IS JESUS REALLY THE ONLY WAY?

Though some may think of me as an opinionated, narrow-minded curmudgeon, I tend to judge myself as a bit too open-minded.  I attempt to be open to and tolerant of new ideas held by others, even though I frequently disagree with them.  However, by being tolerant I occasionally find myself in the intellectual company of those whom at second glance I might judge to be heretics.  (I know that’s a bad word, not to be used today, but in some cases I can’t think of a better one.)

I wrote a couple of posts a while back, reviewing and interacting with the writings of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, leaders in the emerging/emergent church movement.   Though I disagreed strongly with their writings, looking back I feel that I was a bit naïve.  I simply interacted with the articles using what seemed to me to be logical exegetical arguments.  I did not question their motives.

But having found out a bit more about these men, I believe that they need to be pointed out as purveyors of doctrines that deny the foundation of biblical Christianity; they are not simply misinformed or poor exegetes.

Recently a friend forwarded to me some further information on McLaren and Bell, along with an article by McLaren entitled, A Reading of John 14:6, dated 2007 (brianmclaren.net).  McLaren is not simply an author and preacher in the emerging/ emergent church movement; he is a board member and instructor at Mars Hills Graduate School in Seattle, now known as the Seattle School of Theology, a bastion of emerging/emergent theology.

I had originally planned to go through the article, dealing with what at first appeared to me to be faulty exegesis, but as I read, re-read and re-re-read, I kept finding myself more and more befuddled by McLaren’s spin.  The article is a bizarre mix of faulty exegesis, faulty logic and worst of all, faulty theology.  Dare I call it just plain heresy?  Dare I question the author’s motives?  Anyway the following thoughts aren’t meant to be a point-by-point discussion of the article, but they are an attempt at a rebuttal.

The text that the article is concerned with is John 14:6:  “Jesus says to him (Thomas) ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.”

This text has been understood by many – I would say most - readers as a clear statement by Jesus that He is the only way to God.  And a clear corollary to this statement would be that there is no other way to God.  Ah, but this is not the way it is to be understood, says McLaren!

“It is one of the questions I am asked most frequently, ‘Do you think Jesus is the only way?’ … The question raises another question, actually:  ‘The only way to what?’”  After this he goes on to tell us that there are many ways:  Buddha, Mohammed, Marx, Freud, televangelists.  Of course, each way ends up at a different destination.  “But if you are asking about the Kingdom of God coming to earth ...,” then, of course, all these others “will step back and Jesus will step forward.”

McLaren is very clear that he doesn’t like the “idea called the ‘exclusivity of Christ.’”  In order to refute this horrid doctrine, he chooses to rephrase it in his own words (the “straw man” argument).  He can’t out and out say that Jesus is not the only way to God.  He rather caricatures those who believe this “idea” as really being more concerned about Jesus being “the only way to avoid burning forever in hell …,” that the “idea” really means that “all who do not consciously and decisively accept Jesus as their personal savior will burn forever in hell.”

McLaren seems to have a fixation on the idea of eternal punishment which apparently is why he keeps introducing it here to convince us that this was not what Jesus was talking about in this passage.  I agree Jesus wasn’t.  He was talking about His being the only way to God!

McLaren keeps reiterating his straw man arguments.  He brings up Thomas’ question in verse 5 and informs us that, “It’s clear he is not asking anything like ‘Will people who have never heard of you go to heaven?’”  And then he goes on to inform us that Thomas was not thinking of all the other people of various religious persuasions.  He tells us that Jesus’ words in John 14:6 “are not intended as an insult to the followers of Mohammed, the Buddha,” etc.

It’s apparent that McLaren’s main concern is that if we believe that Jesus’ claims are exclusive, if Jesus really is the only way, then others will be shut out.  He wants us to believe in an inclusive Jesus, a nice guy Jesus, who accepts any and everybody (excepting, I suppose, those narrow-minded bigots who believe that Jesus really IS the only way to God).

A few words about McLaren’s argument, which I believe are characteristic of much of the emerging/emergent movement:

·        It is arrogant, even Gnostic.  Though inclusivity is almost a mantra, it is itself exclusive.  He holds himself and his knowledgeable associates above those who are “…perfectly in synch with the general cluelessness of the disciples.”

·        It is dogmatic while trying to sound anything but.  This I believe is symptomatic of the soft view of truth associated with the postmodern thinking of many in the emerging/emergent movement.  His qualifiers:  “It’s far more likely …,” “… which seems to suggest …”  “It’s as if …” may sound like he is trying to avoid dogmatism, but they hide his real dogmatic agenda.

·        Even if his “exegesis” of John 14:6 were correct (it’s not) and Jesus was not claiming exclusivity here, McLaren would still have to contend with the vast number of claims Jesus made elsewhere.  There are other “I Am’s” in John’s gospel.  Is McLaren capable of explaining away the apparent exclusivity in all of these?

·       Similarly McLaren’s fierce opposition to those who speak about hell seems to run into the problem that Jesus spoke frequently about hell – in fact, more than all other New Testament writers combined.

·        McLaren stands opposed to 2,000 years of biblical understanding.  Though this does not necessarily mean he is wrong, it would seem that this would at least temper his arrogance. 

