GraceConversation.org

by Jay Guin

As I noted in my previous post, Todd has been on vacation for the last week. I was on vacation the preceding week.

I’ve drafted up a position statement and defense for our views on apostasy, and Todd will be looking it over and fixing it now that he’s back in the saddle. I’ve used too many words to argue the case, and so I’m hoping Todd will hack the thing down to size as well as filling in some blanks.

I say all that to say that we’ve not abandoned the effort. It’s just going to take a while — but we’re getting there. This is too important not to get right.

by Jay Guin

Mac has made a number of thoughtful points and asked several questions in his last post, but before we get to the particulars, I’d like to be sure I stay centered on the topic we’re here for.

The challenge Todd and I made to our conservative conversationalists is:

• Please tell us what doctrinal error would cause a saved person to fall away.
• Please defend your position from the scriptures.

(Todd and I will soon be called upon to do the same from the progressive perspective.)

There have been quite a few posts, and we’ve had a change in participants. I thought it would be helpful if I attempted to summarize where I think we are.

I’ll first go through the posts of my conservative friends and quote the sections that seem to most directly answer the question under consideration. At the end, I’ll summarize what I believe is the conservative contention. Finally, I’ll ask that Phil and Mac correct me if I’m in error on any point.

(more…)

by Mac Deaver

I’ll try to respond here to the latest from Jay and Todd. I appreciate the fact that there is so much agreement between us in this dialogue. That is very good. Now, let us proceed with some of the items where we are not sure about agreement and where we are sure about disagreement.

By those errors that when believed “create divine doctrinal violation (sin),” I mean the acceptance of a doctrine in compliance with which one sins. It is a believed doctrine that is not true, and when one practices it, he sins by being in harmony with it. In the parable of the tares, at the harvest the angels “shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity” (Matt. 13:41). The furnace of fire is the destiny (v. 42). Any doctrine the acceptance of which causes one thus to stumble or to do iniquity is dealt with by punishment at harvest time.

Near the bottom of page two, we find: “We agree that self-justification can cost one his soul (Gal. 5:4). On the other hand, we don’t believe that all error as to divine obligation damns. Rather, the danger Paul discusses in Galatians 5 arises when a Christian seeks to be justified by works rather than faith in Jesus.”

Now, if I understand what is being claimed here, I disagree completely. Furthermore, this may be the key point in our disagreement over submission and obedience, so let us take some time here to explain. Paul is not in Galatians 5 condemning any Christian who is striving to be obedient as though his attempt at obedience is at odds with his faith. Paul never did that any more than Jesus excused sinning against the law (Matt.5:19). What Paul condemns in Galatians 5 is the effort of Christians to go beyond the teaching of Christ and to attempt to add obedience to Moses as a prerequisite to being a faithful Christian. The context makes this clear (cf. Acts 15; Gal.2:1-10). It is a misrepresentation of Gal.5:4 to say that Paul is condemning justification by works rather than by faith in Jesus unless one understands from the total context that “justification by works” would have to refer to a justification by the works of the law of Moses. If Jay and Todd mean by “justification by works” obedience to Christ, then the expression is misapplied.

Compare Paul’s discussion in Romans 4. Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works (v.1-3). He quotes Genesis 15:6. He uses Abraham as an example of someone who is justified by faith and not by works, but those works have to be clearly identified in the light of other information about Abraham that we are given. The works of which Paul speaks in Romans 4 are those that would make of God a debtor to save us (v. 4), because they are works that would merit salvation (v. 6-8). Perfect law keeping cannot save because no human can perfectly keep law. That is why the law of Moses was weak through the flesh (Rom. 8:3). It simply could not save anyone for there was in it no provision for actual forgiveness of the sins committed (Gal. 5:10, 11). Particularly in Romans 4, Paul is discussing the works of the law of Moses. Abraham’s works were not those under the law of Moses (vs. 9, 10). But Abraham had works.

James also quotes Genesis 15:6 and uses Abraham as an illustration of salvation by works. Obviously, he is not contradicting Paul in Romans 4. In Galatians 5 Paul says that Genesis 15:6 was a prophecy made that was fulfilled at the time that Abraham worked or drew his knife to kill his son (vs. 20-24). Abraham obeyed God and the scripture was “fulfilled” that said that Abraham “believed God.”

