A Review of “Justified by Grace through Faith without Deeds
of Law” –Part 2
Our brother from Lagrange makes some arguments about his
former beliefs in churches of Christ, provides some inaccurate remarks about
the beliefs of churches of Christ, and then states his present belief. We have
examined some of his points in a previous post, and encourage the reader to
read that before reading this article, which is part two of a series of two.
The 3000 on Pentecost cried “what shall we do?” Peter did not merely say “just trust what
Jesus has done”. He explained the
details of trust. One does not trust
Jesus without repenting of sins as Jesus commanded, and one does not trust
Jesus without being baptized in His name for remission of sins (Acts 2:36-41).
Is Peter denying that salvation is by grace? No! He is affirming it. Is Peter
denying that salvation is “through faith”(Eph.2:8-9)? No! He is affirming it. He is explaining the elements of saving
faith. Repentance is an element of saving faith. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for
remission of sins is an element of saving faith. A faith that does not confess Jesus, repent
of sins, and does not submit to baptism in Jesus’ name, is not a faith that
Jesus will bless with remission of sins.
Faith is not something we can boast about, but one can just as easily
boast about any measure of faith as they can about being baptized.
Our brother offers us his ideas about “three models of
Justification by faith”. We want to
fairly consider each of his points on this.
III. Three Models of Justification by Faith
A. Faith Without Works
1. This is the easy-believism which CoCs have traditionally and
correctly opposed.
Essentially, the teaching of “easy-believism” (which proponents prefer
to call “free grace,” or some similar term), asserts that the faith which saves
is mere intellectual assent to the truths of the gospel, accompanied by an
appeal to Christ for salvation. According to proponents of the “free grace”
movement (i.e. “easy-believism”), it is not required of the one appealing for
salvation that he be willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ. In fact, at
least according to some proponents, the person appealing for salvation may at
the same time be willfully refusing to obey the commands of Christ; but because
he has intellectual faith, he will still be saved, in spite of his ongoing
rebellion.
--http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/easybelieve.html-
Unquote!
Reply: I’m glad our
brother recognizes that it is correct to oppose a kind of faith that that does
not obey the commands of Christ. But,
then he turns around and says:
2. Unfortunately, CoC have confused this as the classical or only
expression of “faith alone.”-Unquote!
Reply: So, on the one hand our brother says he does not believe
in “faith without works”, but still believes in some form of “faith alone”. This is simply not good thinking. If you believe in faith alone, you believe in
nothing else. We are not saved by
anything ALONE. So, let’s see how our
brother develops his distinction between the “faith only” that he says we
correctly oppose, and the “faith alone” that he says we unfortunately oppose.
JE: a) Volumes have been written refuting this doctrine, all by
believers who affirm faith alone.
b) Paul did not ever advocate this cheap grace. 6:1-2, 12-18; 8:12-14;
cf. Eph. 2:8-10 -Unquote!
Reply: So, we are
assured that Paul did not affirm the faith alone that does not obey, but
somehow there is a “faith alone” that does obey. We want to pin down the fact that faith is
the only reason I would repent and be baptized, and in that sense faith alone
is the motivation, but faith is not just a motivation, it is also a response
and a way of bringing our lives back into connection and fellowship with God.
It is not separate from repentance and baptism. Otherwise, it ceases to be
faith. When God puts repentance and
baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38) between the sinner and remission of sins,
then faith gladly receives the word of God and acts accordingly (Acts 2:41). To fail to do so is to cease believing God
and settling on an easy-believism that does not bring one into saving grace.
Then our brother made this charge:
B. Faith Plus Works
1. This is the doctrine of justification taught by CoCs, as abundantly
attested in our writings.
a) For years I taught we are saved by faith only if and when faith
obeys specific commands.
b) But is this consistent with Scripture? Ro. 3:28; 4:3-5; cf. 2Sa.
12:13; Mk. 2:4-5; Lk. 23:43 –Unquote!
Reply: I would challenge our brother to look among “our
writings” and find where anyone has taught that we are saved by “faith PLUS
works”. It seems very suspect and
arbitrary the way our brother has made a distinction between “faith plus works”
and “faith that works”. Now, does our
brother believe that a person is first saved by faith and then after salvation
they are to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”? Now, if they are already saved, is our
brother now teaching that a person is to repent and be baptized BECAUSE they
already have remission of sins? That
seems to be what he is affirming by denouncing his former teaching and now
structuring it below as saving faith that begins to work after being
saved. Now, Peter taught that they would
be saved by faith only if and when faith obeys the exhortation to “repent …and
be baptized…for remission of sins”(Acts 2:38). Is that consistent with Romans
3:28? Absolutely!