McLaren’s contradictory footnote, though it sounds pious, shows what his real theology is:   “By the way, it would also make me want to scream if you misread what I’m saying to mean, ‘It doesn’t matter what you believe. Anything goes. God doesn’t care.’ That would be equally ridiculous! By looking at what Jesus cares about, we see what God cares about, including what makes God angry: carelessness towards the poor and vul­nerable, putting religious rules over relationships, complacency, a lack of compassion, and so much more.”

He has been spending page after page attempting to convince us that it really doesn’t matter what you believe about the person of Jesus, except that He is not the only way to God.  It’s “what God cares about,” the ethics of Jesus, not His claims to exclusivity, that are important.

If we buy into McLaren’s argument, we are left with a Jesus who is not the only way to God, but simply a great moral teacher.

I have to give McLaren and his associates credit.  He has found a neat way to avoid the exclusive claims of Christ.  He has no need to do as Thomas Jefferson and many others have done, just rip all of Christ’s claims out of the Bible.  He has no need to see Jesus as a good but deluded man.  He can instead, by exegetical legerdemain demonstrate that Jesus’ claims weren’t actually claims to exclusivity at all!

“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who doesn’t believe in the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath abides on him” (John 3:36).  I wonder what McLaren does with this verse.

DISAGREEING WITH THE GREAT

Sometimes in evangelical (and other) circles, I find that to disagree with the teachings of a popular author or teacher makes one a bit suspect.  I’m not speaking here of disagreeing with the pastoral staff or leadership of the church, but of those “outside” the church.  There seems to be an aura around some teachers and to question their teachings or authority may be considered tantamount to questioning the Scriptures themselves.

I have often felt myself regarded with suspicion in these various groups because of my disagreements.  After all, I’ve questioned and disagreed with many hallowed persons, as a search through this blog will reveal.  I’m not trying to be disrespectful to these persons.  Many of them I admire greatly.  It’s just that (1) that’s the way I think – critically, and (2) I want the Scriptures to be the final arbiter in all doctrinal questions and not the teachings of men.

One teacher with whom I strongly disagree is John MacArthur, who I believe has taught a false gospel – the “gospel” of Lordship salvation.  As his teaching has been endorsed by many and as Mr. MacArthur himself is free to name names, I feel I need to give as my own the following apologia, which I quote from page xv of his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.”

“Many who disagree with me on this issue are faithful servants of God whose ministries have reaped abundant fruit for the kingdom.  It was necessary to quote and refute many of them by name in this book, not to try to discredit them or their ministries, but because it is hardly possible to address the concept of the gospel that is spreading throughout the church without quoting some of those who are teaching it.  There is no more important issue than the question of what gospel we ought to believe and proclaim.”

I was first introduced to the above mentioned book a number of years ago by a friend who told me that not only had reading it changed his life, but that it would do the same for all who read it and if every Christian did, it would revolutionize the church.  He also told me how I could obtain a free copy.

As I am never one to turn down a free book, I sent off for it.  And since it was claimed by my friend that it was life changing, I immediately began to study the book, red pen in hand.

I was impressed to see two forwards, written by men whom I have greatly respected.  I was astounded and grieved to find these men reinforcing the teachings in the book and making statements that I felt were unbiblical.

I went through the book page by page, marking arguments and writing notes in the margins.  On a blank page in front of the book, I wrote out what I felt was a series of clear rebuttals to what I believe are false doctrines and bad logic.  I kept the book in my library and used it for reference whenever questions regarding the doctrines taught in it would come up.

And then I did something stupid!  I loaned the book to a student.  Not long afterward he dropped out of class and moved without leaving a forwarding address.

I later obtained another copy, but haven’t felt like going back and repeating the exercise.  But a brief perusal is enough.  Most of my comments are from memory.

MacArthur’s great error is his insistence on conflating two different but related “calls” of Jesus:  His call to eternal life through faith in Him and His call to a life of discipleship.  MacArthur insists that those who separate these two calls are preaching a false gospel.  I would insist that to add any requirement than simple faith for eternal life is preaching a false gospel.

Mr. MacArthur feels that the gospel that I (and many, many others) proclaim is something new and is the reason for much that is wrong with the church.  But it’s the gospel I first heard nearly seven decades ago and the gospel I believed.

As I’ve said many times before, this is not a minor, trivial doctrinal dispute.  It lies right at the heart of our faith.

           Jesus Himself said:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but will have eternal life” (John 3:16).

John said:

“As many as received Him, He gave them the right to be children of God – to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12).

Over and over in the Gospels we read that belief – faith – is the only requirement for salvation.

Jesus calls us to total commitment to Him it is true.  But that commitment is not the requirement for our eternal salvation.  In fact, it is only those who have exercised faith in Christ who are able to make that commitment.

I’ll not spend much time in these arguments as I’ve made them all before.  If the reader desires to read more on the subject, I recommend that he click on the following:

            CHEAP GRACE

            FREE GRACE

            PERSEVERANCEOF THE SAINTS

            PERSEVERANCEOF THE SAINTS, 2

            WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

            COMMITMENT TO CHRIST

            HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?