That is why we still say that works of obedience are essential to salvation. Abraham by faith obeyed (cf. Heb. 11:8, 17-19). He didn’t merely have a “submissive” faith if by “submissive” one means to exclude works of obedience. He obeyed. He didn’t merely have a desire to later obey; he obeyed. So, Galatians 5 does not condemn salvation by all works; it condemns salvation by the works of the law of Moses or any law whereby one could merit salvation. And Romans 4 does not sanction faith without works of obedience. It condemns the concept of salvation by works without faith.  The Bible does not pose the tension between (1) faith and (2) works as such but between (1) faith that works and (2) works that have no faith (works of merit).

Jesus learned obedience (Heb. 5:8) and not an alleged “submission” that excludes obedience. Salvation, we are told, comes to the obedient (Heb. 5:9). If one excludes all works from the plan of salvation, he excludes obedience to Christ. We know that faith itself in one sense is a work for Jesus told us that (Jno.6:29), and faith is essential (Heb. 11:6) to salvation. And James tells us that faith without other works cannot save (Jas. 2:14). Note: to take a position on works which contradicts what James claims in 2:14 is a wrong position. Clearly, faith without works cannot save.

Now let us turn to the next point on page three. I had said, “Doctrinal error that is clearly personally corruptive, congregationally disruptive, or doctrinally detrimental is condemned (1 Cor .5:1-8; Tit. 3:10; 11 Tim. 2:18; Gal. 2:5).” Our conversationalists reply, “If by ‘is condemned’ you mean the person in error is damned, then we disagree. If you mean that we should judge and reject the error, we agree.” Now, having already said that some personally held doctrinal errors may not finally condemn a person, it is still true that some of these doctrinal errors are so clear and significant that they do condemn. We reject them, not simply because we find fault with them, but because we know that to stay in them is to forfeit salvation (cf. 11 Tim. 2:16-18; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:12-19). There are some things we do not do nor condone for conscience sake (Rom.14:23); we avoid some things because we know that such leads to eternal ruin even for those who with a good conscience continue in them. And some people stand self-condemned (Tit. 3:10, 11).

Next, when you say “Error means any less-than-perfect understanding of God’s will and self-revelation,” I deny it. That is not at all what error is. If such were a correct description of error, then the biblical doctrine of truth would (since none of us knows all about it) would equal the biblical doctrine of error. This makes no sense at all. The Bible plainly teaches that although we can never know all that God knows about anything, we are under obligation to learn a few things about a few things. Our knowledge will always be less complete than God’s, but when we do have knowledge, our knowledge is as accurate as is his. And we are promised that if we abide in God’s word, we can know saving truth (Jno. 8:31, 32). God wants all men to come to knowledge of the truth, not to a non-knowledge (error regarding truth) because of a necessary finitude (1 Tim. 2:4). I cannot know as much as God knows; however he has arranged circumstances so that I can and must know a little of what he knows. If error is rightly described by Jay here, then clearly we cannot know saving truth. And that is epistemological agnosticism! I ask Jay and Todd to carefully reevaluate this crucial part of the discussion. Think about it like this: You cannot on the one hand say, (1) “We do believe that the scriptures teach, in principle, which doctrinal errors damn and which do not. Surely God did not leave us to guess at such a central question!” (p. 3 of their response), and on the other hand to claim, “Error means any less-than-perfect understanding of God’s will and self-revelation” (p.3) if you mean by “perfect” as complete as God’s knowledge is, because our (1) knowledge in principle of what saves and what damns will always and necessarily contain (2) error given Jay’s and Todd’s definition of “error.” We are, after all, left to guess.

By “doctrinally detrimental,” I mean error that corrupts or that is a detriment to pure doctrine. It damages pure doctrine (cf. Gal. 1:6-10). Paul makes it clear that it is possible to embrace a doctrine, the falsity of which implies that the truth of the gospel is not continuing with us anymore (Gal. 2:5). Such doctrines have to be fought. Liberty promised by such falsity is misguided; bondage awaits (Gal. 2:4; 11 Cor. 3:17).

Now, regarding my claim that repentance necessarily entails cessation of the sin of which one repents, our literary opponents say, “We disagree. There is a difference between repenting of ‘sin’ and repenting of ‘a sin’ (as in Mac’s illustration). There’s also a difference between committing a sin repeatedly because of lack of repentance (as in Mac’s illustration), and committing a sin repeatedly because of weakness, against one’s own desires (Rom. 7:14-25). At Pentecost, Peter called on his listeners to ‘repent and be baptized.’ It’s not likely that he meant for them to never sin again. Rather, he called on them to change their lives, submitting to Jesus as Lord.”

