Mac’s Response To Todd’s And Jay’s Answers: Part 1

Jay’s and Todd’s Answers to Mac’s Questions

by Mac Deaver

T F 1. You say that the statement “Obedience to Christ is a type of work (Jno.6:29; Heb.5:8, 9; Eph.2:10) is not precise enough to answer either true or false. You claim that there is “sharp distinction” between (1) obedient acts done in order to receive salvation and (2) obedient acts done because one already has salvation. Yes, and we can agree if “salvation” refers to the salvation from past sins granted when one becomes a Christian! However, are you willing to claim that there is a sharp distinction between (1) obedience in order to become a Christian and (2) obedience in order to remain a faithful one? Where does that sharp distinction appear? When we say that we must continue to obey we are not saying that (1) one must continue to obey in order to contribute to his initial salvation or conversion (and you realize this), but we are saying that (2) one must continue to obey in order to maintain his righteous standing before God or to maintain his salvation in Christ. We are to “work out” our own salvation (Phil.2:12), and that is obedience (Heb.5:8, 9). The statement was precise enough. You failed to deal with because you would have to admit, as the Scriptures show, that there is work to be done to contribute to the “ongoingness” of salvation.

You suggest two situations involving works: (1) works done to receive salvation (of which there are none), and (2) works done because salvation has been received but which works could not have contributed to that initial condition. However, even though the second category of works could not, of course, produce the initial conversion, it must contribute to the maintenance of that conversion (unless “once saved-always saved” doctrine is true). The Bible teaches that the works we do because we are sons of God do contribute to our righteous standing before God. You admit in your answer to question #13 that saving faith includes obedience!

Todd and Jay say that they (1) do not believe in the doctrine of once saved-always saved, but then they (2) deny that works done by Christians have anything to do with their salvation. This is outright self-contradiction! Why? It is so because, per their view, the failure of a Christian to work out his own salvation could not damn his soul. They may not believe in once saved-always saved doctrine, but the view for which they are currently contending implies that doctrine nonetheless!

In your speculation over John 6:29 you wind up concluding that there is only one work that saves and it isn’t really a work at all. You say that Jesus used the word “work” but Paul shows us that Jesus didn’t mean it! My!

If obedience entails a kind of “work,” and obedience is required for salvation, then a kind of “work” is required for salvation. Your guesswork about John 6:29 cannot offset plain New Testament requirement that there is a sense in which we must work out our salvation (Phil.2:12). Your failure to understand Paul contributes to your failure to understand James. Ephesians 2:8-10 you claim says that salvation is not of works-period. You are exactly wrong. It is not of works of the law and it is not of works of merit, but if obedience necessarily entails a work, then salvation entails that work. The works in verse 10 are those in which those saved from past sin (Christians) are to walk, thus indicating that these works are contributory not to previous conversion but to the maintenance of their righteous standing before God.

Titus 3:5 is a discussion of initial obedience, and not a reference to obedience required of Christians. The salvation of Titus 3:5 excludes works of righteousness because before conversion, the sinner is not producing any righteousness. He is living in sin. Verses 5 and 6 clearly show that the salvation referred to is that whereby one leaves the world of sin.

When Todd says, “To sum up, assuming we’re talking about “works” in the usual, Pauline sense, Dad’s question could be ether True or False, depending on whether he means obedience to Christ in meeting the conditions of salvation (faith, repentance, baptism) or other works of obedience,” it merely states a confusion. This reminds me of a debate opponent I had years ago who answered every True-False question both True and False. On a given question, he had circled both the T and the F and then explained his answers by provided two scenarios both of which meant the question was false. But, he still wouldn’t answer it False.

Now, since you tell us in your discussion of John 6:29 that faith is the only thing necessary to salvation, per Jesus (You say that Jesus identifies the one “work” necessary as faith), is faith and that it is not, according to Paul, a “work” at all, my first True-False question would be “false.” Then, since you take the position that all acts required of saints are because of their salvation rather than in order to receive salvation, that would make the first True-False question False. So, why didn’t you answer it “false”? Of course, the Bible teaches that obedience is necessary initially and continually (11 Thess.1:8, 9; Gal.5:7; Heb.5:8, 9). Where does Hebrews 5:8, 9 apply? It applies either to (1) initial salvation or (2) continuing salvation or (3) neither or (4) both. We say both! As far as I can yet understand Todd and Jay, they are attacking the concept of continuing obedience as a contribution to one’s continuing state of salvation. This is what is alarming. And they do this while at the same time admitting obedience is essential, at least “imperfect obedience” (their answer to my question #2). Per their view, “imperfect obedience” saves us, but continuing obedience (this would entail improved obedience or “more perfect obedience,” (given the way they are arguing) has nothing to do with the continuing salvation. This is a very unique doctrine!

