chart on page 21. In it, Cottrell deals with the differences between “law imperatives” and “gospel imperatives,” as he calls them. I’ve been referring to these as “works of law” and “grace conditions,” with the former having to do with the “Creator (Lord)-creature relation” and the latter having to do with the “Redeemer-redeemed relationship.” No matter what you call it, what we’re dealing with is two systems of justification: (1) the one on the left of the chart is a system of justification by perfect law-keeping; (2) the one on the right is a system of justification by grace through faith. I believe Cottrell’s chart accurately represents the truth Paul taught on this subject—a truth that those at both ends of the polar extremes fail to fully understand. But until one does understand what Paul taught on this, he’s going to be leaning toward one extreme or the other. As preachers and teachers of God’s word, it is time we find the golden mean between these two extremes. Perhaps all of us here have done just this, and if so, I’ll be delighted and encouraged. But once the truth on this subject is found, and the only place it’s going to be found is in God’s word, you’re in for a pretty rocky road, because you’ll be attacked by those on both sides of the polar divide. Nevertheless, this is what preachers of the gospel are called upon to do, and like Ezekiel, to whom God said, “Behold, I have made your face strong against their faces, and your forehead strong against their foreheads. Like adamant stone, harder than flint, I have made your forehead; do not be afraid of them, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they are a rebellious house” (Ezk 3:8-9), He will, no doubt, do the same for us. In Romans 3:27-28, Paul said: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” Then in Philippians 3:7-12, he wrote:

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.

How anyone can read what Paul said and believe the “once saved, always saved” doctrine is simply beyond me. After all, it was Paul who said, “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27). Truth is, there is nothing in the Bible that teaches such a damnable doctrine—absolutely nothing! Second, how anyone can read what Paul said and believe that there are no conditions that a sinner must meet (or “works” he must do) in order to be saved, and stay that way, is beyond me. In other words, if there are

  106

conditions to be met, and there are, then there are “works” to be done in order to be saved (100% forgiven or justified) and stay that way. So, when a “grace-er” claims “works have nothing to do with it,” he couldn’t be more wrong, for unless the sinner responds to the “grace conditions” set forth in the gospel, which are called “obedience to the faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26), then he cannot—he will not—be saved. These “grace conditions” have nothing directly to do with Paul’s “works (or ‘deeds’) of the law,” which he uses to refer to the works (deeds) done under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. The “grace-er” rightly understands that such works have nothing directly to do with being saved or staying this way; but he fails to appreciate the necessity of those “works” that are required under a system of justification by grace through faith. On the other hand, the “law-er” mistakenly thinks that the gospel’s “grace conditions” are the “works of law” done under law to Christ. In other words, he’s still thinking the principle contrast Paul was making was between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. He’s wrong about this, of course, and there’s plenty misunderstanding about this on the “grace-er” side as well. Again, Paul is not talking per se about different law systems (i.e. law of Moses vs. law of Christ), he talking about two completely different systems of justification. Unless one understands this, he will continue to misunderstand what Paul was saying on this subject. Bottom line, “works of the law,” have nothing directly to do with one being justified or staying this way. Again, we are not saved by “works of the law” (whether that law was the law of Moses or the law of Christ), but by meeting (“doing”/“performing”) the “grace conditions” laid out in the gospel—the gospel Paul plumbed in depth in his wonderfully sublime letter to the Romans, a letter both “law-ers” and “grace-ers,” along with many others, have failed to properly understand “Grace conditions” are compatible with a system of justification by grace through faith; “law conditions” are compatible with a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. As anyone who can reason and has any appreciation for the human condition knows, the only system of justification we sinners have open to us is the “salvation by grace through faith” system. “Law conditions” simply have nothing directly to do with such a system; otherwise, there could be “boasting” on the part of man (cf. Rom 3:27; Gal 6:14; Eph 2:9), but even those Jews who boasted in God and the law did not keep law perfectly (cf. Rom 2:17, 23). Even faithful Abraham was not justified by a system of justification by perfect law-keeping (cf. Rom 4:2). Truth is, the only way that sinful man can be saved—and God knew this before the foundation of the world—is by grace through faith. But, and this is extremely important, there is no redeeming power in the faith itself, for sinful man is not, nor can he be, saved by faith alone; he is saved, instead, by the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. This being true, the question arises: “How or why does God choose the acts of human obedience He requires from us in order to receive His saving grace?