Rom 3:28 - Therefore we conclude
that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. NKJV
On Pentecost the 3000 were justified by faith apart from the
deeds of the law. The Law did not
command them to repent and be baptized in Jesus’ name. But, faith in Jesus
demanded it. Even the Book of Romans
acknowledges that this is what their faith in Jesus caused to happen
(Rom.6:3-5). So, the appeal to Romans 3:28 does not help the case of faith
apart from repentance and baptism. Rather it confirms that the faith spoken of
is a faith that trusts and obeys the Savior even on His terms of pardon. That
is the nature of true faith in Jesus.
It does not contradict Romans 4 because it is still an
active obedient faith. Repentance is not
a work whereby God owes us, and it certainly is not a work that cancels the
need for grace. Likewise, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ “for remission of
sins” is not a work that cancels the need for grace. It is an appeal for the
grace offered. That is what is
characteristic of believing Jesus, not works of law. How can we look at the
3,000 as working to earn justification?
Aren’t they appealing for mercy in their repentance and baptism? How can we possibly look at them as
cancelling the need for grace by doing what Peter exhorted them to do? They are certainly showing what faith demands
in a sinner seeking forgiveness of sin, justification before God.
And, is our brother making an appeal to the thief on the
cross as proof of salvation without repentance and baptism in Jesus’ name? It surely seems that he has appealed to this
as proof that justification ALWAYS comes before repentance and baptism. First, faith includes whatever terms of
pardon God requires under any covenant.
If a Jew is already in covenant with God, and that covenant has not been
abolished, then baptism may not be required under that covenant. For example,
nobody was ever required to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ under the
Old Testament. That was the covenant the thief was under. His penitence was evident and Jesus announced
his safe condition as was in harmony with the penitence required under the Old
Covenant. But, what of those who would
enter into the new covenant? The thief
is not an example of someone entering into the New Covenant of Jesus. Heb.9:15-17 shows that Jesus’ death would
atone for people who lived under the first covenant and then Jesus’ NEW
testament would come into play AFTER He
died. So, can we be justified by the
same terms of pardon found under the first covenant with Israel? No!
That covenant has been fulfilled and abolished. We have to have the same kind of faith, but
the conditions of pardon are those conditions explained under the New
Testament. Those terms or pardon never
applied to Abraham, David, or the thief on the cross. But, they applied to the 3,000 on
Pentecost. Faith is now in a crucified
and raised Savior and Lord. The thief
was not part of this New covenant. The
3,000 cannot be justified like the thief. The thief could not be justified on
the same terms of pardon as the 3,000, but all under either covenant could be
justified by the content and conditions of faith required of them. So, we cannot buy into our brother’s implied argument that we are to view the 3,000
as justified by faith alone, and then repenting and being baptized to show they
were already saved. Now, saving faith
under Christ is on terms of faith that repents and is baptized in His name “for
remission of sins”(Matt.28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:48; Acts 2:38; 22:16;
Gal.3:26-27; Col.2:12).
JE: 2. Paul says we are saved by faith apart from works; he includes
acts of obedience in this category.
a) The Lord judges men guilty of sin based on intention prior to
action. Mt. 5:27-28; 1Jn. 3:15
b) This view says faith is necessary but insufficient for receiving
salvation. (cf. Jn. 5:24) –Unquote!
Reply: When Paul says we
are saved by faith apart from works, the context is about works of law-keeping.
He is not excluding works like confessing Jesus, repenting of sins, and being
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins. It is hard to
believe our brother is saying this. We ask at what point in Saul (Paul)s faith
in the Lord did he have justification (remission of sins)? Was it when the Lord spoke to him and
revealed WHO He was to Saul? No! Was it
while Saul was three days in prayer? No! Was it when Ananias told him to “arise
and be baptized, washing away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord”(Acts
22:16) and then he did so? Yes! Was this action “works of law”? No! Was it obedience of faith? Yes! Was Saul justified by a “faith alone” apart
from repentance and baptism? Absolutely
NOT! Even with the simple cases of
conversion in Acts we can see the complete harmony of salvation by faith versus
those Jews who sought justification by works of law which is apart from faith
in Jesus.
When our brother says that we claim faith is necessary “but
insufficient for receiving salvation”, I’m wondering if he would say the same
regarding the men who believed on Jesus but would not confess Him (John 12:42)? Is this “faith necessary but insufficient for
salvation”? Surely he would call that
insufficient faith. He would surely say that faith has to have a greater
quality or depth than that. Yet, the
Bible says it is “faith”, and surely it is “faith only”. So, our brother is
really not representing churches of Christ correctly, and even more regrettably,
he is not representing the Bible teaching
correctly.
