"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
For example, Wayne Gruden, a Reformed theologian and a proponent of "Lordship Salvation" (although he prefers not to use that label), says that saving repentance (which he agrees is included in saving faith) is "a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ."[1] So all these things are included in saving faith, according to Grudem.
But notice this testimony from a former "proud Pharisee" who had similar good intentions, but came to realize that this is not the way of salvation by Christ alone:
"Let me confess ingenuously [candidly], I was a professor of religion, at least a dozen of years, before I knew any other way of eternal life, than to be sorry for my sins, and ask forgiveness, and strive and endeavor to fulfil the law, and keep the commandments, according as Mr. _____, and other godly men had expounded them: and truly, I remember, I was in hope, I should at last attain to the perfect fulfilling of them: and in the mean time, I conceived, that God would accept the will for the deed, or what I could not do, Christ had done for me.
And though at last, by means of conferring with Mr. Thomas ______ in private, the Lord was pleased to convince me, that I was yet but a proud Pharisee; and to show me the way of faith and salvation by Christ alone."[2]
Similarly, notice the following account from the life of John Wesley:
"It is well known that the celebrated John Wesley was a long time in deep anxiety about his salvation, and for years lived, as he himself says, 'preaching, and following after, and trusting in that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified.' When alluding to the days he spent at the university, and the state of mind he was then in, he writes—'I cannot well tell, what I hoped to be saved by now, when I was continually sinning against that little light I had; unless by those transient fits of, what many divines taught me to call, repentance.' 'The struggle,' he tells us, 'continued for ten years,' until one evening he listened to a person who was reading Luther's 'Preface to the Romans.' While he heard the Reformer's description of the change which God works in the heart, through faith in Christ, he felt as he had never done before; 'I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for my salvation, and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.' Soon after his conversion, he paid a visit to the Moravian Settlement, at Hernhutt, in Germany, and tells us, in his Diary, that his views became much clearer, and his faith strengthened by the private conversations and public discourses he there enjoyed. He speaks of one sermon preached by Christian David, that made an abiding impression upon his mind. His words are as follows:—'The fourth sermon which he preached, concerning the ground of our faith, made such an impression upon me, that when I went home, I could not but write down the substance of it, which was as follows:'—And here is a part of the sermon. 'You grieve for your sins; you are deeply humble; your heart is broken. Well. But all this is nothing to your justification. The remission of your sins is not owing to this cause, either in whole or in part. Nay, observe farther, that it may hinder justification; that is, if you build anything upon it; if you think I must be so and so contrite; I must grieve more before I can be justified. Understand this well. To think you must be more contrite, more humble, more grieved, more sensible of the weight of sin, before you can be justified, is to lay your contrition, your grief, your humiliation, for the foundation of your being justified; at least, for a part of the foundation. Therefore, it hinders your justification; and a hindrance it is which must be removed, before you can lay the right foundation. The right foundation is not your contrition, not your righteousness, nothing of your own; nothing that is wrought IN YOU by the Holy Ghost; but it is something without you; viz.: the righteousness and blood of Christ. This is the word, 'To him that believeth on God which justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' See ye not that nothing in us is the foundation. Works? Righteousness? Contrition? No. Ungodliness only. This, then, do, if you will lay a right foundation. Go straight to CHRIST, with all your ungodliness. Tell him, 'Thou, whose eyes are as a flame of fire, searching my heart, seest that I am ungodly. I do not say, I am humble or contrite; but I am ungodly. Therefore, bring me to him that justifieth the ungodly. Let thy blood be the propitiation for me: for there is nothing in me but ungodliness.'"[3]
Oh how futile it is to try to gain God's acceptance and favor through self-effort and striving, rather than by simply receiving and resting!
Let us heed the warning of Martin Luther when he instructs us not to confuse law with grace:
"Therefore I warn you, and each one of you, especially such as are to be directors of the conscience, that you exercise yourselves in study, reading, meditation and prayer, so as you may be able to instruct and comfort both your own and others' consciences in the time of temptation, and to bring them back from the law to grace, from the active (or working) righteousness to the passive (or received) righteousness: in a word, from Moses to Christ."[4]
"For the devil is [accustomed], in affliction and in the conflict of conscience, by the law to make us afraid, and to lay against us the guilt of sin, our wicked life past, the wrath and judgment of God, hell and eternal death, that by this means he may drive us to desperation, make us bond-slaves to himself, and pluck us from Christ. Furthermore, he is [accustomed] to set against us those places of the Gospel, wherein Christ himself requires works of us, and with plain words threatens damnation to those who do them not. Now, if here we be not able to judge between these two kinds of righteousness, if we take not by faith hold of Christ sitting at the right hand of God, who maketh intercession unto the Father for us wretched sinners (Hebrews 7:25), then are we under the law and not under grace, and Christ is no more a savior, but a lawgiver. Then can there remain no more salvation, but a certain desperation and everlasting death must need follow."[5]
The Bible makes it clear in Ephesians 2:8-9 and in many other passages (e.g. Acts 15:11, 20:24; Rom. 3:24, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Eph. 1:7, 2:5; Titus 2:11, 3:7, etc.) that sinners are saved "by grace," not by good intentions.