            THE HIDDEN TREASURE AND THE PRECIOUS PEARL

As I recall, the final remark I wrote in the book contained a question.  If someone asked Mr. MacArthur, “What must I do to be saved?” how would he answer?  I don’t believe he could!

GRACE, VI

God’s Gracious Choice

I wonder – are my fellow believers and I really able to comprehend God’s grace?  I mean, yes we can recite Scripture passages and can give reasonable definitions, but can we really get our heads around it?  It seems we want to insert ourselves a bit too strongly into the process, when it is all of God.

One of the biblical teachings that many object to is that of God’s choice of us – or to be a bit more “theological” – the doctrine of Election.  Now I grant this doctrine has been abused by many and that many of us have a weird picture in our minds of God randomly selecting some for heaven and some for hell by some eeny, meeny, miney, mo process.

But I also suspect that one reason we object is that we like to think that we are the ones doing the choosing, or at least having some influence on God.

The Apostle Paul seemed to have the most to say about grace.  Nearly two-thirds of the word’s uses are found in his writings.  And he frequently ties the two concepts of election and grace together.  One of the better known passages is Romans 11:5, 6:  “So then, even in the present time, there has come to be a remnant in accordance with the election of grace.  And if by grace, no longer from works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

It’s in the first chapter of his letter to the Ephesians, however, that Paul makes clear that God’s salvation plan begins with His choice of us, and concludes with praise to each member of the Trinity for His part in that plan.  Ephesians 1:3-14, is one big long sentence in Greek, abounding with subordinate clauses, though our English translations break it into smaller bites.  (Even my Nestle’s Greek text adds a few periods.)  Its principle clause is “Blessed is the God and Father …”

Ephesians 1:3-8:  “Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ … even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world … having predestined us to adoption … according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace with which He graced us in the Beloved One, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions according to the wealth of His grace which He abounded to us …”

Then again in Ephesians 2:5, 7-9:  “ … and when we were dead in our transgressions, He made us alive together with Christ – by grace you have been saved -- … so that in the coming ages He might show the surpassing wealth of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that is not of yourselves, it’s the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast.”

The phrase “you have been saved” in 2:5, 8 is translated “you are saved” in the KJV.  It is composed of a present tense verb with a perfect participle in Greek.  I suppose we could translate it more literally (though awkwardly), “you are in a state of having been saved.”  It speaks of a past act with continuing results.

The pronoun translated “that” in 2:9, is neuter in gender and so has no clear antecedent.  The words translated “grace” and “faith” are both feminine and the participle translated “saved” is masculine.  [Those readers who remember their English grammar will remember the rule that a pronoun must agree with its antecedent.  If you don’t remember, just trust me!  :^)]

Why is this important?  Because' with no clear antecedent we’re forced to see the word “that” as referring to the entire preceding clause.  Paul is not simply saying that the grace is not of ourselves, or that the faith is not of ourselves, but that the whole process is not of ourselves.

These passages affirm to us that every aspect of our salvation is of God’s grace.  It originates with Him.  The Father chose us, the Son died for us and the Spirit sealed us when we believed.

But, “Wait” we might say.  “It says faith.  We’re commanded to do something.  We’re commanded to believe.”

Well, yes, but even that faith, Paul tells us, is “not of ourselves, it’s the gift of God.”  We can’t take credit for it!  In this Paul is in total agreement with the words of his Lord and Savior.

“No one is able to come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him …” (John 6:44).  The word translated “draw” is used in this same Gospel in the sense of “hauling” or “dragging” a fishing net (21:6, 11).

We need to be careful in our understanding of God’s choice.  This does not mean that we are merely passive in this matter, or as someone claimed, “robots.”  Faith is an active conscious decision on our part.  It is a total reliance on Jesus.  But our faith is brought about in some way by the action of God.  And it has been predetermined by Him in eternity past.

Though we may not be able to explain this to our own satisfaction, those of faith are able to grasp this concept.  Perhaps the best illustration is that given by the preacher H. A. Ironside in his commentary on Ephesians, written nearly 75 years ago.

“Here is a vast host of people hurrying down the broad road with their minds fixed upon their sins, and one stands calling attention to yonder door, the entrance into the narrow way that leads to life eternal.  On it is plainly depicted the text, ‘Whosoever will, let him come.’  Every man is invited, no one need to hesitate. … as the invitation goes forth, every minute or two some one stops and says, ‘What is that.’  ‘The way to life,’ is the reply. …And such an one draws near and listens, …and he says, ‘I am going inside:  I will accept the invitation; I will enter that door,’ and he presses his way in and it shuts behind him.  As he turns about he finds written on the inside of the door the words, ‘Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.’”  (In the Heavenlies, pages 27, 28.)

GRACE, V

Paul and James

Every four years the American people are subjected to the presidential primary races with all their trimmings.  We get to watch and hear candidates and potential candidates in conflict.  It happens in both parties, though the incumbents are sometimes spared.  Men, and occasionally women, tear apart each others’ proposed policies and programs, and often each others’ characters and ethics.

Then when a candidate is finally chosen, the combatants become instant allies.  All is forgotten (if not necessarily forgiven) and the chosen one is backed up in his or her attacks on the candidate of the opposing party.

