Are you Confident of Your Salvation?

Are you Confident of Your Salvation?

If you died today, are you confident that you are prepared to meet your Maker?

I believe the Bible teaches that Christians are to be confident, not arrogant, but assured of the salvation we have.  Yet, I have found that there are too many Christians who are not confident.  Each time I ask this question on a personal level, more times than not I get an “I’m not worthy” kind of response.  I would then say, “you do know that there is a big difference between being worthy of salvation and being confident you have it.  No one is worthy of Jesus dying on the cross, but He did suffer and die on the tree for you and me, and I am determined not to let that death be in vain for me (2 Cor.6:1), even though I am not worthy of it.  How can we be “worthy” of forgiveness?  I don’t think we merit forgiveness, but I am sure that we can humbly and thankfully receive it, and on the conditions expressed by the Savior we can receive this freely given grace of God and be confident we have been justified, washed, and sanctified.

There are too many scriptures that tell us that we should enjoy “full assurance” of faith.  Hebrew 6:11 mentions this.  When you consider that “hope” is “confident expectation”, not an empty wish, you have to begin wondering why we have so many members who are not confident of going to heaven.  Hebrews 10:22 mentions that brethren can have “full assurance of faith”. Hebrews 11:1 says that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for”.  1 John 2:28 mentions that we can have “perfect confidence” and 3:21 shows that our heart can condemn us or it can trust God toward giving us confidence.

Two Extreme Views of Salvation

1.       I cannot know if I am saved (no security).

2.       I cannot be lost (false security).

The first view is wrong as well as the second view.  The first view is wrong because it flies in the face of too many scriptures.  John wrote “that you may KNOW you have eternal life”(1 John 5:13).  The first view denies the word of God.  The first view is therefore demonic or Satanic. It does not come from God.   Any view that contradicts the word of God should be discarded.  John wrote his books by inspiration of God, and God said through John “you may KNOW” you have eternal life.  Paul wrote that we may have “boldness and access with confidence”(Eph.3:10-12).  Paul had no fear of his destiny, and it was not because of his worthiness but because he trusted and utilized the spiritual blessings that are in Christ (Eph.1:3,7). So, without any doubt he could say “there IS laid up for me a crown of righteousness”(2 Tim.4:6-8), and he knew “the Lord WILL give me in that day”.  There was confident expectation in Paul.

One thing I know is that this “chief of sinners” did not think he had attained any state of “worthiness” that gave him a unique basis of confidence.  He felt unworthy to be called an apostle, and certainly felt unworthy of Jesus’ death for his sins, but he did not doubt that Jesus “was crucified for me”(Gal.2:20). He accepted that as unworthy as he was, Christ died for him.  He accepted that truth and enjoyed the benefits of believing in Jesus’ worthiness and in Jesus’ love for him on the personal level. 

The second view is also incorrect. There is a false security being taught. It is the false doctrine of “once-saved-always-saved”. It teaches people to believe they cannot be lost no matter what they do or fail to do.  This doctrine perverts God’s grace and “turns it into license” to sin(Jude 4-5).  It denies the word of God that said apostles and angels can do things that would cause them to be “accursed”(Gal.1:6-10). If it is possible to pervert the gospel (and it is possible), then it is possible to be accursed.  If it is possible to be influenced to start binding the law of Moses, it is possible to “fall from grace”(Gal.5:1-4). Paul said it took discipline to “buffet my body and bring it into subjection lest after I have preached to others I myself would become disqualified for the prize”(1 Cor.9:24).  Paul certainly did not teach that he could never be lost again after he was saved.  He warned in Hebrews of developing “an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God”(3:12).  The whole book of Hebrews gives warnings about “crucifying Jesus afresh” and how much worse the punishment when one trods underfoot the Son of God and does despite to the Spirit of grace (6:3-5-6; 10:25f).  There is clearly some danger of losing our way, becoming entangled again in the things of the world (2 Pet.2:20ff) and be worse than we were before we believed.  A false assurance is not what we need.  We need assurance based upon a correct handling of grace and faith, not assurance based upon abusing and misusing God’s word and deceiving ourselves.

What is the Basis of Our Assurance of Salvation?

Let’s get one thing out of the way right now. My own WORTHINESS is not the basis of my assurance. I don’t read of men in the Bible who felt that they were worthy.  John the Baptist said he was not worthy to even untie Jesus’ shoes (Matt.3:11).  Jesus was impressed with a centurion who said he was not worthy for Jesus to come to his house (Matt.8:8). The Prodigal Son, when he came to himself, said he was no longer worthy to be called his father’s son (Luke 15:19), yet His father welcomed him home with accepting and loving arms. Paul did not feel worthy to be called an apostle.  Why?  Because he remembered his sins (1 Cor.15:9).  In Revelation 5:2-5 there was no one worthy to open the scrolls except Jesus.  There is a common consensus of feeling unworthy.  But, worthiness is not the basis of assurance. It never was and never will be.  So, how did all these unworthy people still have confidence of their salvation?