T F 2. Regarding obedience to Christ being essential to salvation, Todd and Jay say that such is true but that “perfect obedience” is not essential. Of course, they need to wrestle with what they are claiming. I would at this juncture raise the question: Exactly how is imperfect obedience distinguishable from disobedience. If a man imperfectly repents, does he repent or not? Can a man maintain faithfulness to God while imperfectly walking in the light? If he is in the light, he is in the light. I do not quibble over human weakness. We all have already admitted such. Can a man perfectly believe? Can he perfectly repent? Can he perfectly make the good confession? Can he perfectly or absolutely correctly be baptized? Can he perfectly or correctly walk in truth?

But in order for Jay and Todd to claim the essentiality of obedience on the one hand, but say that it is imperfect obedience, they need to tell us exactly how imperfect obedience is distinguishable from non-obedience or from dis-obedience. Exactly what is “imperfect obedience”? Be careful, men, in your clarification, or you will wind up explicitly denying the essentiality of obedience altogether. You are already explicitly claiming that by “partial” obedience a sinner becomes a Christian, and that improved obedience later has nothing whatever to do with that Christian’s maintaining his faithfulness before God. This is strange stuff!

The fact is that Saul’s partial or “imperfect” obedience was taken by God to be disobedience, and Saul lost the kingdom over it! Please read carefully 1 Samuel 15:10-23). Jay and Todd need to clarify for us how it is that this example of partial obedience does not apply to the concept of conversion for which they are contending.

T F 3. We all agree that it is possible to practice pure religion.

T F 4. As to whether or not one can practice pure religion out of harmony with pure doctrine, we are told that the answer is “true” but only if we mean that one can practice pure religion “with an imperfect understanding of church polity, worship, and the Millennium.” However, in answer to our question #10, Jay and Todd admit that “The subscription to at least some doctrinal errors entails loss of eternal salvation to those who subscribe to them” (and they cite Gal.1:6-9 and 1 John 2:22-23). The second passage they cite is in reference to the deity of Christ. The first one, however, entails the embracing of any doctrine which undermines the exclusive nature of the gospel of Christ (cf. Gal.2:1-5). According to Jay and Todd one can practice pure religion…with an imperfect understanding of “church polity, worship, and the Millennium.” According to Jay and Todd no false doctrine on church polity, or worship, or the millennium would necessarily entail one’s having given up pure doctrine. So, the apostasy that developed in the second century over church organization which eventuated into the Roman Catholic Church did not, in itself, involved damning doctrinal heresy! And, according to Jay and Todd, no doctrine that changes or “corrupts” pure worship practice can entail damning heresy! How then, we ask, is the concept of apostasy applicable to history?

T F 5. Jay and Todd admit that we can practice pure religion without spot, but they claim that this “spotlessness” does not entail doctrinal perfection or living sinless lives. But it does mean that “we can be truly penitent and forgiven for all sins where we’ve fallen short of perfection.” But their idea of a penitent life, in the light of their answer to #4 allows for doctrinal corruption to the extent of worship corruption and organizational corruption. Are they implying, unintentionally, that the whole idea of “restorationism” is misguided and that the restoration movement back to first century Christianity was a colossal conceptual mistake? It seems so.

T F 6. We all agree that there is no N.T. passage that promises eternal salvation to the sons of disobedience.

T F 7. We all agree that sons of obedience are faithful Christians.

T F 8. As to whether or not worship authorized by Christ must be in truth, our opponents say “True,” but that “ ‘Truth’ does not refer to having a perfect understanding of church polity and worship.” Did we say anything about church polity (organization)? No. Now the question does have to do with worship. They say that our understanding of worship doctrine does not have to be perfect. Our response: But if our worship practice is “in truth,” it would have to be in harmony with doctrinal accuracy. Doesn’t “truth” mean it must be accurate? Evidently, here they are trying to leave room for worship that is not accurate (“in truth”). The very concept of “truth” has to do with informational accuracy! A proposition can not be true and not true in the same sense at the same time (cf. law of contradiction). How can worship be in truth and in error at the same time? If we can worship in error and it be in truth at the same time, then there is no distinction between truth and error. Let us be clear: grace cannot be extended apart from truth. If our opponents think otherwise, let them come out and explicitly say so, and provide the passage which so teaches.