Many people view the Bible in similar fashion, as though it is some sort of political campaign.  Biblical writers are seen as holding opposing views on historical and theological essentials, though they usually stop short of calling each other names.  Yet, though they disagree, somehow they have all united in their claims to speak God’s truth and have been combined together in the Bible.  These supposed conflicts have provided the grist for many “learned” studies made by theological liberals or “higher critics.”  They have also been the source of heated discussions in many Bible studies and Sunday school classes, often ending with a choosing of sides and a battle of proof-texts.

The most well-known of these supposed conflicts in the New Testament is that between Paul and James over the question of faith and works and their place in the salvation process.  A superficial reading of some chosen texts could possibly lead to the conclusion that these men were arguing with each other.

Paul:  “Knowing that a person is not declared righteous by works of Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we also have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be declared righteous by faith in Christ and not by works of Law, because no flesh will be declared righteous by works of Law.”  (Galatians 2:16 – written somewhere around 48 AD.)

James:  “What’s the profit if someone says he has faith, but doesn’t have works?  The faith isn’t able to save him, is it?  …Even so, faith if it doesn’t have works is dead, by itself.

But someone will say, ‘You have faith.’  I also have works!  ‘Show me your faith without the works.’  And I’ll show you the faith by my works!  ‘You believe that God is one; you’re doing well.’  Even the demons believe and shudder!

Do you want to know this, you vain man, that faith without works is idle?  Wasn’t Abraham our father declared righteous by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?  You see that faith worked together with his works, and by works faith was perfected.  And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend.  You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone…  For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead!  (James 2:14, 17-24, 26 – written about 48.    The “straw-man” dialog translation was suggested to me years ago by a professor at seminary – Zane Hodges.)

Paul:  “What then shall we say that Abraham, our father according to the flesh has found?  For if Abraham was declared righteous by works he has a boast – but not before God!  For what does the Scripture say?  ‘And Abraham believed God and He credited it to him as righteousness.’  Now to the one who works, the wage is not credited as grace, but as something owed.  But to the one who doesn’t work, but believes in the One who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.”  (Romans 4:1-5 – about 56/57 AD).

We see the same expressions used over and over by James and Paul:  “declared righteous” (or “justified” – dikaioo), “faith” (pistis), “believe” (pisteuo), “by works” (ex erga).

We also read in Acts and Galatians 2 of a conflict going on.  But we should notice that nowhere is there any mention of a direct conflict between Paul and James.  And the conflict is not between “faith and works,” but rather over whether non-Jewish believers in Christ should become Jews and observe the Old Testament Law, as well as over whether Jewish believers should associate with non-Jewish believers.

So how do we deal with this apparent conflict?  Well, first of all, as those who accept all Scripture as “God-breathed,” we need to start with the assumption that any conflict between Paul and James is only apparent, that in some way these passages are consistent with each other.  I know this criterion won’t please those who don’t accept the doctrine of inspiration, but it is the same criterion we’d use when reading any book or article.  We’d assume that it was self consistent.

We should also recognize that these passages must be read in their contexts.  Pulling lines and even paragraphs out of context may be a great debating technique, but it is a poor way of ascertaining truth.  A check of the context should show that, in spite of appearances, James and Paul were not writing to each other or with each other in mind.  In fact, it is highly probable that each was unaware of the others’ writings, at least in the earlier letters.

Paul, in Galatians (if my dating is correct) had recently returned to Antioch from his missionary trip to central Asia Minor (present day Turkey).  He had made converts mostly of Gentiles (non-Jews), and planted a number of churches (Acts 13 and 14).  It wasn’t long after this that he heard of what he termed “a different gospel” being preached among these new converts (Galatians 1:6-9; cf. Acts 15:1ff), teaching that faith in Christ was not enough – they must also practice the Old Testament Law.  It was (among other things) to counteract this teaching that he wrote Galatians.

Paul’s later letter to the Romans was to a mixed church, composed of both Jewish and Gentile elements.  His main purpose seems to have been to reconcile differences between the groups.  His argument was that all – Jews and Gentiles were in need of God’s grace for salvation.  Romans in many ways restates the arguments of Galatians, only in a much more orderly and logical form, perhaps with a bit less of the passion he showed to the Galatians.

James, on the other hand, was not a missionary.  He was apparently the chief elder, or pastor of the church in Jerusalem.  His letter was sent to the Jewish believers in Christ who were scattered due to the early persecutions (James 1:1; Acts 8:1; 11:19; see also the word “synagogue” used for their assembly in James 2:2).

Since both Paul and James center their arguments on Genesis 15:6 (see Grace IV), it seems to me important that we note how they use the word dikaioo (“justify” or “declare righteous”) as well as when in Abraham’s story this justification occurred.  Paul takes the Genesis passage literally, that this justification took place immediately.  Abraham heard the LORD’s promise; he believed; God declared!  That’s all there was to it!

Does James disagree?  No.  James knew the story.  He read the same Scripture.  But James adds a new angle to the story.  It’s what happened later that he’s concerned with.