The ONLY way to confidence and assurance is through faith or trust in Jesus.  He died for sinners like me (John 17:8; Gal.2:20f).  If he loved me at my worst (Rom.5:8), when I was not even trying to please Him, should I believe that He no longer loves me when I do concern myself with sin and serving God?  In Romans 8:31 Paul shows us that God is for us and will freely give us all things we need. Need forgiveness?  Got it!  Need strength?  Got it!  Here we are relying on HIS benefits, not our own worthiness. John says “if we confess our sins, He is faithful (you can count on it) and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”(1 John 1:7-9).  Having a partner like Jesus is the only way to deal effectively with sin.  Confess it, try not to do it any more, and when you fail, confess it and try again. The confidence grows as the relationship, partnership, fellowship grows closer and closer, richer and deeper.  Perfect love casts out fear.  God is greater than our conscience. He will clean us up and let us start again, and that will always be a dependable quality of our Father.

Why Should Our Conscience Condemn Us?

If we stop hungering and thirsting for righteousness and stop growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, then our conscience should condemn us and we should lose confidence and want it back enough to return to our first love, Jesus.  If we stop seeking to do God’s will, we do not need to give ourselves a false confidence that God will automatically cleanse us from all unrighteousness even as we plan to continue in sin (Rom.6:1f).  If we become lukewarm in our hearts and service toward God, then we need to know that God will spew us out of His mouth (Rev.3:16).  If we hate our brother, we should not deceive ourselves that God is pleased with us.  John addresses this self-deception at length in 1 John 3-5. There are conditions to be met and some absolute principles and characteristics that we have to employ, utilize, and obey in order to have confidence that we are in good standing with God.  Our conscience should not condemn us if we have confessed our sins (1 John 1:7 – 2:2) because we can count on God’s faithfulness to forgive.  Our conscience should not condemn us when we know we love God and our brethren (4:17-21).  Because we HOLD confidence in Jesus (Heb.3:14).  If I can be confident that Jesus forgave me of past sins when I was baptized (Acts 2:36-41; 22:16), then I can be confident He forgives each time I ask.  If He forgives me all those times in the past when I was not trying, He is certainly willing to forgive me now that I AM trying but often failing.

 

Conclusion

So,  when I ask, “are you confident of your salvation?”  I am not asking if you feel like you DESERVE salvation.  No one can deserve it.  I’m not asking if you think you are perfect. No one is sinlessly perfect, but forgiven is a daily and regularly obtainable state of being.  I’m not asking if you feel you are worthy, or if you feel you have obtained perfection.  I’m asking if you are in Christ and regularly washed in His blood as you strive to be more like Him?  Are you saved by grace through faith?  Have you taken His yoke, learned from Him, and found “rest for your soul”?(Matt.11:28f). Have you been holding your confidence in Jesus?  You certainly can “do all things through Christ who strengthens”(Phil.4:13), and therefore we can do the things to “make our calling and election sure”(2 Pet.1:3-11). In progressing and growing we know we are spiritually alive, and in washing in the blood regularly when we sin, we should be confident that we are forgiven, justified, and sanctified.  Each day we should “know we have eternal life” unless we know we are disregarding some sin we intend to keep practicing.  Let us hold fast our confidence firm unto the end.  - Terry W. Benton

Cleansed Before Sin Is Charged to Us?

‎Cleansed Before Sin Is Charged to Us?

A brother recently made this comment and then affirmed that the verses actually teach what he said:

"his sins are cleansed by the blood before they are ever charged to him (1 John 1:9; Rom. 4:7-8.)" (RD).

I asked: - “Are you sure that these verses say what you say they say?”

He affirmed that they did. So, let us examine whether these two verses teach that a Christians’ sins are cleansed by the blood before they are ever charged to him.  On the very surface this statement is false because if they are not charged to a person then they do not need to be cleansed. Only when I have the dirt on me do I need to be cleansed.  One does not need to be pardoned when there is no charge against us. The argument is not even reasonable on the surface.  But, let us see if they are scriptural anyway.

1 John 1:9

 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. NKJV

This verse clearly does not teach that sins are cleansed before they are ever charged to us. In fact, because they are charged to us we need to confess them because we have a need for God to forgive us (He has not already done so), and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  Sins are charged to us and need to be removed by forgiveness. We need to be cleansed because we are dirty with sins.  We are not already cleansed and forgiven of these sins.  So, our brother has misapplied this verse. It obviously teaches the opposite of what he said that this verse teaches.

So, let us consider whether his second reference teaches that the Christians’ sins are cleansed before they are ever charged to him.