T F 9. They admit that no New Testament passage teaches that unauthorized worship is acceptable or pleasing to God. However, they say that they disagree with us over how one determines what is authorized. Just here, if they think they have discovered some new hermeneutical principle by which Bible authority can be accessed, let them give it! They do say, “No one is suggesting that actual error in worship is pleasing to God-only that it, like other sins, is forgiven if the worshipper has been saved and continues in submissive faith.” So, here they claim that “sincerity” is the guarantor of continuing salvation. Truth has been jettisoned. Obedience has been forsaken. All that is left is for brethren to be sincere in what they are doing, and God accepts such. And even though it is not pleasing or acceptable, it is forgiven and without repentance and the cessation of unacceptable and non-please behavior! What convenient doctrine! Truth is attacked. While Jay and Todd have not (and would not) claim that a sinner’s sincerity alone will save him, they do apply the concept of “sincerity alone” to a saint, and say that a sincere saint (after all, that is what is meant by a saint’s having a submissive faith, isn’t it?) is all right with God regardless what he does. Let them deny it.

T F 10. Here Jay and Todd admit that the subscription to at least some doctrinal errors entails loss of eternal salvation to those who subscribe to them. They cite Galatians 1:6-9 and 1 John 2:22-23. And there is no way to restrict the application of Galatians 1:6-9 to the denial of the deity of Christ. That passage applies to any situation where the exclusive nature of the gospel (not simply biographical material about Jesus) is surrendered. So, they admit here that the embracing of some doctrinal error can damn the soul of the saint. Since they realize that the New Testament teaching is plain that some doctrinal heresy damns the soul, they have to admit it, but then in the way that they redefine “repentance” (to allow the continuation of some sin uninterruptedly; in Romans 6:1 Paul said we must not continue in sin that grace may abound while Jay and Todd say that we must allow for it) and “obedience” (to mean “partial” or “incomplete” obedience which in 1 Samuel 15:10-23 is the same as “disobedience”), and the way that they, unintentionally, assault the biblical doctrine of knowledge (by holding that our knowledge finitude entails inaccuracy, and the way that they argue for worship “in truth” that allows it to be at the same time in “some error,” they wind up in self-conflict and in overall undermining of the gospel in whose behalf they are now trying to argue.

T F 11. My statement was: According to Hebrews 11, the faith that saves is a submissive faith which has not yet obeyed but that plans on obeying in the future. Instead of squarely facing the point and answering the question, they evade it. They say, “It is a vague question. Not yet obeyed what? The acts of obedience mentioned in this chapter did not save anyone. The writer is quite clear that they were saved by faith (v.2). The faith motivated their obedience and their obedience evidenced their faith, but their salvation came by faith.” Now, consider this confusion carefully:

They refuse to explicitly admit that “submissive faith” but which is not yet obedient faith will yet save. They will not claim that (1) a submissive but not yet obedient faith saves, and they will not claim that (2) a submissive but not yet obedient faith will not save. If they believe the first point, they should have answered True, and if they believe the second point, they should have answered False. Where’s the problem? Come on, fellows. It is not vague. You just do not want to have to squarely face the statement. They suggest that they do not know what I mean by “obey” by saying, “Not yet obeyed what?” The statement is based on Hebrews 11, and the “obeying what” entails the various assignments given to the people who are commended for their faith. Read verse 4, 7, 8, 17, etc. Faith entails trusting promises, believing facts, and obeying imperatives. There is no place in Hebrews 11 for the divine commendation of anyone’s faith who, when given an assignment, refused to obey. And Todd and Jay know that before we arrive at Hebrews 11 and the illustrations that show we are justified by faith, the writer had already informed us that the saved are saved by obedience (5:8, 9).

When Todd says that the acts of obedience in Hebrews 11 did not save anyone, then he is admitting that a dead faith would have provided the same results as a living faith! That is, he is implying that a non-obedient faith is just as effective as an obedient one! This is the implication.

(1) “The acts of obedience mentioned in this chapter did not save anyone. The writer is quite clear that they were saved by faith (v.2).”

(2) Thus, faith that does not obey saves. (Thus, the faith by which they were saved could have been non-obedient faith or dead faith). The obedience, then per Jay and Todd, was coincidental but not essential!

Dear reader, can you see how that Todd and Jay are attacking the very concept of obedience. They, in effect, are claiming that non-obedient faith saves (But, Heb.5:8, 9!).