Abraham was about 80 years old when the events mentioned in Genesis 15 occurred (compare Genesis 12:5 and 16:3).  But James fast forwards his readers about 30 years to Genesis 22.  Abraham’s promised son Isaac, who was born when Abraham was 100 (21:5) is grown.  He was weaned (21:8) and was able to carry wood and to carry on a conversation with him.  It is at this time that the LORD calls Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  And it is by this act, this “work,” as James tells us, Abraham was “justified.”

There is no contradiction here.  These are two totally different acts of “justification,” separated by 30+ years.  When Abraham was about 80 years old, the LORD declared him righteous on the basis of his faith.  But when Abraham was over 110, he declared himself righteous by his works.

This act, James sees as “perfecting” Abraham’s faith, bringing it to completion.  By this act Abraham “fulfilled” God’s pronouncement that he, Abraham, was righteous.  The judicial act is treated by James as though it were a prophecy which took 30+ years to fulfill.  Though James places faith and works together, the works follow faith in order.  Faith comes first; works perfect the faith.

We should also notice that James’ examples of works are not “works of the Law,” such as Paul was arguing against, but works of simple obedience.  In James 2:15, 16, he speaks of feeding and clothing the poor; and in 2:25, he gives the example of Rahab protecting the spies.  And if we check out her story in Joshua 2, this “work” followed her confession of faith (Joshua 2:9-11).

So when James speaks of works, he is not speaking of works as required along with faith for justification, but as that which follows naturally from faith and “perfects’ faith.  In this he is in complete agreement with Paul:

“For we are His design (poiema) created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

Though the word “save” (sozo) is usually understood to be speaking of our initial “salvation,” i.e., our justification by God, it has a broader range of meanings.  James uses the word 5 times (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15, 20), and though in 4:12 it is contrasted with “destroy,” in 1:21 and 5:15 and 20, it is applied to the “brothers.”

“So then my beloved brothers … receive the implanted word which is able to save your souls” (1:19, 21).

“… and the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick” (5:15).

“My brothers, if any of you should wander from the truth and someone should turn him  around … the one who turns the sinner from the error of his way, will save a soul from death …” (5:19, 20)

So when James questions whether faith can save someone who doesn’t have works, he is not speaking of God’s justification of the believer, but of what happens after that.  He is speaking of faith and works in the life of the justified believer, of salvation as it is worked out in our daily lives.

Compare what Paul says in Philippians 2:12 and 13:

“So then my beloved ones … with fear and trembling, work out your own salvation; for God is the one who is working in you, both to desire and to work for His good pleasure.”

GRACE, IV

Abraham and Grace

When I was 16 and a junior in high school, I had a job working after school at a bakery, Sunrise Pie Company.  The owner was an old Greek named Chris, who addressed his employees brusquely in his thick accent.  Though at first I was fearful, I soon found out that his heart was softer than his speech.

On payday Chris would walk around handing out our checks for our week’s work.  He came to me on my first payday and held out to me my first paycheck.  I reached out and grasped it between my thumb and the fingers of my right hand.

“Thank you.” I said.

Immediately, Chris pulled it back.  “Didn’t you earn this check?” he growled.

“W-w-well, y-y-yes.”  I stammered.

“Then why did you thank me?  You don’t have to thank me for something that you earned.”

That day I learned something about the difference between grace and works.

Searching the Old Testament for examples of grace we find Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation.  His story is found in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, but he’s also mentioned in 17 of the 39 Old Testament books and 11 of the 27 New Testament books.

The Apostle Paul writes of him extensively in his letters to the Galatians (chapter 3) and to the Romans (chapter 4), he is seen as one of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11, and while James only speaks of him in a brief four verses (2:21-24), what he says is significant.

Interestingly, in all of these accounts, we find the word “grace” mentioned only twice (Romans 4:4, 16), even though we could say that it underlies Abraham’s whole story.

Both Paul and James make reference to the statement in Genesis 15:6:  “And he believed in the LORD (Yahweh) and He credited it to him as righteousness.”  However, they are apparently quoting from the Septuagint (LXX) which adds Abraham’s name and substitutes the name “God” for “the LORD.”

Since Romans 4 is where we find our subject “grace” specifically mentioned, I’d like to go there.  Verses 1-5 read:

1)     “What then shall we say that Abraham, our father according to the flesh has found?  2)  For if Abraham was declared righteous by works he has a boast – but not before God!  3)  For what does the Scripture say? 

‘And Abraham believed God and He credited it to him as righteousness.’

4)   Now to the one who works, the wage is not credited as grace, but as something owed.  5) But to the one who doesn’t work, but believes in the One who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.” 

Paul in Romans had been speaking of God’s grace at work.  He has explained in very vivid language, quoting the (Old Testament) Scriptures, that all are sinners, whether they are Jews or Gentiles (non-Jews), and stand condemned before God.  Mere knowledge of Scripture is no plus.  God judges impartially.  But God has supplied a way for people to be declared right (or justified or acquitted) before Him through the death of His Son.  This way of gaining right standing is appropriated through faith.  It is nothing new, Paul explains; it has been God’s way all along, even in Old Testament times.

So in chapter 4, Paul argues his claims, using Abraham as his example.  He poses a hypothetical situation:  Abraham being declared right by God on the basis of his good works.