Rom 4:7-8

7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,

And whose sins are covered;

8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."   NKJV

This passage clearly teaches that a man is blessed because his lawless deeds are forgiven, covered, and not imputed.  They are not imputed because they are covered and forgiven, but this verse does not teach that they are forgiven before they are even charged to the person.  David is an example of a man that did not have sins imputed to him, but that was because he confessed them (Psa.51). The Lord then (after sins were definitely charged to him) were then forgiven, covered, and he then became a man to whom the Lord would not impute those sins to him anymore.  The argument that our brother made is false. Neither verse teaches that the Lord forgives something that it not first charged to our account. To teach such is false doctrine.

The argument our brother made on these verses lead to the conclusion that if God forgives sins before and without repentance and confession, then it is the doctrine of “once-saved-always-saved”.  At the very least it is an argument used to give people a false assurance of salvation even as they practice sin. The Bible nowhere teaches that sins we commit are not charged to us and need not be confessed and repented of.  Now, God may consider age of accountability in physical and spiritual realms, but he expects all to grow into grace and knowledge. To whom much is given, much is required.  But, that is a different picture than teaching that the above two verses show across the board that all Christians are cleansed before sin is even charged to them.  We do not have power to judge who all is fully accountable, and therefore we do not have power to tell people they need not deal with issues of God’s law and make proper application as long as we have no reason to believe they are not accountable. Beware of the misuse and misapplication of God’s word.  God will not hold us guiltless who pervert the scriptures. We can surely to so to our own destruction (2 Pet.3:18f).

Terry W. Benton

Coming to the Aid of those who teach Heresy

Coming to the Aid of those who teach Heresy

The silence of many tells a frightening story that says that if we cannot and will not speak up on even the basic issue of what to do to be saved, the church is ripe for a mass apostasy.  If “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 4) means to keep silent because one must never engage “much dispute”(Acts 15), then we are not even the same church as the church that Stephen stood and died for engaging in debate with the Synagogue of the Freedmen and others (Acts 6-7).  If we cannot engage “much dispute” as the apostles and elders did in Acts 15, we have received a different set of morals and principles than they received and we stand to be taken over by “every wind of doctrine” that blows in (Eph.4:11-16).

If you do not have the courage of conviction to oppose and challenge brethren bringing in a wind of doctrine contrary to the New Testament our Lord died for, then please let me encourage you not to stand in the way or discourage those who are trying to take a clear stand for the truth.  If you suspect that someone who challenges another is being unkind and has not prayed fervently and tried to appeal to those brethren behind the scenes,  at least ask them before you make that rash judgment. We need to make sure we are not aiming our displeasure in the wrong direction.  If you think, without even investigating, that brethren have “‘handled this all wrong”, and you have not demonstrated how it SHOULD be handled by actually getting involved with the teacher of error to try, in whatever way you imagine he should be confronted, to move him/her to correct their error, then don’t discourage those who are trying, in their best judgment,  to do what you should have already handled yourself. This spirit of aiming your displeasure, not at the teachers of error, but at the defenders of truth, really plays well into Satan’s hands. There is nothing he would like better than for brethren to either say nothing or to come to the aid of those who teach heresy.  We really need to think about this. – Terry W. Benton

Promoting Misunderstandings about Legalism

Promoting Misunderstandings about Legalism

I have offered an article here: http://proveallthings-terry.blogspot.com/2012/04/when-someone-charges-us-with-legalism.html

In it I called for brethren to examine how they are joining the misguided denominationalists in calling brethren in Christ “legalists” without giving a fair and scriptural definition of what exactly this SIN of legalism actually is.  To date I have seen several brethren continue to make the charge but continue to evade and avoid giving a proper definition. I’m convinced that some of these brethren are not being honest, and that they are simply parroting the word for prejudicial reasons only. It is also a bit self-righteous on their part, as they seem to pretend that they have reached some greater level of spirituality that allows them to think that they have escaped this malady of “legalism”.

I would love to get someone to man up and participate in an orderly discussion of this issue. Perhaps it can be stated in some propositional form. But, what will these brethren affirm and deny?  Here are some possible examples of propositions:

1.       It is wrong to seek to obey the commandments of the Lord for this would be the sin of legalism.

2.       It is wrong to insist that people do something to be saved for this would be the sin of legalism.

3.       It is wrong to teach that we are justified by works and not by faith only for this would be the sin of legalism.

4.       It is wrong to withdraw from members because of violations of law because insisting that people not violate God’s moral law would be the sin of legalism.

5.       It is wrong to insist that people be sure that they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins because it is the sin of legalism to question a persons’ understanding in the conversion process.

I would think that brethren who charge other brethren with the sin of legalism would be too careful not to actually engage such propositions because it would clearly backfire and they would lose the debate. So, what could be the purpose of using this word against brethren and refusing to give it proper definition and discussion?  It seems to be used in vagueness because they merely want to prejudice brethren by pontificating and posing as if they have reached a more meaningful level of spirituality that is not attached to keeping the Lords commandments. Forget that Jesus said “if you love Me keep My commandments”, and forget all that John said about this in 1 John.  Prejudice and trying to use the word “legalist” or “legalism” to prejudice minds is a form of carnality and unreasonableness.