Now, Jay and Todd present us a brief discussion of Abram to justify their concept of faith’s saving quality. They refer to Genesis 15:6 and Rom.4:2, 3 and Ephesians 2:8, 9. Romans 4 is a discussion of Abraham’s being saved without being involved in the works of the law of Moses. Verses 10ff show this. Paul cannot in Romans 4 be attempting to prove that Abraham was justified without obeying God! (cf. Heb.11:8). James teaches us that Genesis 15:6 was a prophecy! I have already made this point. Todd and Jay are not dealing with it. Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled, according to James, when Abraham obeyed God by attempting to kill his son as ordered (Jas.2:20-23).Thus, the works of Romans 4 are not works of obedience to God’s assignments. The works of Romans 4 are the works of the law of Moses or any other system whereby one can earn or merit salvation. When Jay and Todd say that “it would be a gross distortion of Hebrews and Genesis to suggest that Abraham earned his salvation by works,” we agree. No one can “earn” his salvation given the sin in every person’s life (cf. Luke 17:10). The works of Ephesians 2:8, 9 are like those of Titus 3:5. Only God can save us in the ultimate sense. Only God can provide the history and stipulate the conditions necessary to salvation. The works in verse 10 are those acts which Christians are obligated to do.

T F 12. Jay and Todd agree with us that a disobedient faith will not save. But here they are inconsistent with the way they have treated Hebrews 11. And in answer to question #2, they claim that imperfect obedience saves without telling us in what way imperfect obedience differs from disobedience.

T F 13. The True-False question is: According to New Testament teaching, saving faith is a submissive faith which submission excludes obedience. Jay and Todd answer False. So, now they contradict their answer in question #11 when they said “The acts of obedience mentioned in this chapter (Hebrews 11, MD) did not save anyone.” Here, they admit that saving faith includes obedience. So, while to question #11 they tried to avoid having to say that obedience is necessary to salvation, here they admit it. This is another case of self-contradiction. Notice:

(1) Obedience doesn’t save anyone.

(2) It is false to say that saving faith excludes obedience.

Dear reader, it is hard to argue with men who take both sides of the issue!

T F 14. Todd and Jay here admit that Abraham was, according to James 2, justified by an obedient faith. This comes after their denial that Abraham or anyone else described in Hebrews 11 was justified by obedience. Too, note that they admit that James teaches that Abraham was justified by “obedient faith” when James says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?” (v.21). Look at it carefully. According to Todd and Jay, Abraham was justified by works! Do you see some confusion?

T F 15. My statement was: If Paul declares that Abraham was not justified by works and if James declares that Abraham was justified by works, then we know that Paul and James were referring to two different categories or classifications of works. They answer False.

Then, in an effort to bolster their answer, they suggest that it “is more likely that” Paul and James used the concept of justification in different senses (Notice, that this is only a suggestion). They claim that Paul uses the term “justified” for the “act in which God declares a sinner righteous” and James uses it as a demonstration. Their “explanation” completely disregards the fact that James says that Genesis 15:6 was a prophecy! They do not admit what James has clearly stated. Furthermore, if Paul’s use of the term “justified” is for the “act” in which God declares the sinner righteous, then either

(1) the act is an act of obedience (This would mean that an obedient faith saves) or

(2) the act is a mere mental act and without further obedience (This would mean that “faith only” saves). Is this where Jay and Todd will land?

They say, “Paul and James would both agree that we are declared righteous by faith, not by works. And they would both agree that a faith that saves will always evidence itself in good works.” Can you believe it? If we cannot determine what they both would say by what they have, in fact, said, how would we determine it? I will not rely on the guessing of Jay and Todd. Look again at what Jay and Todd have said:

(1) “Paul and James would both agree that we are declared righteous by faith, not by works.” But, James says, “Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (Jas.2:24).

(2) “And they would both agree that a faith that saves will always evidence itself in good works.” But James does not say that the faith that justifies will in the future demonstrate its already having saved quality by demonstration through works, but he does say rather that the faith that justifies does so by good works. Todd and Jay do not have the liberty to rewrite the text in order to justify their position on an exaggerated grace.

Todd and Jay say, “Works don’t save the individual. Rather, saving faith necessarily produces good works, and so the absence of good works means an absence of faith or penitence.” Now notice:

(1) Works don’t save; but

(2) The absence of good works means an absence of faith that saves.

Can you not see, dear reader, that if the absence of good works implies the absence of the faith that saves, then the faith that saves cannot save in the absence of good works! Todd and Jay have simply created a confusion:

Faith good works salvation

Faith absence of good works no salvation

Absence of good works implies

No saving faith and no salvation

ay’s and Todd’s Answers to Mac’s Questions