If you are trusting—even in the slightest—in your own good intentions to get you to heaven (such as in your commitment "to walk in obedience to Christ"), then you are trusting in yourself, at least in some measure. That is not salvation by grace! I implore you, change your mind (repent) and trust in Christ alone, Christ completely, Christ all-sufficient and Christ enough for salvation, and then you will find rest for your soul!
In the back flyleaf of my Bible are written these words, which I wrote there many years ago: "The road to heaven is paved with the blood of Jesus. The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
References:
[1] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the [Lordship] Gospel (Crossway, 2016), p. 42. In his book, Grudem says that "we are justified by faith alone (faith is the only response that God requires from us), but the faith that justifies is never alone (because it never occurs by itself, but is always accompanied by—or includes—repentance from sin" (Ibid., p. 38). As mentioned above, Grudem gives this definition for repentance: "Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ." (Ibid., p. 42.) So according to Grudem, saving faith always "includes" these things. I want to emphasize that Grudem here is not saying that these things follow or should follow saving faith; he is saying that saving faith "includes" these things! All these things are included in Grudem's definition of "justification by faith alone". In other words, it is "justification by faith alone" in name only. In reality, Grudem's definition of "justification by faith alone" includes much more than faith alone! But according to the Bible, saving faith is simply receiving Christ (see John 1:12, 3:16, 4:10; Rom. 3:24, 4:4-5, 6:23, etc.), not making a commitment that I'm going to walk in obedience—that's works!
[2] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Part 1, First American Edition (Pittsburgh: Published by William Paxton, 1830), p. xvi.
[3] J. Oswald Jackson, Repentance: Or, The Change of Mind Necessary for Salvation Considered, pp. 50-51.
[4] This statement by Luther (from his Commentary on Galatians) is quoted in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. vi.
[5] Martin Luther's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-8/LIBRARY/LUT_CGAL.PDF (accessed October 15, 2025).
I would respectfully disagree. Every example you sited had two things in common .They had believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, and had erroneously added some kinds of works . To believe that Jesus is the Messiah , the Son of God(human and Divine) results in justification, period. To erroneously add anything is error but the person is still justified. It is a sanctification issue, not a justification issue. One need only read Acts 15 to see that the BELIEVING Pharisees were teaching error, and obviously believed works were necessary for justification, yet Paul never questions their salvation but does enter into sharp dispute about it. Acts 15:1-5
ReplyDeleteNew International Version
The Council at Jerusalem
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.
New International Version (NIV)
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your perspective. Maybe we can discuss all this a bit more so there's no misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you said that you disagreed with "every example I cited"? Because in the last three examples that I cited, all of them were saying that trusting in one's own good works or self-righteousness doesn't save. You disagree with that? For example, in the statement by John Wesley that I quoted, he said that for years he was "preaching, and following after, and trusting in that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified." Yet it sounds like you're saying he was justified, even though Wesley himself made it clear that he wasn't!
So the issue WASN'T that Wesley didn't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. I'm sure he did. In other words, when Wesley was converted at Aldersgate, it wasn't as if he said, "Aha! I now realize that Jesus is the promised Messiah!" That wasn't Wesley's testimony. Wesley no doubt believed that Jesus is the Son of God prior to his conversion--and he probably preached it too! The irony is that as a religious but lost preacher (like many today), Wesley no doubt preached that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God! The demons even believe that! See Luke 4:41. That alone doesn't save anybody. Rather, Wesley makes it clear that the issue was that prior to his conversion, he was trusting in a works righteousness: he was "trusting in that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified." That is, self-righteousness. Works-righteousness is the way of Cain, and is said to be cursed by God (see Gen. 4:3-5; Jer. 17:5; Jude 11).
So although you may think that such people are saved, the Bible says otherwise (cf. Rom. 3:24, 3:27-28, 4:4-5, 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.). And Edward Fisher, John Wesley, and Martin Luther attest to that fact. Maybe you could comment and clarify exactly what you're saying, in terms of being more specific in response to their statements that I quoted in the blog post. Maybe you could quote the parts of their statements that you disagree with? I think that would be helpful.