Brethren, we have every right to know the sin of “legalism” and how exactly it is a sin.  We do not need to throw this unbiblical term around without sufficient definition.  As far as I have been able to determine the only legitimate definition for this term that meets criteria of scripture as a sinful thing is “insisting on law without mercy”.  Now, I really do not know any brethren (perhaps there are some I don’t know about, but I doubt it) who teach and insist on law without mercy.  I need all the mercy I can get, and I try to teach people how mercy is offered and obtained because we all need it.

Next time you hear a brother throw that term out there, politely request a definition that fits the Bible criteria for such a term.  If it is insisting on keeping God’s law, then Jesus and His apostles were legalists.  If it is something other than “insisting on law without mercy”, then get these brethren to define it and show from the scriptures that it is a sin, or quit throwing the term around so loosely.

We do not need any more wedges to divide us. We need clear minds and good, honest hearts, and willingness to study and test all things.  We do not need to promote prejudice with empty words that mean various things to various people. That does not promote understanding and unity, and we do not need more misunderstanding. So, let us communicate and try not to talk past one another. Let us be willing to define our terms and use them correctly so that misunderstanding can be reduced.  Every idle word will be brought into judgment. Let us not forget that.    

 Terry W. Benton

Questions about Saving Faith

Questions about Saving Faith

 There is no question that faith is the designated channel through which man is able to receive the grace of God(Rom.5:1).  Only those of faith may receive the grace of God (Heb.11:6).  All who do not have faith will not have the grace of God.  However, when we say that faith is the channel, what is the nature, content, and quality of the faith that serves as the channel?  Everyone has faith of some kind.  Atheists believe in their intellect. They believe there is no God. Buddhists believe in Buddha.  Our point is that when we say “faith is the channel”, we still have not done enough to describe the right channel for the grace of God to come to man.  So, when we talk about faith being the channel, we have to also point out that the channel must be made of the right material, have the right content, be of the right consistency before it will serve as the channel through which man can reach the grace of God.  Thus, we have to raise certain questions about the connection between faith and saving grace.

Questions:

1. What is the CONTENT of saving faith?

A.       Faith in Jesus Christ.

                1. Faith in (as in direction toward) Jesus.

                2. Faith in (as existing in a certain location) Jesus.

B.  What must be believed concerning Jesus?

                1. Faith that He was a great man?

                2. Faith that He was a prophet?

                3. Faith that He is the Son of God?

C. Must we believe in our NEED for Jesus?

                 Must I believe that I am a lost sinner in need of Jesus?

               

D. Does a person have to believe what Jesus says?

                1. About repentance? Lk.13:3

                2. About baptism? Mk.16:16

2. When Does the Channel of Faith Actually make the Connection with Grace?

A. At what point in the timing of faith does a person actually become pardoned?

                1. When faith is pricking the heart?  Acts 2:36,37

                2. When faith decides to repent? Acts 2:38

                3. When faith submits to baptism in Jesus’ name? Acts 2:38

3. When has faith connected with grace in the past?

A. Does faith exclude obedience?

                1. By faith we understand things. Heb.11:3

                2. Abel offered....11:4

                3. Enoch “pleased God” - 11:5

                4. By faith a person “comes to God”, “diligently seeks Him” - 11:6

                5. Noah built the ark, “moved with godly fear” - 11:7

                6. Abraham “obeyed” - 11:8

                7. Abraham “offered up Isaac”. 11:17

B. Naaman met the condition for healing. 2 Kgs.5

C. The blind man washed in the pool of Siloam.  Jno.9:7

                 At what point did faith and grace meet in the healing?

D. When were the convicted people actually saved on Pentecost? Acts 2:36-41

E. When was the Ethiopian Eunuch happy?  Acts 8:35-39

F. When was the Philippian jailor happy?  Acts 16:30-34

G. When was Saul sure his sins were washed away? Acts 22:16

H. When did Saul think he got IN Christ?  Rom.6:3,4; 1 Cor.12:13

4. Is There A Valid Reason Why Baptism Cannot Be The Point In the Channel of Faith When Faith and Grace Meet?

A.      Please discuss why not, in view of the quoted verses.

B.      Look at Col.2:12 and notice the connection between faith and baptism.

a.       One is buried “with Christ” in baptism.

b.      While doing so the person being buried in baptism has “faith in the operation of God”.

                                                               i.      We go down believing that God will circumcise (cut away) the sins of the flesh.