I would say that whether you refer to a specific sin or to sin in general, when one repents there must be cessation of that sin for a while. If not, how in the world could godly sorrow have moved the man to repent? (cf. 11 Cor. 7:10). We either face “change” are we do not face change. If a man repents of adultery but does not repent of murder, can that repentance save him? The answer is obvious (cf. Jas. 2:10, 11). The category of sin in general is composed of sins in particular. If one does not repent of any particular sin or sins, then how can he claim that he has repented in general? A little child cannot repent, among other reasons, because there is no particular sin in his life. If there are no particular sins of which an adult repents, he has not repented at all. If the man is not aware of any sin in his life, he cannot repent of sin. If he through lack of focus cannot recall any sin in his life, how can he be moved to godly sorrow? It is impossible for a man to have godly sorrow about his sin if he has no awareness of any given sin. And godly sorrow always precedes repentance. A man whose sins are so far back in his mind that they do not trouble him is in no position yet to become a Christian. The people on Pentecost had just crucified Christ. That was something definite of which they were to repent (Acts 2:23). Of how many other things they needed to repent I do not know, and whether Peter referred to any other sins, we do not know for his complete sermon is not reported (Acts 2:40).

When our literary opposition says of Peter, “It’s not likely that he meant for them to never sin again. Rather, he called on them to change their lives, submitting to Jesus as Lord,” we respond by saying that he is calling on them to give up the practice of sin. Jesus once told a man, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee” (Jno. 5:14). John said, “My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jno .2:1).  God has the right to tell us not to sin. Neither Jesus nor any inspired writer ever sanctioned the committing of one sin. Never! And Jay and Todd well know this. “Submitting to Jesus as Lord” entailed giving up the practice of sin. There is a level of spiritual intimacy reached between God and man in conversion that means that the practice of sin is over or the transition from the world of the lost to the church of the saved is not made (Col. 1:13).

I do appreciate the point about momentary sins because of human weakness. I admit that (Matt. 26:41). It is a fact that cannot be successfully denied. This has to do with the nature of man and the situation in which he finds himself. That is why we need so much help in overcoming sin (Rom. 8:12-17; Eph. 6:10ff).

Now on page four, we find a comparison drawn between (1) a drug addict who is converted and (2) an otherwise sinner who obeys the gospel via a correspondence course and begins to worship with a mechanical instrument. The claim is made that both men repented in spite of the fact that the drug addicts falls back into drugs, and the other man worships with the mechanical instrument. I do not disagree. The situations are not parallel but do involve men who have fallen back into sin. Drug addiction is just as much a sin by a Christian as a non-Christian. And using mechanical instruments in worship is unauthorized and amounts to sinful worship. Simon fell shortly after his conversion into grave error (Acts 8:18-24). The drug addict in Jay’s illustration obviously knows that such is wrong. The user of mechanical instruments evidently does not. So, the two cases are not parallel. However, if we grant this new convert time, if he is what he ought to be, he will come to see the error of his way and remove himself from such practice. The providence of God is sufficient to help the ignorant man of integrity to come to know what he must know (cf. Gen .20:1-6; Luke 11:9-13). I would further suggest that any correspondence course should include sufficient information so as to teach the principle of authority (Col. 3:17) and so prevent the very thing that Jay’s second man illustrates. I always cover this ground including mechanical instrument music and New Testament teaching on marriage and divorce when personally studying with non-Christians. Too, a person living in adultery has not repented of adultery if he continues to stay in adultery. No cessation-no repentance. One cannot walk in righteousness and walk in evil at the same time (Eph. 2:1-3).