And in regards to Acts 15, it seems like you are assuming that the believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5 are the same men as those in 15:1. But that connection is not specified in the context. Indeed, the apostle Paul's testimony about it in Galatians 2:1-5 (where he calls certain of them "false brethren" in Gal. 2:4) would indicate that at least some of them were unbelievers! I wrote about this whole topic in more detail in my 2-part review of Ken Wilson's book "Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society". You can find both of my review articles (Parts 1 and 2) in the "A to Z List of Articles" page on my blog. For more information, also see the excellent BibleLine article by Dr. Hank Lindstrom titled "Christ Plus Equals Nothing". God bless
You said :"And in regards to Acts 15, it seems like you are assuming that the believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5 are the same men as those in 15:1. But that connection is not specified in the context." Even if the the men in vs1 and vs5 are not the same, don't you find it incredible that Paul , in the Acts 15 context wouldn't proclaim their need( those speaking in vs 1) to believe in "faith alone in Christ alone"? Yet he never questions their salvation. Faith in Jesus plus erroneously adding works , is not the same as faith in the Mosiac law apart from any acknowledgement that Jesus is the promised Messiah . That is Paul's "faith verses works" argument throughout his epistles. I believe it was foreign to Paul's thinking that if someone believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Divine and human and Son of God, yet was in error in other doctrinal issues , that somehow that would disqualify them for eternal salvation. Again I would hold to the fact that is a sanctification issue.
DeleteI see that you didn't address my opening question asking you to please clarify how you disagree with "every example I cited"? Let me just say that if your view forces you to ignore simple questions, it doesn't seem like your view can stand up to very much scrutiny! So let me take the liberty to address more specifically one of your initial statements from your opening comment that I was responding to in my previous comment. You said: "One need only read Acts 15 to see that the BELIEVING Pharisees were teaching error, and obviously believed works were necessary for justification, yet Paul never questions their salvation..." And in my response I showed you how that is false, based on Paul's own statement about it in Galatians 2:4, where he calls some of them "FALSE BRETHREN"! So that disproves your entire premise, which is that (you said) Paul never questions their salvation. But he did! In fact, he more than questioned it; he denied it! Paul makes it clear they were NOT saved; they were "false brethren" (Gal. 2:4). I wonder, do you know the meaning of "false brethren"? The Scriptures are abundantly clear. So your dogmatic theology is triumphing over your biblical theology. Remember, the Bible should come first (i.e. exegesis, or what the Bible actually says) and then we should build our theology on that. Not vise versa. So you have it backwards.
ReplyDeleteAnd in regards to your previous comment, you said: "Even if the the men in vs1 and vs5 are not the same, don't you find it incredible that Paul , in the Acts 15 context wouldn't proclaim their need (those speaking in vs 1) to believe in 'faith alone in Christ alone'?" What I find incredible is that you said: "Even if the men in vs1 and vs 5 are not the same," in your view that apparently doesn't change anything! But actually that one simple fact disproves your entire premise! How so? Your assumption is that the men in both groups are saved or that Paul is referring to the same group of people in both verses. Again, your view (apparently) is that they are all "BELIEVING Pharisees". That's what you said. You also said that in Acts 15 "he [Paul] never questions their salvation." First of all, that's an argument from silence (based only on Acts 15 in isolation). So right there you have two problems: A) It's an argument from silence, which is an extremely weak argument that is generally considered a logical fallacy because it mistakenly treats the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. And B) You are reading Acts 15 in isolation apart from the rest of the Bible (what Paul says elsewhere about the Jerusalem Council). This brings me to my second point: Second of all, you are not comparing Scripture with Scripture. Because referring to the same event in Galatians 2:1-5 (i.e. the Jerusalem Council), Paul does more than question their salvation; he denies it! In Galatians 2:4, Paul calls at least some of them "false brethren". You would do well to take heed to the whole council of God's Word (cf. Acts 20:27). But getting back to your assumption that the false teachers in Acts 15 are all "BELIEVING Pharisees," when I showed you from Paul's own lips how that is not the case, you ignored it and asked me a question about something Paul DIDN'T say! Which makes it an argument from silence. Hence you are now basing your beliefs about Acts 15 on an argument from silence. Maybe you're okay with that. But that is an incredibly weak argument. As I mentioned, it's generally considered a logical fallacy! So that's what I find incredible: not what Paul didn't say or your assumption about what he didn't say, but rather that you are building an entire doctrine on merely your assumption about something Paul didn't say! That's incredibly poor (bad) Bible interpretation.
[Continued below...]