                                                             ii.      We rise up from baptism believing he has cut them away. Acts 2:38; 22:16

Conclusion

All that God asks of us is to have a good and honest heart when we study His word.  Please take your Bible and go through these questions and answer by what you can see the Bible teaches in each passage.  If we have misused any verse or taken anything out of context, please love us enough to point it out to us. We do not wish to mislead anyone or to be misled ourselves.  God bless all honest hearts in this study.   –Terry W. Benton

Salvation through Faith in John’s Gospel

Salvation through Faith in John’s Gospel

First, let us be clear that John’s gospel was written to churches many years after conversion to Christ, and it was written to give the church equipment to battle the doctrine that Jesus did not come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-4).  That is the larger context of the book.   If you want a book that shows specifics of how an unbeliever moves from lost to conviction of sins, repentance and baptism by faith, look at Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16 and study the cases of conversion in the book of Acts. For example Acts 2:36-41; Acts 8:33f; 18:8.  John’s gospel addresses those already converted.  A belief in Jesus that said he was only in a form that merely LOOKED like flesh was beginning to circulate. This was the beginning of gnostic belief that flesh was inherently sinful, which would mean that Jesus would not be connected to something inherently sinful.  The discussion of John to people who already were baptized by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal.3:26-27), would not need to reference all the details of the conversion process (which did indeed include repentance and baptism. See Acts 2:36-41). But, John does not need to spell all of that out to believers who were baptized through obedient faith. He will need only to speak of the general term faith to cover the whole of the details involved with conversion to Christ.

 All John would need to talk about was faith in Jesus and give evidence that Jesus did indeed show evidence of being God come in human flesh.  So, since the book is written to already- saved-people, it was not designed to be handed exclusively to an unbeliever as an essay on how an unbeliever is to move from a lost condition to a saving condition.  It will give the general term  ”faith” as an umbrella term that covers the already-understood- whole of the conversion process through repentance, confession, and baptism in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:37-38).  Faith is a verb of action in the Gospel of John. Thu,s it is far more than "intellectual ascent."  Even in John’s gospel he speaks of some who “believed” but would not confess Jesus (John 12:42).  That kind of faith is not sufficient to save.  Jesus said that those who believed would have to confess Him before men or He would not confess them before the Father (Matt.10:32).

True faith is not simply about thinking or merely accepting something;  it is about doing something. Faith is nothing if it is not about obedience.  But, the absence of the specifics of the conversion process as is described in Acts 2:36-41, is not surprising  since it is not a book designed especially to be handed to an unbeliever.  It is written to correct misguided belief in a different Jesus, a Jesus who did NOT actually come in flesh.  Jesus says that our faith must “keep the Word if we are to see life.” See John 8:51,55. Keeping His word covers a lot of territory, and ALL of “His word” is not found in the book of John.  So, to ask if one could be saved on an island with only the book of John, is to ask if someone can understand and keep His word with only the book of John.  John’s book itself declares that there would be more revealed after the death of Jesus (John 16:13). Seeing that the early Christians did NOT have only the book of John, and seeing that the book of John was NOT written to the lost, but to the already saved, it is hard to affirm something that ignores 26 other books of information and tries to set up a different context for just one book of the Bible. You see the word “belief” is like the word “obey”. What if the whole book spoke of all those who OBEY God will be saved, but did not tell you all the details of WHAT to obey specifically?  Hebrews 5:9 says that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all those who OBEY Him.  Could a person on a stranded island take that one verse only and be saved?  It does speak the truth, just as John 3:16 speaks the truth in general terms. But, neither John 3:16 nor Hebrews 5:9 tell enough details to get a person from lost to saved just on the content of those verses.  But, let us see what we can learn about baptism and faith in the book of John.

First, we learn that people who believe and receive him are given authority to “become sons of God” and become “born of God”(1:12,13), while there is something about merely believing without confessing Jesus that is wholly insufficient (John 12:42). So, while believing can bring about a new birth, it does not bring about a new birth in every case.  Some believed without being born of God (12:42).

Secondly, there was an understanding that “baptism” would be connected with Jesus (John 1:25).  They asked John why he was baptizing if he was not “the Christ”, which implies that they understood that baptism would be connected to the Messiah.  A great indicator of the Messiah was that John the Baptist identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”, and that He would also “baptize with the Holy Spirit”, a thing He did on the Pentecost of Acts 2.

Thirdly, it is not enough to believe that Jesus is a “man come from God”(John 3:1-2),  so Nicodemus could not be born again until he gets the right information and is “born of water and Spirit”(3:5).  Since the topic is that of being born again AFTER one has already been born physically, then the topic of being “born of water and the Spirit” is not about physical birth at all. “How can a MAN be born when he is old?”-Nicodemus asks for further clarification.  After physical birth and maturity a person must be “born again”, and this will be by being “born of water and the Spirit”.  Now, baptism in water and a spiritual event from within would combine in a person being “born of water and the Spirit”.  We can see example after example of this in the book of Acts (Acts 2:36-41; 8:33ff).  In each case where a person is led by the Spirit to be “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins”(Acts 2:38), we are seeing a people being “born of the water and the Spirit”.  The Spirit guided Peter in what to say, and they were “cut to the heart” and cried “what shall we do?”, and the Spirit led Peter to tell them to be born of the water and the Spirit by “repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins”. Those who “gladly received his word”(the word of the Spirit) were baptized (Acts 2:41).  Thus, they were born of the water and the Spirit.  Nicodemus knew Jesus was a “teacher come from God”, but his faith will have to take him much further than this level of faith.  He will have to start all over in his thinking and get his information from the right sources and get his information containing the right facts, and he will have to let that teaching transform him from depending on his fleshly heritage to beginning anew with a spiritual heritage.  Jesus rebuked him for not receiving “our witness”(God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit). V.11.  It will be so transforming that the person “does the truth” and his deeds change to deeds done in God (3:21).  We see people coming to Jesus and being baptized (3:22) because they were receiving the correct witness and information and were “doing the truth”.  People who are interested in “doing the truth” will be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ just as we see people “gladly received his word and were baptized”(Acts 2:41).   John bore witness that the reason people were coming to Jesus and being baptized (3:26) was because they believed they should,  and that was fine with him was because “He (Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease”(3:30).  John had merely been preparing the way for Jesus by baptism in water,  Jesus would do that and much more.