Abraham was the great man of the Old Testament.  We might say that if anyone could be declared right on the basis of what they’ve done, it would be him.  And if he did, he would have something to boast about.  Paul even seems to be suggesting that this was possible.  But he very clearly adds the qualifier:  “not before God.”

Verse 4 contains that truth I learned many years ago at Sunrise Pie Company.  Chris was doing me no favor when he paid me.  I earned it.  If I (or Abraham) could earn my way into right standing, I would not need the grace of God.  But grace tells me I can’t earn it.  As 3:21 says, “All sinned and keep falling short of God’s glory.”  That includes me – and Abraham.

And verse 5 brings it down a bit clearer yet.  It gives the “qualifications” for being right with God.

·         I must recognize that I am ungodly.  The ungodly are the only people that God credits with righteousness. 

·         I must be one who is not working for that righteousness or right standing with God. 

·         I must believe.  I must place my belief in God’s promise, just as Abraham did.  Of course, the promise for this day involves Christ and His death on the cross. 

Grace, as defined before is “the expression of God’s love without condition toward those who do not merit it.”  If I can do anything to merit it, it is not grace.  Grace is not, as some have defined it, “the power and desire to do the will of God.”  All the do-ing is on God’s part.  Even faith is not a work.  It is the receiving of the benefit of Someone else’s work.

WHO CAN BE SAVED?

A while back, I received the following e-mail from a friend:

Hi Bill and Uni, I read your blog today and as usual, benefitted from it.  I have a question for you:  can a person become a Christian without knowing Jesus' name...or to make it more interesting, without knowing God has a Son?

I do believe that we are responsible for the light that God has revealed to us.  I also heard a former Muslim tell a story about an Iranian man who had a dream about God.  In his dream, God told him to go to this bookstore (in Iran) and there, he would find the 'Gospel of Jesus.'  The next day he went to the bookstore, asked for the Gospel of Jesus and was told there wasn't a book like that in the store.  A Christian overheard the conversation, followed him outside and told him: "I have the Gospel of Jesus for you."  Apparently, God revealed to this man the name of Jesus.

Please, when you have a little time, let me know what you think.

Love you two,

Susan

The following (with a few changes and additions) was my reply.

Susan:

I always appreciate your e-mails – especially when you make comments or ask questions to stir my thinking.

I assume you're referring to my posts: THROWING OUT THE BABY and AMERICAN GRACE .   In these I tried to deal with the two questions that trouble many of us believers, though I realize I barely scratched the surface in dealing with them.

The two questions are closely related.  The first is:  Is Jesus the only way of salvation?  The second is:  What becomes of those who are not saved?  There are, of course, many different ways to phrase these.  Your questions seem to be a form of the first.

The way you phrased it, I'd have to give an emphatic “No!”  One cannot be a "Christian" without knowing Jesus' name or without knowing that God has a Son.  But if we rephrase it and ask, "Can a person be saved without ...," which is what I think you meant, the question gets a bit stickier.  (The words “saved” and “Christian” are not synonymous.  See:  WHAT MUST I DO? and BRAND LOYALTY.)  We all believe there are exceptions.   At least for (as it used to be phrased "infants and idiots") -- those incapable of exercising saving faith, as even the Westminster Confession, that great Calvinist document, says (chapter X, paragraph III).  We also recognize that Old Testament saints exercised faith in God's promise, without a (clear?) knowledge of the future work of Christ, and were justified by that faith (see Romans 4:3; Hebrews 11 and ARE THEY OUT OF LUCK?.  Then we must recognize too that God has revealed Himself to all through nature and conscience (Romans 1:19, 20; 2:14-16).  Does this leave the door open for more?  Some very sincere Christians believe so.  I would like to think so, but I find little if any hard evidence to that effect.

As far as the story of the Muslim who was given a revelation in a dream, I see no reason to doubt its truthfulness.  I have heard similar stories. In fact, it sounds very much like the story of Cornelius recorded in Acts 10.  Here was someone who was "a devout man and one who feared God" (verse 2).  The experience with Cornelius was evidence to Peter that "God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation, the one who fears Him and does right is acceptable to Him" (verses 34, 35).  However, we need to recognize that Cornelius wasn't "saved" until he heard the gospel (verses 36-48).  The same is undoubtedly the case with the Muslim man in the story.  So both did "know Jesus' name" and that "God has a Son."  And we must remember that salvation is always based on the sacrifice of Christ for sin -- His death and resurrection.

We should note also that Muslims do have some knowledge of Who Jesus is.  The Koran tells that He is the Messiah and that He was virgin born (3:40-59; 19:12-38), although it emphatically denies the Trinity and that Jesus is God's Son (4:171, 172; 5:114-120).  I think this denial may be due to a misunderstanding of the biblical teaching, at least partially because of Mohammed’s exposure to the traditional Christianity of his day -- the Mariolatry, and the idea that somehow God "begot" Jesus by sexual union with Mary.

I believe that there are in Islamic nations many Muslims (even practicing ones) who are secret believers in Jesus.  If they understand who He is and recognize that He is God's Son in the Trinitarian sense and that He died for them, they are saved.  We could see the similarity with Messianic Jews and even find an example in Naaman the Syrian in the Old Testament, who was a worshipper of the LORD, even though he still had to take part in pagan rituals (2 Kings 5:17-19).  Who are we to pass judgment on those for whom an open profession would mean death?