I'd like to share some insights on the Acts 15 passage with you in the hope that it will open your eyes to the truth of the Scriptures on this most important subject. Here are my thoughts in response to Ken Wilson's view from his book Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society. From what you are saying, Wilson's interpretation of Acts 15 is essentially the same as your view of it. So what I say in regards to Wilson's view has application to your view as well. I show how that view is false and unbiblical; it is basically nothing more than an unproven assumption about the Greek indefinite pronoun (Grk. tines, meaning "some") in Acts 15:1, 5, and 24. What follows is my research findings and analysis of the text. I wrote the following in an article titled "Book Review: Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, Part 2":
ReplyDeleteWilson doesn’t compare Scripture with Scripture, and he reads his preconceived theological viewpoint into the biblical text. Wilson tries to make the case that the false teachers in Acts 15:1 were Christian brethren who were also requiring works for salvation in addition to faith in Christ. Wilson says, “There is no valid exegetical reason not to connect the certain ones (tines) in 15:1 with the certain ones (tinas) in 15:5 [i.e. ‘Pharisees who had believed’] and 24 [‘some of our number’] discussing salvation.” (p. 196, emphasis his.) But even if the false teachers in 15:1 were indeed brethren, it would simply mean that believers were teaching false doctrine. In other words, the text doesn’t say they got saved by faith plus works. Remember, faith plus works was their requirement for salvation (Acts 15:1), not necessarily God’s requirement! Even Wilson admits this when he says that the conversion of the Gentiles “forced the Christian Jews in the Jerusalem church to reassess God’s requirements for salvation.” (p. 198, emphasis his.) But getting back to Wilson’s earlier statement, he misses the point when he argues that the exegesis of Acts 15 doesn’t rule out the possibility that the “certain ones” in 15:1 were believers. That is to say, Wilson thinks it possible and even likely that the false teachers in Acts 15:1 are believers. But to use a common metaphor, Wilson is “missing the forest for the trees.” That is to say, Wilson is not interpreting Acts 15:1 in light of the whole counsel of God’s Word. How so? Because when the apostle Paul comments on these events in his epistle to the Galatians, Paul describes these Judaizers as “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4). This is also an exegetical point, and Wilson completely misses it because he fails to compare Scripture with Scripture; he fails to compare Luke’s account in Acts 15 with the apostle Paul’s explanation of the same events in his epistle to the Galatians. Wilson merely says in a tiny footnote at the bottom of the page, “The question of the relationship and timing between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (false brethren) is still debated.”[2] Wilson quickly dismisses Galatians 2 with a virtual wave of the hand (he apparently feels that it has very little bearing on Acts 15), but is this the correct approach?
[Continued below...]
Commenting on Acts 15:1-5, Arno C. Gaebelein states, “The second chapter in Galatians must here be considered for it gives additional information on this visit to Jerusalem.”[3] Similarly, J. Vernon McGee affirms: “The Epistle to the Galatians gives us a full explanation of the council [at Jerusalem].”[4] McGee is highlighting the importance of Galatians 2 in connection with the events described in Acts 15. Commenting on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, Stifler more specifically states “that Paul, in all probability writing afterward about this very meeting, calls some of its members ‘false brethren’ (Gal. ii. 1-5). To all appearance, too, the men who precipitated the question now in Jerusalem were not the men who started the strife at Antioch.”[5] Commenting on Acts 15:1, the 19th century New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson similarly affirms: “In Gal. 2:4 Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as ‘false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty.’ It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in Gal. 2:1-10 is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15:5-29 in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in Acts 11:29f.”[6] Dean Henry Alford, another NT Greek scholar, takes the same view when he writes the following concerning Acts 15:1 and the Greek indefinite pronoun tines: “1. τινες] Called in Galatians 2:4, παρείσακτοι ψευδάδελφοι, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ [‘intruding false brothers, who have come in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus’].”[7] When understood in this light (and in contrast to Wilson’s view), it seems evident that the Judaizers in Acts 15:1 were actually “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4). This fits nicely with Luke’s account. Notice that in Acts 15:1, Luke does not call them brethren; he simply says “some men”. Wilson wants to conclude that those in Acts 15:1 are the same group as in 15:5, based on the fact that the indefinite pronoun tines (“some men”, 15:1; “certain ones”, 15:5) is used to describe both groups. But in so doing Wilson is reading too much into the text and not comparing Scripture with Scripture. To cite another example of this, Wilson says that “Hodges and Wilkin miss the tines connection in Acts 15:1, 5, and 24 in the Greek by citing only the English text.” (p. 200.) Wilson is trying to connect Acts 15:1, 5, and 24 simply because all three contain the Greek indefinite pronoun. In other words, Wilson is basically saying that since Acts 15:1, 5, and 24 all use the Greek indefinite pronoun tines (translated as “some men” or “certain ones”), we should therefore conclude that all three indefinite pronouns refer to “the same believing Jewish group” (p. 196). How convenient! This is what Wilson is trying to prove in the first place, not what the text says. It seems quite a circular argument to say that each occurrence of tines (in Acts 15:1, 5, and 24) refers to Christians when that is what you are trying to prove in the first place! Wilson is reading too much of his preconceived theology into the text, and ignoring Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:4 where he calls at least some of the Judaizers “false brethren”. (Excerpted from the article by Jonathan Perreault, "Book Review: Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, Part 2". FGFS, July 1, 2023.)