Fourthly, believing in Jesus will involve knowing to disconnect from either Jerusalem or Samaria as the place to worship, and coming to understand that God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and truth (4:20-26). Believing in Jesus will involve “seeking the honor that comes from the only God”(5:44).  It will involve seeking Him, not for selfish and fleshly benefits (ch.6), but for the spiritual benefits(6:26-27).  Believing in Jesus would therefore involve “laboring” for the food that does not perish. Believing would involve “working the works of God”(6:28-29). It involves “hearing and learning from the Father”(6:45).  Hearing and learning from the Father would involve the right content of belief and the right source for forming concepts between Jesus and the Father. You will not believe in Jesus as a mere prophet, but will believe that He is everything we need to know about the Father as well for He exactly represents the Father to us.  Jesus would give his “flesh”(6:51).  So, believing in the right Jesus who is connected to the Father is believing in the One who actually came in the flesh. Believing will involve only those who eat His flesh and drink His blood (6:54-57). Jesus recognized that there was one who did not truly believe among his disciples (6:64). You see, belief takes much more than believing a few facts about Jesus, but it involves a deep level of obedient trust (12:42; 6:64) and spiritual intake. At this point even Jesus’ brothers did not “believe” as they would need to (7:5). You see the kind of “believing” that John 3:16 is talking about is the kind of belief that is willing to confess Him, seek Him, and obey Him, to eat his flesh and drink his blood, to commit to Him and be baptized in His name for remission of sins, to be “born of water and the Spirit”, and any kind of belief that is less than this is not belief to the saving of the soul (Heb.10:39).  Some said He was good, but none spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews (7:12,13).  These were people at the feast. They had a belief about Jesus, but it was not yet of the saving kind.

Jesus said that knowing the truth about Him would have to start with “wanting to do God’s will”(7:17). Those who truly believe would have the Spirit providing a resource that springs up as a fountain within them (7:37-39).  This would not be true of just any level of believing in Him.  Believing in Jesus would involve “following Jesus”(8:12). That involves taking steps in the same direction Jesus leads.  It does not mean just believing a few facts in John 3:16. It involves following Jesus.  You cannot do that with just John 3:16 alone as a guide.  To some who believed in Him he said that they would have to “abide in His word” to be a disciple and know the truth and be set free (8:30-32).  A John 3:16 limitation of knowledge would not be enough.  One who only has John 3:16 does not know about the flesh and blood of Jesus, and does not even know the name of Jesus.  That verse is a general truth, but that verse alone will not teach one how to know the truth about the details involved and then be set free. It takes “abiding in His word” (much more than John 3:16 imparts by itself) to know the truth and be set free from sin.  A spiritual rebirth and relationship with the Father involves “loving Jesus”(8:42). “He who is of God hears God’s words”(8:47), a thing that is not true of those who depend on the knowledge of John 3:16 alone.  It involves  “keeping Jesus’ words”(8:51), a thing not true of someone who only has knowledge of John 3:16 alone.

Fifthly, to be one of those who is safe with Jesus as the Good Shepherd, there must be much familiarity with the voice of the Shepherd. “They know His voice” and “follow Him”(John 10:3,4). Those with only knowledge of John 3:16 do not know his voice. They do not even know if the “Son” mentioned in John 3:16 is Jesus or some other person.  They need much more knowledge to get familiar with the voice of the Good Shepherd and trust that familiar voice enough to follow it. (John 10:5).   So, what have we learned about the nature of saving faith versus a faith that will not save?  We learn that faith that will be set free from sin is a faith that “abides in His words” and is very familiar with the voice of truth and follows that voice wherever it leads. If it is followed it will result in a person being “born of water and the Spirit”.  It will not be a faith that will not confess Him (12:42). It will confess Jesus openly.

Sixthly, the nature of saving faith is that it does not value physical life above eternal life.  A faith based solely on the information of John 3:16 does not know from this that they must value the eternal life enough to lose their earthly life for it (12:25) if need be.  Saving faith is the kind that “serves Jesus” and follows Him even to death (12:26).  You would not know how deeply committed the faith must be just by reading John 3:16. The kind of faith in John 3:16 is explained in all that Jesus taught, not just the words taught in the book of John alone but inclusive of much, much more than John 3:16 explains.  The word “believe” is inclusive of many more facts, commands, and promises.