It is a bit odd that our brother decided to separate himself
from churches of Christ and put them in the category of “faith PLUS works”, and
then make another category for himself called “faith THAT works”. It is strange
because if the faith does not work you cannot be certain that you have been
saved yet. So, a person who wants to
know if they are forgiven has to do WHAT in order to get out of the uncertainty
of “faith without works”? When is a
person to know if he is saved? Our
brother leaves it in a mystery. Peter
was not so vague!(Acts 2:38). Paul was not so vague (Col.2:12; Rom.6:3-6;
Gal.3:26-27). Our brother wants to call Peter’s exhortation in Acts 2 “Faith
PLUS Works”. I call it faith in Jesus
Christ. But, now let’s see if we can
understand the difference between what he has falsely called “faith PLUS works”
and what he called “faith THAT works”.
JE: C. Faith That Works
1. Faith is more an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity;
it is full surrender to Christ.
a) Genuine faith is always accompanied by the evidence of obedience.
(cf. Ja. 2:14-26)
b) If we claim to believe but do not obey, we are not saved. (cf. Lk. 6:46;
Mt. 7:21-23)
Reply: Now, that sounds
good so far. I’m wondering why he did not put “churches of Christ” in this
category? We believe in genuine faith
and that it is ALWAYS accompanied by the evidence of obedience. In fact, what I have always heard and taught
is that if obedience in place, it is not genuine faith and it certainly does
not bring us into saving grace. It is
really strange and puzzling to me that our brother chose to put churches of
Christ into another category of faith. The above points are what I have always
heard and taught. I’ve never heard the “faith
PLUS works” argument our brother attributes to churches of Christ. And, the distinction he makes with “faith
THAT works” is just a cloud of smoke. It means that one is not certain of his
salvation until he can wait to see IF it will start working. “Faith THAT works”
has to wait till it does something to figure out if it has gone past the “faith
WITHOUT works” that he said does not save.
So, instead of being certain of when one is saved, his new position
means that he will have to pick out an arbitrary point of activity to find out
if his is a “faith THAT works”. This is
not good! The 3,000 on Pentecost and the
Ethiopian Eunuch knew exactly when the rejoicing should begin. It is a shame
that our brother has drifted from that certainty. His next sentence below will tell us where he
is at in his own convictions. He says:
JE: 2. If Grace is the BASIS and Faith is the CONDITION, Obedience is
the FRUIT of salvation.
Reply: Get this. He now
says “obedience is the FRUIT of salvation”. That means it develops AFTER one is
saved by faith alone. Well, we have to
ask WHEN? When were the 3,000 saved? BEFORE repentance and baptism? Or, AFTER repentance and baptism? Well, Peter exhorts them to “be saved” by
repenting and being baptized. So, they believed but were not yet saved until
they repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of
sins (Acts 2:37-41). Peter had no idea that they were saved already, and he had
no idea that the fruit of obedience (repentance and baptism) would come out now
that they were already saved. So, our
brother has simply muddied the water. He
seems to have been drinking from the denominational wells of “faith-only”
doctrine too long.
Now, let us be clear about the “faith” that is the CONDITION
for salvation. Faith has to have the
right CONTENT: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not “another
Jesus”(2 Cor.11:2-4). Faith in Jesus has
to have the right knowledge of WHEN Jesus will cut away sins. The real Jesus
said it would be when one repents (Luke 24:48) and is baptized (Mark 16:16). His disciples understood this knowledge and
believed it. Paul said that when we are
buried in baptism with Jesus we have “faith in the operation of God”(Col.2:12). So, in the act of baptism we have faith that
God will operate and cut away our sins. Faith in Jesus has the right knowledge
of WHEN God will cut away our sins.
Faith has to have the right CONTENT and KNOWLEDGE of when God will cut
away sins, and knowledge of the right BASIS, the blood of Christ given by
grace. So, attempts to separate faith
from repentance and baptism and put the latter two items in the “fruit” section
of AFTER-SALVATION items, is not in harmony with the apostolic teaching from
the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit puts salvation AFTER baptism, not before it.
Faith is an umbrella term that is to include proper content
and activity of believing the facts of Jesus and the promises, conditions, and
commands of Jesus. But, let us consider
the next item in our brother’s outline:
JE: a) We work from grace, not for it. Our work is the response to
God’s work in us. Eph. 2:8-10
Reply: Now, there is
truth in this, except for the fact that he has already classified what churches
of Christ teach about repentance and baptism as “faith PLUS works”. So, we already know that he is claiming that
repentance and baptism is to be considered “work FROM grace” already received. It is a clever way of putting things. I could ask “do you trust in order to obtain
grace?” Do you believe from grace or for it?
You do the believing, don’t
you? Do you believe from grace or for it?