Of course, we must remember that Jesus limits the gate to life to a lesser number than those going to destruction.

“Enter in through the narrow gate.  Because the gate is wide and the way is spacious, that leads to destruction and there are many who enter in through it.  How narrow the gate and constricted the way that leads into life and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13, 14).

I realize that I have not begun to deal with the related questions regarding the fate of those who are not saved.  I’ll attempt to do so on a later post.

AMERICAN GRACE

I finally finished reading American Grace, by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell.  It’s a huge study/survey of American religions (550 pages and appendices and notes).  It examines the religious attitudes of Americans of various persuasions in regard to marriage, politics, ethnicity, gender and just about anything else one can think of.  It is full of charts and graphs on these various issues and traces the changes in American religion over recent years.

I am still mulling over the data in this book and know that I will probably find it useful for years to come.  I highly recommend it for anyone who is involved in religious ministry, although I fear that not many will feel that it is worth the time and effort.  It is.  I feel it’s the best book on the sociology of religion since Alan Wolfe’s, The Transformation of American Religion (2003) and goes way beyond Wolfe’s study in that it provides huge amounts of data to reinforce its assertions.

The subtitle of the book is How Religion Divides and Unites Us and this appears to be its basic thesis.  Some of the conclusions were surprising, some even seemed contradictory and others were, to me, deeply troubling.  It is the last chapter (15) and its conclusions that were the most troubling.  It is entitled, “America's Grace:  How a Tolerant Nation Bridges its Religious Divides.”  It states (page 516), “The fact that religion is not nearly as divisive as race, class, or politics is the puzzle this chapter seeks to solve.  How can Americans be both devout and diverse without fracturing along religious lines?”  This is, it appears, the question to which the whole book has been leading.  And of course, it doesn’t take 500+ pages of charts, graphs and analyses for us to recognize that America, the nation with the greatest religious liberty is also the nation with the greatest religious diversity and tolerance.

What is troubling to me, though it seems quite satisfying to the authors, is that, as they tell us, “A majority of Americans believe that members of other faiths can go to heaven, and this is true even in religions that explicitly teach that salvation is reserved for their own adherents.”  The authors credit our being “both religiously diverse and religiously devout” – our ability to be both devoted to our faith and tolerant of the faiths of others, to the fact that, “It is difficult to damn those you know and love” (page 517).  Most of us have friends and even family who are of different religious views.

The statistics they present back up their assertions.  The graph on page 535, entitled, “Americans overwhelmingly believe that people of other religions can go to heaven,” gives the percentages of those of various religions who believe this.  The lowest percentage is (white) Evangelical Protestants with 83%.

Just in case there might be confusion over what “other religions” might mean, the question was reformulated.  After all, a Baptist might think that a Methodist was of an “other religion” (and vice versa), yet would still see him as going to heaven based on faith in Christ.  So it was phrased more specifically as, “Even when those other religions are not Christian.”  Here the percentages were quite a bit lower among nearly all denominations surveyed.  Here again the Evangelical Protestants were the lowest with 54% (page 537).

That still is a high figure.  It means that over half of those Americans who call themselves evangelical believe that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven!

However, clergy in evangelical churches hold to a much higher percentage, ranging from 92% to 100 % of leaders in various evangelical denominations and groups who hold to the exclusivity of Jesus (page 539).  The authors refer to this as, “The clergy-laity disconnect.”  They even tell a sad story of the shock among the clergy of one denomination at this finding.  These clergy felt that surely those of their denomination did not hold this view, and were stunned to find they did.  “One wanly said that as teachers of the Word they had failed.”

The authors suggest that it is our social networks that influence our theology.  Our saintly, “Aunt Susan” and “pal Al,” who are of different persuasions “produce a form of cognitive dissonance.”  We do not want to believe they are going to hell!

So what do we say to all these troubling data?  I personally have friends and family whom I love, who do not believe in Christ.  Are they lost?  I can find reams of Scripture that say they are and only by manipulation of texts can I find arguments otherwise.

I want to see my loved ones in heaven, but if Jesus’ claims to exclusivity are true they are lost.  I find no median way.  And if I choose to deny or ignore their lost condition, it is doubtful that I would ever tell them how to be rescued from their lost condition.  Denial is not love.

I am concerned, that perhaps, like the clergyman mentioned above, I have failed as a teacher of the Word.  Perhaps I have not communicated clearly the truths of the gospel and of the Person of Christ.

See:    A QUESTION ANSWERED
            THROWING OUT THE BABY
            WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

Our daughter was a precocious child. It seems she was born talking and asking questions. So when she was about 3 years old, we put her in a Sunday school class for kindergarten-age children. After Sunday school and church she would explain to us what she had learned.

One Sunday we asked her what her teacher had taught that morning.

“We heard about Nicodemus and Jesus,” she said.

(This is good, I thought -- the 3rd chapter of John. That’s where John 3:16 is. What better passage for a child to hear the simple truth that all one has to do is believe in Jesus!)

“What happened?” I asked.