ReplyDeleteYou said " I see that you didn't address my opening question asking you to please clarify how you disagree with "every example I cited"? Let me just say that if your view forces you to ignore simple questions, it doesn't seem like your view can stand up to very much scrutiny!" I wasn't trying to avoid your questions. I already stated that believing that Jesus is the Messiah , the Divine and human Son of God is the core of what is needed for eternal salvation. John 20:31
ReplyDeleteNew International Version
31 But these are written that you may believe[a] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Your first unnamed person, Wesley, and Luther all had that core belief. Because of bad theology they lacked assurance and eternal security , but were justified. When they realized later in life of the error they were taught they came to full assurance and were secure. You said "So although you may think that such people are saved, the Bible says otherwise (cf. Rom. 3:24, 3:27-28, 4:4-5, 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.)." I said "Faith in Jesus plus erroneously adding works , is not the same as faith in the Mosiac law for justification apart from any acknowledgement that Jesus is the promised Messiah . Acts 13:38-39
New International Version
38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. That is Paul's "faith verses works" argument throughout his epistles. I believe it was foreign to Paul's thinking that if someone believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Divine and human and Son of God, yet was in error in other doctrinal issues , that somehow that would disqualify them for eternal salvation. Again I would hold to the fact that is a sanctification issue." As to the Acts 15/ Galatians 2 issue I would submit that is also a Mosiac law issue and not talking about erroneously adding human good works. Those who acknowledge their lost and sinful condition(repentance) and turn to Jesus in faith are justified. God made it simple.
In regards to the three examples I cited in the blog post, it really seems as if you aren't being honest with what they said. Because they made it clear that they were UNSAVED (as I pointed out specifically with the example of John Wesley) until they came to the point of trusting in Christ "apart from works" (Rom. 3:27-28). But yet you still say that they were saved even though they said they weren't. I understand that you disagree, but at least be honest with what they are saying. The fact of the matter is: you disagree with John Wesley and Martin Luther on salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone! And the more saddening fact is that you disagree with THE BIBLE on salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. I've noticed that you just keep repeating your one statement about how you think a person is saved by merely acknowledging the fact that Jesus is the Messiah even if a person erroneously adds works for salvation (i.e. doesn't trust in Christ alone) you think they are saved anyway, but I already pointed out to you how even the demons believe that Jesus is the Son of God! See Luke 4:41. You completely ignored that Bible verse! How convenient to ignore Bible verses that challenge your unbiblical presuppositions! You might respond that Jesus didn't die for demons and they can't be saved regardless of what they believe, and that's true. But I cite that Bible verse to illustrate my point, which is that it's the same for anyone who merely believes in (or merely acknowledges) the deity of Jesus apart from trusting in Him alone for salvation -- they can't be saved that way. The Bible is clear that in order for a person to be saved, they must trust in Christ ALONE for salvation (Acts 4:12), not Christ plus. The gospel of "Christ plus" (fill in the blank) is a cursed gospel (cf. Jer. 17:5; Gal. 1:6-9) that is not the true gospel.
ReplyDelete[Continued below...]
By the way, John 20:30-31 doesn't lend any support to what you said about trusting in Christ "plus erroneously adding human good works" for salvation. You can't legitimately appeal to John 20:30-31 to support that view because it actually contradicts it -- and I'll show you how. John 20:30-31 says "believe" (v. 31), and belief according to the Bible excludes human works (see Romans 4:4-5). By the way, you never heard me nor any of the people I mentioned in my blog post say they disagree that a person must believe in the deity of Christ to be saved. We all agree with John 20:30-31. We all affirm it. In other words, in order to be saved, a person must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. That's what John 20:30-31 teaches. But you are going beyond that and saying something that John 20:30-31 is NOT saying. You are saying that a person can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ PLUS erroneously believing works are necessary. Nowhere in John's entire Gospel (nor in the entire Bible) will you find it saying any such thing. In fact, it says quite the opposite! Since you brought up the Bible (at least your favorite proof-texts in isolation to the rest of the Scriptures), let's look at Ephesians 2:8-9 because it completely DISPROVES your entire premise that salvation can be by faith plus (erroneously adding) works. Salvation CAN'T be by faith plus erroneously adding works, according to Paul's own statement in Ephesians 2:8-9. There Paul says: "For it is by grace [undeserved favor] you have been saved, through faith [not faith plus works] — and this [salvation] is not from yourselves [!], it is the gift of God — not by works [in any way, shape, or form], so that no one can boast." By the way, if someone could get saved by faith plus works then they would have something to boast about! That is plainly obvious. Yet you completely and conveniently ignore that one simple fact because it disproves your entire argument! Paul says that a salvation that a person could boast about is NOT how a person is saved! Paul says, "so that no one can boast." So clearly no one can get saved by faith plus works because then they would have something to boast about (their human good works). Even if it was only 1% human good works that was added for salvation, a person could still take some credit for that and they could say they helped God out. So even in that case (adding only 1% human good works for salvation) a person would have something to boast about! But Paul excludes that possibility when he says in Ephesians 2:9, "so that no one can boast." According to the apostle Paul, salvation excludes all human good works because adding any human goods works for salvation would obviously give a person something to boast about. It's simple! You said that "God made it simple." Yes! And "simple" is by faith alone, not by faith plus works. When you add works, you complicate it.
ReplyDelete[Continued below...]