Jay says, “Sincerity does not cover all sin, but for those in grace—those saints who maintain a submissive faith in Jesus—grace does.” Yes, but Jay, Todd, Phil, and I all know that some sins committed by saints imply that they are no longer in grace (1 Cor. 5; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:1ff; Heb. 10:26ff). As far as I can understand the concept of “submissiveness” as used by Jay and Todd, it is not the same thing as obedience. But I would say that while submissiveness is necessary, it is not adequate to salvation unless it is defined so as to include obedience. Having obeyed the gospel, all of us had a submissive faith in the sense that we made improvement in our lives as we learned so to do. But the adjustments had to be made in the light of truth learned. Obligatory Truth was never rendered non-obligatory while we were making our changes. There is no doctrine of salvation for the submissively not yet obedient or the submissively yet disobedient.  According to the New Testament, there is (1) a continuation of walking in truth that is just as necessary to one’s ultimate salvation as is (2) the New Testament teaching that all Christians need continuing grace (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15; John 8:32). Those saints who continue to walk in truth (11 Jno. 4) are those who receive continuing grace (1 Jno. 1:7). The availability of grace is never an excuse for the justification of continuing in sin (Rom. 6:1).  Human weakness is a factor we must admit and with which we continually live. That is why sinners must become partakers of the divine nature (11 Pet. 1:4). But doctrinal error that causes violation of God’s law is not something that one has to live with (Jno. 8:32; Rom. 12:1, 2; 11 Jno.4; 1 Tim. 6:20, 21). If it were otherwise (if we had to live with continual doctrinal error that causes continual violation of God’s will) we would not need the Bible. If we are forever shut up to inevitable doctrinal error that keeps us in constant violation of God’s will, truth cannot save us (But, Acts 20:32). All of us must grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (11 Pet. 3:18). To fail to do so is sin.

Now, I will address the questions that Jay and Todd present to me:

1. As to how I use “truth,” I use it for the totality of the gospel, the truth that the gospel is (Gal. 2:5), including facts, promises, and obligations (cf. Heb. 11:3; 11 Pet. 1:4; Rom. 2:8; 1 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 4:20, 21).

2. By divine doctrinal violation, I mean a violation of divine teaching. I could be in error with regard to many facts given in the Scriptures. But doctrinal violation would involve me in sin. I could be wrong about the interpretation of a lot of factual information without getting into violation of obligation.

3. Errors are doctrinally detrimental if they are conclusions reached which attack the doctrine of Christ. Errors of some Bible facts (although the presentation of these facts is Bible doctrine) are not very consequential. Errors of other facts would be. Some facts we must know; others we do not have to know. Errors of doctrine that lead people to sin, however, would be attacks on the purity of the gospel of Christ and harmful to those who subscribe to them. Any doctrine that implies that we do not have to submit to the least requirements (obligations) of the doctrine of Christ is a false doctrine (Matt.5:19; cf. Matt 23:23; Luke 17:10). Paul tells us that there is a sense in which only Christians can actually fulfill the requirement of the law of Moses, a thing Jews under the law could not do (Rom. 8:4).

4. Regarding a congregation’s forsaking the form of pure worship practice for unauthorized worship, I would say that flesh now dominates spirit regarding those in the eldership and the preacher. Perhaps there are some in the congregation who simply are confused or being novices have not found their duty clear, but those experienced leaders who left the truth for worship error, flesh has dominated spirit (cf. the brethren at Corinth who were in so much error and who seemed for a while not to comprehend their sad condition). Christians are continually sanctified by truth (Jno. 17:17) and truth is spirit in the sense that it is from the Holy Spirit, it addresses our human spirits, and leads to spiritual life (Jno .6:63). Simon does not seem to have at first been aware of his loss of salvation; he evidently lost it unintentionally (cf. Acts 8:18-24).  The preacher to whom Jay refers has never been willing to have his controversial position addressed in public debate. Jay and Todd have already agreed with me that “no one who is unwilling to have his religious convictions carefully examined can be all that sincere” (p.2 of their response). The preacher and/or elders will not allow examination of their controversial convictions in a forum where they will have to defend their current practice in the presence of someone who will present the other side. At least, they will not face us, and I know of no other public religious discussion in which they have tried to defend their practice in the presence of someone who knows how to prove it wrong. Furthermore, they have made no attempt to respond in writing to literary proof presented to them of their error.  Does that suggest anything about their sincerity?

Now I have a few True-False questions for Jay and Todd. Since every precisely stated proposition is either true or false, please circle either the T or the F:

T  F  1. Obedience to Christ is a type of work (Jno. 6:29; Heb. 5:8, 9; Eph. 2:10).

T  F  2. Obedience to Christ is essential to salvation.

T  F  3. It is possible to practice pure religion (Jas. 1:27).

T  F  4. It is possible to practice pure religion out of harmony with pure doctrine.

T  F  5. There is a sense in which we can practice pure religion without spot (Jas. 1:27; 1    Tim. 6:14).

T  F  6. There is at least one New Testament passage that promises eternal salvation to the sons of disobedience.

T  F  7. Faithful Christians are sons of obedience.

T  F  8. Worship authorized by Christ must be in truth (Jno. 4:24).