Her eyes grew wider as she related the story as she recalled it. “Nicodemus was in the house and Jesus was outside. And Jesus kept knocking and knocking, but Nicodemus wouldn’t let Him in!”

I was a bit puzzled, as I had read that passage many times, but didn’t recall those details, so I asked, “What happened next?”

“It started raining – real HARD! And still Nicodemus wouldn’t let Jesus in.”

I frowned at her. “Are you sure that’s the way your teacher told the story?”

“Well, I made that part up about the rain!", she replied with a look of shame.

I could imagine what the Sunday school was like. I knew her teacher, a dear sweet elderly lady who loved the Lord and loved children. But like many teachers, she had tried to use metaphorical language to communicate concrete truths to children who see everything concretely.

She had probably told the children that Nicodemus wouldn’t “open his heart’s door” to Jesus, meaning he wouldn’t believe. But to a child, that’s a real wooden door with hinges and a doorknob.

Jesus spoke of the “little ones who believe in Me” (Matthew 18:6). He apparently thought that children were capable of exercising faith. Yet we seem to feel that instead of giving them the simple truth about Jesus, we muddy it up with metaphors.

And this is done with adults as well as children.

Jesus said, “… whoever believes in Him will … have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).

Paul defines the Gospel as consisting of four basic assertions, “Christ died for our sins … He was buried … He was raised … He was seen” (1 Corinthians 15:1-5a).

To believe is simply to recognize these truths and to confidently rely on them and the One of whom they speak – Jesus Christ – for our eternal salvation.

What could be simpler?

But I have heard the following appeals made:
• Open your heart (or heart’s door) to Jesus.
• Let Jesus into your heart (or life).
• Accept Jesus as your personal Savior.
• Make Jesus your Lord and Savior.
• Give your heart to Jesus.
• Pray the sinner’s prayer.
• Walk the aisle.
• Make Jesus Lord of your life.

I am positive that many people have come to saving faith in Christ despite our lack of clarity, despite our muddying up of the water of life. But why not let the message be as clear and simple as it is? Perhaps one reason is that we want to see results, we want to see a conversion experience. But the danger is that one could put faith in the conversion experience and not in the Savior Himself.

Bill Ball
6/30/2009

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS, 2

Regarding Sherry’s question on my previous post: “Do you think Calvin meant it the way it has been taught (you don’t know if you’re saved unless your works show you’ve persevered) or do you think he meant that we will persevere because ‘God’s choice of those whom He will save is not due to anything in them’?” I said that I’d have to go back and re-read Calvin.

Well I did do a little study on the writings of my old friend and have to say that though he wrote quite a bit on the topic he doesn’t seem very clear. So my answer to the questions would be yes, both of the above.

Calvin speaks of perseverance in at least three places in his Institutes:
• In Book 2, chapter 3, paragraph 11: “Perseverance is exclusively God’s work; it is neither a reward nor a complement of our individual act.”
• In Book 3, chapter 22, paragraph 7: “Christ does not allow any of those whom He has once for all engrafted into His body to perish, for in preserving their salvation He will perform what He has promised.”
• In Book 3, chapter 24, paragraph 7: “Yet it daily happens that those who seemed to be Christ’s, fall away from Him again, and hasten to destruction … So then, let not such instances induce us at all to abandon a quiet reliance upon the Lord’s promise, where He declares that all by whom He is received in true faith have been given to Him by the Father, no one of whom… will perish … Paul does not discourage Christians from simple confidence but rather from crass and sheer confidence of the flesh.”
(All quotes are from Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Ford Lewis Battles.) This, of course is not all he has to say, but I believe it is a reasonable sample.

Though Calvin did not use the letters TULIP, they do briefly sum up his beliefs on salvation. Because man is so totally depraved that he is unable to even choose God, God himself has chosen out of the mass of lost humanity those whom He desired and it is for these that Christ died. Those whom He draws cannot resist God’s choice, but come to Him by faith and ultimately come to eternal salvation. It is all God’s doing.

Unfortunately, Calvin also seemed to look for external evidence as to one’s saved condition. And this set up a dilemma for later theologians and pastors.

With a rigid view of God’s sovereignty and the inevitability of perseverance, how does one deal with the fact that some of those who at one time give evidence of salvation, later give evidence of a lack of the same? We see this in the Scripture (“Demas has forsaken me, having loved the present age” – 2 Timothy 4:9) and we also see it in modern-day believers.

There are usually two solutions presented: either (a) these people were saved but lost their salvation (the Arminian view) or (b) they never were saved in the first place.

These both seem to be good ways of simply disposing of problem people. But what about the people themselves? Most of us will fail at one time or another! Does this mean I’m lost? Neither of the above solutions has an answer.

If we believe that God is the one who “perseveres” us, then we have to recognize that perseverance is an inward work. Thought there is a correspondence between the inward and the outward, it is not always clearly recognizable.

Our assurance of our salvation must rest, not on any perceived external acts, but on the promises of Scripture. “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). “By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not from yourselves; it is God’s gift (Ephesians 2:8).

See FREE GRACE and CHEAP GRACE.

Have you personally put your faith in Jesus Christ? If so, then you are saved!

Bill Ball
1/26/2008