Seventhly, to rely on the words of the gospel of John ALONE is not to know all that Jesus wanted people to know. There were other truths that the Spirit would give to the apostles (14:25,26; 15:26,27; 16:13). Thus, it would be wrong to expect that all one needs to know to be saved is to be found only in the gospel according to John.  Jesus plainly said to rely on what the Spirit would teach after His death, burial, resurrection and ascension.  The Spirit came on Pentecost of Acts 2 and revealed through the apostles what are the details of believing in Jesus for remission of sins.  It was clearly the case that when people were cut to the heart, were honest with the evidence presented, they had more than a John 3:16 knowledge.  They knew that JESUS was now both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36-37). They cried “what shall we do?”. The answer from Spirit guidance was “repent…and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins”(Acts 2:38).  Those who listened to the Spirit were “born of the Spirit”, and that means that they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (which involves water – Acts 10:47; 8:33f). Thus, they were “born of the water and the Spirit”(John 3:5).  The information about what is involved with “believing” in Jesus was not fully supplied in the gospel record of John alone, especially not John 3:16 alone.  The Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth (16:13).  Those that gladly received the word of the Spirit revealed through Peter did not argue with the words of the Spirit in Acts 2:38.  They simply believed and acted upon that belief.  Those who truly believe today will act the very same way.  Those who do not, simply have the same kind of “faith” as the men mentioned in John 12:42.  It is not a saving kind of faith.

When the Ethiopian Eunuch learned about Jesus, he knew he needed to be baptized.  They came to some water and the Eunuch said, “see, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”. Philip said “if you believe with all your heart you may”(Acts 8:33f).  This man confessed Jesus and was baptized. You see, he was “born of the water and the Spirit”.  Only after this point did he have reason to rejoice. His sins were remitted just as was so with the 3,000 on Pentecost.  Only then did he have the kind of “belief” that John 3:16 is talking about.  John 3:16 is the general truth. The specifics of what is involved with the saving kind of faith is explained in such clear cases of conversion in the book of Acts. Now, we know what KIND of faith, and what is involved with believing.  Now we know it is much more than believing just a few facts about Jesus. It is a commitment of obedience to Him.

We hope that all will be honest with all that the Spirit says.  Continue in His word so that you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.  – Terry W. Benton

Three Models of Justification?

Three Models of Justification?

A preacher says there are three models of justification being taught. He rejects the first two and accepts the last. They are:

1)      Faith without works

2)      Faith PLUS works

3)      Faith THAT works

http://lagrangechurchofchrist.com/Files%20for%20Web/ro3_21-4_25justbygracethrufaith.pdf

But, his bottom line is that one is justified by the first (faith without works) and that the proof (fruit) of the salvation is that it will become a “faith THAT works”.  He says that churches of Christ now teach what he formerly taught.  He says they teach “faith PLUS works” because they usually teach that you HAVE to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins”(Acts 2:37-41) in order to be justified, and he no longer believes this.  He believes that one has “faith only” and is saved or justified by grace through faith ONLY, but the fruit of that justification is a “faith THAT works”. That means that one is saved first and then repents and is baptized to SHOW that it is a faith that works (faith alone that does not remain alone).  So, this means that people will not know if they are justified unless and until it moves them to some action, ANY action.  What actions was Abraham moved to perform after he was justified?  When exactly was he justified?  Can we know when exactly he was justified and when exactly we are justified?

The Content and Conditions of Abrahams’ Justifying Faith Only

He uses Abraham as an example of justification without works and shows how his actionless faith was first justified by faith alone and then began obeying AFTER he was justified.  Well, the problem with this view is that it assumes there was a point of justification by mental belief ONLY before Abraham ever did ANYTHING, and then Abraham started doing obedient things BECAUSE he was already justified.  There is also the problem of trying to figure out how much knowledge did it take for Abraham to be justified by faith alone versus how much knowledge we must have to be justified by faith alone?  Did Abraham have to know about the name of Jesus Christ?  If not, then can we also be justified by the same level of knowledge that Abraham had?  That is, can we be justified by the same CONTENT of faith as Abraham had, or must we work a little more to know some things he did not have to know?  If a person is justified at a certain point in “faith alone”,  what is the required level of knowledge and the required attitude that one must work to have in order to be justified by “faith alone”?  Will the right attitude start up AFTER the justification?  Will proper conviction and attitude be a fruit of justification by faith alone?  Does “faith alone” include a particular amount of knowledge and conviction?  If so, what is it? Does “faith alone” include or exclude conviction of sin?  Will “conviction of sin” be a “fruit” that develops AFTER justification?  What else is included in “faith alone”?  Does it include or exclude “godly sorrow”?  Will “godly sorrow” be a “fruit” that develops AFTER justification by faith alone?  What about the command to repent?  Is repentance included in faith alone?  Or, is repentance a command to obey AFTER justification by faith alone has occurred?  What about confessing Jesus?  Is this an extra work that Abraham did NOT have to obey?  And, has the content and conditions of ‘faith alone” changed in any way since the days of Abraham?  Will our “faith only” brethren say that Abraham did not have to confess Jesus but that we do?  If so, how is it faith only apart from works of obedience?  Or, do these faith-only brethren teach that confessing Jesus is only a “fruit” that will develop AFTER one is justified by faith alone?