God also made salvation clear. In fact, it's so simple and clear that I'm amazed (Gal. 1:6) you don't see it! "You foolish Galatian! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, OR by hearing with faith?" (Gal. 3:1-2, Berean Standard Bible, adapted). So Paul is saying that salvation is by one or the other ("by works" or "by faith") NOT both! But you are saying salvation can be by faith plus works. No, not according to the Bible. Maybe hearing about it from someone else besides me will help you. So here is the explanation given by Dr. William MacDonald from his Believer's Bible Commentary. In Dr. William MacDonald's commentary on Ephesians 2:9, he writes this: "People are not saved by works. And they are not saved by faith plus works. They are saved through faith alone. The minute you add works of any kind or in any amount as a means of gaining eternal life, salvation is no longer by grace (Rom. 11:6). One reason that works are positively excluded is to prevent human boasting." (MacDonald, The Believer's Bible Commentary, p. 1918, emphasis his.) I will give you some more statements by trusted Bible expositor's to the same effect, since it seems you are not getting the point from the "simple" and clear statements in God's Word. Here is Dr. H. A. Ironside talking about how faith plus works is a cursed message that won't saved anyone. Dr. Ironside says: "You see, it is not Christ and good works, nor Christ and the church, that save. It is not through Christ and baptism, or Christ and the confessional, that we may obtain the forgiveness of our sins. It is not Christ and doing our best, or Christ and the Lord’s Supper, that will give us new life. It is Christ alone. Christ and — is a perverted gospel which is not the Gospel. Christ without the and is the sinner’s hope and the saint’s confidence. Trusting Him, eternal life and forgiveness are yours. Then, and not till then, good works and obedience to all that is written in the Word for the guidance of Christians, falls into place. The saved soul is exhorted to maintain good works, and thus to manifest his love for Christ. But for salvation itself, Jesus is not only necessary, but He is enough." (H. A. Ironside, "Not Only Necessary—But Enough," Illustrations of Bible Truth [Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1945], pp. 75-76, emphasis his.)
ReplyDelete[Continued below...]
On another note, I see that you finally interacted with my point about Galatians 2:4 -- but only to restate your opinion that it is "a Mosaic Law issue [for sanctification] and not talking about erroneously adding human good works [for justification]." If that is your view, then it contradicts what the Bible says because if you read the context of Acts 15 the issue is clearly "erroneously adding human good works" for salvation! Let me quote the exact statement from the Bible. In Acts 15:1 it says, "And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." So it IS talking about "erroneously adding human good works." The point is that they were in fact teaching the necessity of "erroneously adding human good works." That is precisely what they were saying! You might say they were teaching works only for salvation, not faith plus works. But that is not the case, because the text clearly says that those false teachers were teaching "the brethren" (Acts 15:1) and that of course means that as "brethren" they believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone -- because that's how a person is saved (see John 1:12, 3:16-17, 5:24, 6:28-29, 14:6, etc.; Acts 4:12, 13:38-39, 15:10-11; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:24, 3:27-28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Titus 3:5, etc.). So the false teachers were telling the Christian brethren, "Unless you are (also) circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." That is clear from the meaning of the text and from the immediate context. In Dr. Constable's commentary on Acts 15:1, he affirms: "Their claim was essentially a denial of the sufficiency of faith in Christ for salvation." So the false teachers didn't deny the need for faith in Christ for salvation. Rather, they denied the sufficiency of faith in Christ for salvation. So they were teaching a faith plus works gospel! They were teaching FAITH PLUS WORKS for salvation (justification). The false teachers didn't say, for example, "Oh, stop believing that Jesus is the Messiah and be circumcised to be saved." Or, "You don't need to believe in Jesus, just be circumcised to be saved." No, they didn't say that. They didn't deny the necessity to believe in Jesus as the Messiah in order to be saved. Rather, they added the requirement of circumcision. They were teaching faith plus works (circumcision) for salvation. And in Galatians 2:4, the apostle Paul calls them "false brethren". So that disproves your entire premise, which is that faith plus works is a saving message. No, not according to Acts 15. Not according to Ephesians 2:8-9. You also mentioned Acts 13:38-39. But that also disproves your premise that faith plus works is a saving message. I pointed this out in the articles that I wrote which I mentioned in several of my previous comments. The articles that I'm referring to are my 2-part review of Ken Wilson's book Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society. In Part 1 of the two articles that I wrote, I said the following in regards to Acts 13:38-39 (the next several paragraphs are excerpted from that article):
ReplyDelete[Continued below...]