Well, it would be both. Grace prompts me to believe and I believe in
order to enter into His grace. The same
is so with repentance and baptism. Grace
prompts me to repent and be baptized for remission of sins, AND I do it in
order to be saved by grace. After
entering into Jesus Christ, grace prompts me to good deeds. I do good deeds because of the grace received
and in order to keep the grace received.
There is the offering side of God’s grace, and then there is the
enjoyment of God’s grace. Grace is what
offers and prompts us, but grace is not enjoyed until it is entered on the
conditions stated. There is the grace
that appears to all men, and it makes the offer of salvation upon stated terms
or conditions, and then there is the acceptance and entering into God’s grace.
Did the 3,000 repent BECAUSE of the remission of sins, or in order to obtain
the remission of sins? It was in order
to have the remission of sins. Was it from grace or for it? Both!
Grace offers and states the conditions.
Faith obeys whatever the conditions are. Remission of sins is offered on
condition that they have the faith to repent and be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ. Unbelief refuses the offer
and the conditions. So, grace prompts and
compels us to meet the conditions, faith accepts and meets the conditions, and
the enjoyment of grace moves us from grace to do good deeds.
JE:b) Abraham was justified by faith; his faith was justified
(vindicated) by works. Ja. 2:21-24
Reply: The word is “justified”
not “vindicated”. His faith was not
justified. HE was justified. How? By works of faith. James asks “can faith save him?” He is not asking “can faith vindicate him”? James
is asking if faith alone can save. James,
in verses fifteen and sixteen, gives an
example of one who tells a cold, hungry person to be warmed and filled, without
giving them anything. He then states in verse seventeen that “Faith by itself,
if it does not have works, is dead.”
Abraham did not have a dead faith. We are not saved or justified by a
dead faith, but by a living, active, obedient faith. If it has no activity it is not complete and
alive. Activity shows that it is alive. James’
argument culminates when he says in verse twenty-four that “You see that a
person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This is the only time
that the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible, and it is negated, not
affirmed. It is the person being justified. It is not merely vindicating a claim that one
has faith, but showing that the faith is alive and of the saving kind. Justification is what God does for us when we
show the works or evidence of a living faith.
There is no doubt that Abraham had living faith even before the
statement in Genesis 15. Hebrews 11
shows that Abraham “obeyed” when he was called to go to a country God would
show him. That was Genesis 12. Later, he believed promises too, and God “accounted
it for righteousness”. Was it ONLY
because Abraham believed the promises in Genesis 15? No! That was just further proof to God that
Abraham believed. But he believed God
and obeyed God even before that point.
We have to believe God’s commands and promises too. The 3,000 on Pentecost were justified through
their active, obedient faith. It was not
“faith alone”. It was active, obedient faith.
After their baptism and salvation they kept on doing good deeds. Finally, our brother says:
JE: Action
1. This is why Martin Luther could say, “We are saved by faith alone,
but the faith that saves is never alone.”
2. We are not saved by what we do but by trusting in what Christ has
done. If I believe, my life will prove it.
Reply: Martin Luther was
guilty of double-talk here. Can you tell
when the 3,000 Pentecostians were saved by “faith alone”? Was it 5 minutes before they repented? Was it before they repented and were
baptized? No! If there is anything clear
in the Bible it is the fact that these people had to be exhorted with many
other words to “be saved from this perverse generation”(v.40). How? By repenting and being baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins so that they could have the gift
of the Holy Spirit. Those are the
necessary tools for being saved from that perverse generation. Those are the conditions of saving faith.
Again, our brother’s last statement is off the mark of
truth. He says in closing: 2. We are not saved by what we do but by
trusting in what Christ has done. If I believe, my life will prove it.-Unquote!
Reply: Our brother would answer “what shall we do?”(Acts 2:37)
differently than Peter. Our brother
would not say what Peter said. Our
brother would answer, “we are not saved by what we do”. Peter had no hesitancy to tell them what to
do. They wanted to know how to be saved.
They wanted to know what “trusting in what Christ has done” would require of
them. Indeed, if the 3,000 gladly receive the words of instruction on how to
benefit from “what Christ has done”, they will be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ without further delay. They will
know precisely WHEN they were forgiven or justified before God. They will not
have to wait and see if “my life will prove it”. They will know exactly when it took place
because Peter told them exactly when it would take place. Paul said the same thing. They would be buried with him in baptism and
be raised with Him “through faith in the working of God” (Col.2:12).
We hope that this reply brings light, love, and
understanding to the table. We hope that our brother will come back to the
faith of the New Testament and will choose to discard the modern denominational
doctrines of men that pervert the truth of the gospel. If not, then my hope is to help enlighten
those who are willing to learn and test all things to glory of God and the
furtherance of the truth of the gospel and the defense of the faith.
Terry W. Benton