Why “Grace Conditions”? Out of all the acts of obedience, why has God chosen the very few He’s revealed in the gospel? There are many other commandments that make up God’s will for man, so why faith, repentance, confession of Jesus as Lord, and baptism? Could not He have chosen,

  107

as “grace conditions,” many of the other things revealed in God’s word? The answer is, NO! The main reason for this is that “grace conditions” cannot have the character of acts of human righteousness (i.e., acts or deeds done because they are our duty to perform within the “Creator (Lord)-creature relationship”). Such acts of obedience could serve as conditions for eternal life only under the law system (viz., a system of justification by perfect law-keeping). Under such a system, these conditions would function as not just the means of justification, but the very basis of it. But since our sins have rendered such a system invalid or impotent, the conditions for receiving grace must be a different kind of obedience altogether, the kind Paul referred to, in Romans 1:5 and 16:26, as the “obedience to the faith” or “obedience of faith,” as the Greek phrase eis hupakoen pisteos actually means. Under the grace system, the conditions for receiving God’s saving grace are just conditions, and that’s all; namely, they do not, indeed they cannot, function as the means and very basis of salvation as they do under the law system, for if they did, they would, by their very nature (i.e., “meritorious work”), demean the all-sufficiency of Christ’s work on the cross on our behalf. Under the grace system there cannot be any conditions which merit eternal life or in any way make eternal life the wages due for work done. Thus, the few “grace conditions” are what they are because they in no way infringe upon salvation by grace through faith. Again, grace is the sole basis for our salvation, and faith the sole means. Thus, when one has faith in God via the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross, his faith in no way demeans grace, which is, and always has been, the sole basis of fallen man’s redemption. Likewise, when one repents and turns from his sinful ways, he manifests faith, and in no way takes away from grace, which remains the sole basis of fallen man’s salvation. In the same manner, when one, by faith, confesses Jesus as the absolute Lord of his life, he honors and glorifies Jesus and His work on the cross as the only way one can be saved from his sins. Finally, when one is baptized in water, believing God will remit his sins and raise him up a new creature in Christ, there is nothing about this act that depreciates saving grace, the sole basis of his salvation. In baptism, one dies to sin and is raised in Christ with his sins 100% forgiven (we’re back to the chart on p. 28), and he stays this way (viz., 100% forgiven) as long as he continues to meet the “grace conditions” set forth in the gospel. These are continued faith, repentance, and confession of Jesus as Lord, which is described in the Scriptures as living faithfully until death and walking in the light, neither of which have anything to do with meritorious works or sinless perfection. During that interim between his spiritual resurrection and his physical resurrection, the Christian is charged to do those “good works” he was created in Christ Jesus to do, works which God had determined “beforehand” that he would be about the business of doing during his sojourn here in this present world (cf. Eph 2:10). Having put off the old man, which was corrupt due to deceitful lusts, he is to be renewed in the spirit of his mind so as to “put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph 4:22-24). “Therefore,” Paul said in another place, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor 5:17). What Paul is talking about here, among other things, is the sanctification process that began the moment we were initially saved and that will continue until we are finally saved in the “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2Pet