One drawback of [Wilson's] book however (at least from a Free Grace perspective), is that amazingly, Wilson promotes a faith plus works gospel! For example, Wilson says, “[No Scripture ever states] a person must believe in faith alone (apart from works) in order to be justified.” (p. 11.) However, isn’t this precisely what the apostle Paul preached to the unsaved Galatians in Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13:38-41? Commenting on Paul’s words in Acts 13:38-39, F. F. Bruce affirms that “quite certainly they mean that believers in Christ are completely justified (‘justified from all things’) — something which Moses’ law could never achieve for anyone. In other words, Moses’ law does not justify; faith in Christ does.” Bruce goes on to say, “Paul in this peroration is not making partial but total claims for the efficacy of the gospel over against the law.” (Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 262-263.) So Paul is saying that it’s one or the other: “the gospel over against the law” (to quote Bruce), not both/and! And in response to Wilson, the Apostle Paul did say that a person must believe it, or they will “perish” (see Acts 13:41). Wilson goes on to say, “But where does Scripture require that a person believe in imputed righteousness apart from works to become a Christian?” (p. 52.) Here Wilson almost sounds like a Roman Catholic apologist! Sadly, Wilson is promoting the Roman Catholic dogma of justification by faith plus works. (For more information see: John Ankerberg, Fast Facts on Roman Catholicism, pp. 35-39.) It’s unfortunate that this question is actually coming from a Free Grace advocate. But what does the Scripture say? Take, for example, Acts 4:12. Peter’s sermon to the religious leaders of his day is significant in regards to Wilson’s question. Notice what Peter says in Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” This is Peter’s sermon to religious unbelievers, and he’s telling them that they cannot be saved by Christ plus their good works, but by Christ alone! Under the heading, “Adding To The Gospel”, Lance B. Latham (a well known Free Grace advocate and one of the founders of New Tribes Mission) affirms: “Adding any condition to Christ’s being crucified and risen would destroy the truth of the gospel. The great center of the truth of the gospel is that God accepts us just as we are once we believe that JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, and rest our hope in the fact that God paid the price in full for our sins when Jesus paid the full price at Calvary. God will allow nothing added to Calvary as our hope! ‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12). NO! Confucius will not do, nor Mohammed, nor Buddha, nor any other!” (Latham, The Two Gospels, p. 99, emphasis his.)
ReplyDelete[Continued below...]
Curtis Hutson similarly states: “If we try to add anything to what Jesus has done, no matter how good the addition may be, we are saying, ‘I’m not satisfied with the payment Jesus made.’ It is not the death of Jesus Christ on the cross—plus baptism—that saves. It is Jesus alone. Acts 4:12 says, ‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ If I am trusting Christ—plus baptism—then I am not satisfied with the payment Jesus made for my sins. [...] I must trust Jesus Christ completely—Him alone and nothing else.” (Hutson, Salvation Crystal Clear, Vol. 2, pp. 79-80.) Wilson goes on in his book to say that it is “misrepresentation” to label “faith in Christ plus works as ‘works salvation’....It is faith (plus works) salvation.” But this is merely equivocation. Any work or works added to salvation by grace nullifies grace! (See Romans 11:6; Gal. 2:21.) Wilson follows up by saying, “Scripture states that faith alone saves and works are not required (Rom. 4:1-8, Eph. 2:8). It does not say faith in Jesus Christ plus erroneously adding works cannot save (justify).” (p. 202.) It doesn’t? Actually it does! See Romans 3:24, “Being justified freely by His grace”; Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”; Romans 4:4-5, “To him that does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness”; Titus 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” I also find it telling that although Wilson cited Ephesians 2:8, he omitted Ephesians 2:9, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” One way to tell if someone’s theology doesn’t line up with the Bible is if they conveniently omit the Bible verses that highlight their error. Ken Wilson points this out in regards to Bob Wilkin, saying: “Wilkin cites John 3:16 without adding 3:17 ‘that the world through him might be saved.’ This smacks of highly selective eisegesis.” (p. 106.) Quite true, but ironically the same point can be made in regards to Ken Wilson and Ephesians 2:8-9! Wilson cites Ephesians 2:8 without adding 2:9, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” This also smacks of highly selective eisegesis! Wilkin omitted John 3:17; Wilson omits Ephesians 2:9. The fact that Wilson omits Ephesians 2:9 is significant since it is a key verse highlighting Wilson’s false teaching on the gospel. William MacDonald explains in his Believer’s Bible Commentary. Commenting on Ephesians 2:9, MacDonald writes the following: “It is not of works, that is, it is not something a person can earn through supposedly meritorious deeds. [...] People are not saved by works. And they are not saved by faith plus works. They are saved through faith alone. The minute you add works of any kind or in any amount as a means of gaining eternal life, salvation is no longer by grace (Rom. 11:6). One reason that works are positively excluded is to prevent human boasting. If anyone could be saved by his works, then he would have reason to boast before God. This is impossible (Rom. 3:27).” (William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, p. 1918, emphasis his.)
ReplyDelete[Continued below...]
Later in his book Wilson goes on to say: “That is the problem with ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ as a requirement for justification. I believe ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ to be a true statement. But it does not mean that any addition of works nullifies a person’s faith in Jesus Christ as God and Savior from sin for justification.” (p. 134.) According to Wilson, a faith plus works gospel is still a saving message! But in light of the apostle Paul’s stern warning in Galatians 1:6-9 against “any other gospel” (other than the gospel of the grace of God), Wilson’s legitimizing of a faith plus works gospel is extremely troubling. As the apostle Paul says, “there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7, ESV). Commenting on Galatians 1:6-9, the words of Dr. Scofield are appropriate when he says: “The test of the Gospel is grace. If the message excludes grace, or mingles law [works] with grace as the means either of justification or sanctification (Gal. 2.21; 3.1-3), or denies the fact or guilt of sin which alone gives grace its occasion and opportunity, it is ‘another’ gospel, and the preacher of it is under the anathema of God (vs. 8, 9).” (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1241.)