The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus

There is a level of learning, hearing, considering, examining the evidence for Jesus being the Christ the Son of the Living God that we have to work through to have faith in Jesus Christ.  Abraham did not have to examine, consider, or hear the evidence of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  So, the content of his faith was different than ours.  Can we be justified on Abraham’s content of faith instead of the Christian content of faith?  Can we believe that “a Seed is coming”(like Abraham believed) instead of “the Seed has come in Jesus Christ, was crucified for our sins, was buried, and raised, and is the Son of God” (like Christians had to believe)?  Now, is there any work at all involved in examining the evidence for Jesus being the Christ, the Son of the Living God and whether His resurrection demonstrates it?

The Truth

Paul is not arguing in Romans 3-4 that Abraham was justified by faith without any effort or obedience at all.  He is contrasting two different systems of justification: 1) Works of law-keeping where grace was not needed because the works measured up to the demands of law, and 2) Faith, where grace was needed because works did not measure up to law.  He is not arguing that Abraham was justified by faith alone before he ever did ANYTHING, but that it was not dependent on any of the things that Jews boast about such a circumcision or keeping the Law of Moses or any other law only system.

It is also a fact that Paul is not using Abraham to show Christians the precise moment in faith that justification occurs. He is not using Abraham to tell us that we can be justified by the SAME CONTENT of faith as Abraham had. He has not told us about the precise moment when Abraham was convicted of sins and at what precise content and attitude of faith that God justified him. The conditions of faith and the precise content of his faith is not discussed at all.  The only point Paul is making about Abraham is that it was not on the basis of law and works of law, but on the basis of faith (whatever content and activity was required is not the issue of similarity to ours).  The similarity is that it was FAITH based, not works of LAW based. 

It is also true that Paul is not telling the Roman brethren that they were justified before they were “buried with Him in baptism”(Rom.6:1-6). Paul is not saying that obedience was not evidenced in Abraham before he was justified.  He is saying that “deeds of law” was not the basis of his justification.  Paul is not saying that the 3,000 on Pentecost were first justified and then bore the fruit of justification by repenting and being baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ.  Paul is not arguing that justification came before Abraham ever obeyed God at any point.  He is not arguing that Abraham was justified by faith alone before there was ever any obedience on his part.  He is not arguing that Abraham and we are justified by “faith alone”.  He wasn’t. (James 2).  Paul is not arguing that we can be justified like Abraham apart from learning about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  It is a total misuse of Romans 3-4 to make a point that contradicts “baptism into Christ”(Rom.6:3-4; Gal.3:26-27; Col.2:12) and the very point in time when Paul was justified (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor.12:13). It is a total misuse of Romans 3-4 to make a point that contradicts the clear cases of conversion.  The 3,000 Jews on Pentecost knew that they were justified by faith in Jesus Christ WHEN they repented and were baptized “for remission of sins”(Acts 2:36-41). There was no rejoicing and celebration until AFTER baptism.  The Ethiopian Eunuch knew that he was justified by faith in Jesus WHEN he confessed Jesus and was baptized (Acts 8:33f). There was no reason to rejoice until AFTER he was baptized.

Now, our brother claims that this is “faith PLUS works”.  None of the early Christians looked at it that way.  It was not faith PLUS works of law to EARN justification.  It was faith that obeyed the terms of pardon.  That is all it was.  By faith Abraham obeyed (Heb.11).  There is not one verse that says or implies that he was justified before ANY act of obedience.  He simply was not justified because of circumcision or keeping of law.  We are not bound to be circumcised and keep the Law in order to be justified either.  But, our content of faith must include MORE than Abraham had opportunity to learn and know, and the action of faith is different. We must believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and on that basis of faith be “buried with Him in baptism”(Rom.6:3-5). Abraham’s faith did not have to include all of this. Ours does.  We can be justified by faith like Abraham, but not with the same content of faith or expressions of faith.  We hope our preaching brethren realize this before they drag others into their “false gospel” and belief in “another Jesus”.  Paul did not preach THAT Jesus  that says “he that believes is saved and should then be baptized”(Mark 16:16).  Brethren, don’t let yourself be deceived by fair speeches and sympathy toward men.  Stand up for the truth and mark those who preach any other gospel  or doctrine (Rom.16:17; Gal.1:6-10).  –Terry W. Benton