  108

3:13). What he is further saying is that we’ve got “good works” to do under law to Christ, the doing of which will glorify God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and will demonstrate to a lost and dying world “what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom 12:2). In other words, we’ve got work to do. God didn’t save us just to save us; He saved us to work. He saved us to be salt. He saved us to be light. He saved us to prove to the world what being in a saved relationship with the blood of Christ is all about. All this work that the Father saved us for glorifies Him, His Son, and the Holy Spirit, and if we don’t do it, we are sinning (Jas 4:17; 1 Jn 3:4), and all such sins, unless they are washed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, will cause us to be judged by a righteous Judge who will punish us with eternal damnation. Therefore, the only way for sinners (and I’m speaking now of Christians) to avoid eternal damnation is by continuing to “walk in the light,” for it is only “in Him” that we remain 100% forgiven through the cleansing that comes from His blood (cf. I Jn 1:5-9). But, and it’s a very important “but,” the results of the sanctification process both on us and the ones we are called upon to influence, which require us to do the works of the law, have nothing directly to do with being saved. I.e., our salvation does not derive from “faith plus works,” as our “law-er” brethren believe; instead, our salvation derives from grace (the basis) through faith (the means)—a “faith that” is about the business of doing the “good works” of the law code we are under to Christ, and this not in order to be saved or stay saved, but because we are saved by grace through faith. Because of God’s foreknowledge of His creatures’ woeful experience with law, He knew no one would keep law perfectly, and this is what Paul was talking about when he said, “...if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:21-22). When thinking about this, it is important to understand that any inability of law (whether the law of Moses, the heart-law of the Gentiles, or the law Christians are under to Christ) did not lie with the law, which was right, just, and holy, but with man’s experience with it, which was always a miserable failure. Although God-given law always had the potential to justify the one who was amenable to it, God knew beforehand that all would sin and fall short of His glory (cf. Rom 3:20, 23). Consequently, the only possibility that sinful man had to be justified or saved lay outside of himself and rested upon God’s gracious gift of His Son. This is what Paul meant when he said we are no longer “under law but under grace” (Rom 6:14); namely, we are no longer under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, but a system of justification by grace through faith. But anyone who thinks this all means that forgiven and redeemed sinners are no longer under law, need to just keep reading what the apostle said from the very next verse to the end of the chapter:

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were

  109

delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As Christians saved by grace through faith, our whole duty is still to fear God and keep His commandments (cf. Eccl 12:13). But because we are no longer “slaves to sin,” we have now become “slaves of righteousness.” Even so, we have not become such slaves in order to become saved or to stay saved, but because we are saved and want to glorify God in everything we do (cf. 1 Cor 6:20; Eph 3:20-21; 1 Pet 2:13). Ours, then, is a “faith that works” in order to bring glory, honor, and praise to El Shaddai, the Almighty God; YHWH, the I AM THAT I; the divine Logos, who was the God of the then, now, and not yet, who became a man and dwelt among us, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Is there a sense in which such faith can be described as “faith alone”? Yes, but not in the sense that most use this phrase. Is there a sense in which “faith alone” could never be applied to the salvation we have in Christ Jesus? Absolutely! This means it is important to understand the two senses in which faith can be used.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to God our Savior, who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen (Jude 1:24-25).

Bibliography

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1932. PDF. Buchanan, James. The Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Trans. Henry Beveridge. London, England: Arnold Hatfield, for Bonham Norton, 1599. PDF. Cottrell, Jack. Set Free: What the Bible Says about Grace. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, Second Printing, 2010. _______. The Faith Once For All: Bible Doctrine For Today. 3rd. ed. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 2004.

  110

Dunn, James D. G. World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 38a: Romans 1-8. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988. Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 2002. Kindle Edition. Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1965. _______. The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Kindle Edition. Sproul, R. C. “Our Debt to Heresy: Mapping Boundaries.” Modern Reformation. Vol. 10, No. 3. May/June 2001. Warfield, Benjamin Beckenridge. Biblical Doctrines. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1929. PDF.

Internet articles Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.pdf. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Trans. Henry Beveridge. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf. Horton, Michael S. “Christless Christianity. “ Modern Reformation. http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1&var3=main. The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. April 20, 1996. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/The%20Cambridge%20Declaration.pdf. Sproul, R. C. “Our Debt to Heresy: Mapping Boundaries.” Modern Reformation. Vol. 10, No. 3. May/June 2001. http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=384&var3=topicalindex&var4=ViewTopic. Warfield, Benjamin Beckenridge. Biblical Doctrines. https://ia600609.us.archive.org/22/items/biblicaldoctrinewarf/biblicaldoctrinewarf.pdf.

  111

Westminster Confession of Faith. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

  112

[This page left intentionally blank]