ReplyDeleteWilson goes on to summarize by saying, “Faith alone still saves, regardless of additions.” (p. 205.) But Wilson doesn’t seem to understand that it’s not “faith alone” if you add anything to it! Wilson is saying that a person can be saved (justified) by faith plus works. How is that not heresy? Indeed, the New Testament Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest (whom Wilson quotes approvingly in his book) affirms, “and thus in the providence of God, the Church has the letter to the Galatians, and has found it a tower of strength and a bulwark against the heresy which teaches that salvation is appropriated by faith plus works.” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Galatians in the Greek New Testament, p. 131.)
So that's an extended quoted from my article "Book Review: Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society" (FGFS, February 4, 2023), and I quote it because it directly pertains to this whole discussion. And as Dr. Wuest said, it is heresy to teach that salvation is appropriated by faith plus works. It is another gospel. And let me just add one more quote on the topic by Dr. Thomas Constable. His statement pertains to Galatians 2:4 where the apostle Paul calls the Judaizers "false brethren". And this is what Dr. Constable says: "Galatians 2:4 introduces another reason Paul went up to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1). Evidently representatives of the false teachers (counterfeit Christians) had entered Paul’s arena of ministry representing themselves as true Christians. But they had opposed what Paul had taught. Their intent was to bring Paul and all other preachers and hearers of the true gospel into bondage by imposing circumcision as a condition for salvation. They were not successful. The truth of the gospel means 'the gospel in its integrity . . . the doctrine of grace.' [Note: Lightfoot, p. 107.] The liberty to which Paul referred is not freedom in the abstract, but a liberty that believers have in Christ Jesus. [Note: Morris, p. 69.] 'It thus emerges that the interlopers were sham-Christians precisely because they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel - justification by faith apart from works of the law.' [Note: Fung, p. 94.]" (Constable, Expository Notes, commentary on Galatians 2:4, ellipsis and brackets his, emphasis added.)
I hope and pray that you will read these comments with an open heart and mind, and that God will grant you "repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:25), and that you will come to see the serious error of your view, because it is actually "another gospel"! It is NOT "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24).
MY last comment on this. You continue to not address what I said about human good works verses the Mosiac law, not being the same thing and that it was a concept that was foreign to Paul. Someone thinking that they need to live an obedient Christian life in addition to Faith in Messiah to be saved is totally different to believing in the Mosiac law ALONE for justification . I find it impossible to believe that if Paul was confronted with that scenario that he tell that individual that they were still unregenerate. He would tell them of their obvious error and instruct them of the truth .( Just as he did for the Galatians.) who were adding the specifics of the Mosiac law, circumcision, Sabbath ect. Also Wilson and I are not advocating a "faith plus works Gospel" as you have accused us, but rather that people sometimes believe a simple Gospel "Jesus is the Messiah , the Divine and human Son of God, ( which you obviously have a problem with) but then are told erroneously additional steps that they must believe , such as repent of individual sins, confess, be baptized ect. According to your teaching, no Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, is saved since they all believe in a faith plus works Gospel . We obviously have a different view of God's grace towards a sinner seeking His salvation but who doesn't have clear understanding beyond the simple salvation message that "Jesus is the Messiah, the Divine and human Son of God , who was crucified , died ,buried, and rose from the dead for the forgiveness of your sins and gives eternal life to all who believe.
DeleteThanks for your thoughts. I believe that I did address your point if you re-read my previous comments. I have more thoughts to share, but I will probably do so in a new blog post since my response will be somewhat lengthy. Here I'd simply like to link you to some of my previous articles that address the issues we've been discussing. For more information see the following articles:
ReplyDelete-- Are Roman Catholics Born Again?
-- Book Review: Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, Pt. 1
-- Book Review: Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, Pt. 2
-- Not By Faith Alone: Is Ken Wilson's Gospel What the Bible Teaches?
Thanks for your response. I was at one time where you are in this question having come out of the RC church. I, like you, would push back hard against the notion that without a clear and total understanding of the Gospel someone could be justified. The more I have studied this topic over the last 30 years , it has become clear to me that when the new testament speaks of works, it usually, in context ,is speaking about the Mosiac law. You disagree . That's ok. I am open to further study on this , and look forward to your next thoughts on this subject. I have read Wilson's book that you sited and found that it confirmed many of the conclusions that I had previously come to believe myself. Also, I want to make it clear that I would never tell someone who lacked assurance, for whatever reason, that they were saved without talking to them and understanding exactly why they lacked assurance and what they actually believed what the Gospel is.
ReplyDelete