T  F  9. There is at least one New Testament passage that teaches that unauthorized worship is acceptable or pleasing to God.

T  F  10. The subscription to at least some doctrinal errors entails loss of eternal salvation to those who subscribe to them.

T  F  11. 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.

T  F  12. According to New Testament teaching, the faith that saves is a disobedient faith.

T  F  13. According New Testament teaching, saving faith is a submissive faith which submission excludes obedience.

T  F  14. According to James 2, Abraham was justified by an obedient faith.

 T  F  15. 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.

by Jay Guin

In The Repentance Requirement Todd asked a couple of important questions regarding repentance —

(1) Do you claim that sincerely believing error even on the issues earlier cited (e.g., Was Junias an apostle? Where do saints go immediately after death? etc.) will lead to the loss of salvation if not corrected? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish these doctrinal errors from those that are truly fatal?

(2) Do you believe that repentance always entails the cessation of the sin? If yes, doesn’t this lead to an impossible perfectionism?

Mac responded in a post titled The Two Questions On the Repentance Requirement. We greatly appreciate Mac’s participation in this dialogue and his response to these questions.

I’ve copied all of Mac’s post, other than the introductory paragraph, below, and I’ve interlineated my responses throughout. My comments are in bold solely to help the readers distinguish my words from Mac’s. Please don’t take the bold to mean I’m shouting! When I say “we,” I’m speaking for both Todd and myself.

I’m pleased to report that Todd and I find ourselves in agreement with much that Mac says. However, we do have some questions that we hope will lead to a better understanding of Mac’s thoughts.

[Mac’s post follows in normal font, with my responses in bold.] (more…)

by Mac Deaver

In Todd’s last piece he asks whether or not sincerely believed error damns the soul and whether or not repentance always leads to the cessation of sin. He asked, “(1) Do you claim that sincerely believing error on the issues earlier cited (e.g., Was Junias an apostle? Where do saints go immediately after death? etc.) will lead to the loss of salvation if not corrected? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish these doctrinal errors from those that are truly fatal?” And “(2) Do you believe that repentance always entails the cessation of the sin? If yes, doesn’t this lead to an impossible perfectionism?” I will address these two points. (more…)

by Todd Deaver

Phil argues that doctrinal error is sin, just as moral error is sin, and the only way a Christian can be forgiven of sin is to repent. Furthermore, in his discussion of repentance Phil says that “Grace teaches correction (Titus 2:11-14); one may not continue in moral or doctrinal error.” He goes on to ask, “How can the misled, deceived, sprinkled infant say he has faithfully repented in later years, if he does not correct the situation with an immersion?”

In Phil’s view doctrinal error is not forgiven until the erring believer repents, and the erring believer has not repented of his doctrinal error until he corrects it and embraces the truth on that point. So no matter what the error might be, persistence in it eventually becomes fatal: “There comes a point when God’s patience has an ending; and there comes a point when we must discipline the person caught up in error.”

But is it true that a Christian has not repented unless he has ceased believing the error? (more…)

by Jay Guin

Conclusion: How God saves people despite imperfect doctrine

Throughout my childhood I was taught that I could not be forgiven of a sin until I confessed it, repented of it (by no longer doing that thing), and prayed to God asking for forgiveness. I naturally concluded that I was only forgiven while asleep — because each night I prayed for forgiveness for that day’s sins as I drifted off to sleep. I mean, I knew about “sins of omission” (Our preacher loved preaching on sins of omission), and I saw no way that I could ever be guiltless of those except for the moment after my prayer.

And the next day, I committed some of the same sins again. Sometimes it was because I didn’t even realize that what I was doing was wrong. Sometimes I just wasn’t as good as I wanted to be. And so I concluded that I wasn’t forgiven for those sins at all.

And I couldn’t even ask for forgiveness perfectly. Sometimes I was rude or hateful but unaware of my sin until later reproached by the person I’d offended. And who knows how many sins I’ve committed unaware that were never brought to my attention.

I found myself unable to precisely catalog my daily sins so that I could confess them, much less repent of them. And I doubted the sufficiency of the rote prayer “forgive me of all my sins” when I’d not confessed or repented of those sins. I felt surely damned.

It wasn’t until college, in a class on Romans taught by Dr. Harvey Floyd, that I finally realized that I’d been deceived. Of course, I should continue to try to do better, but I learned that the standard was not perfect confession or perfect repentance. Nor was my salvation dependent on having prayed for forgiveness the moment before my death. I learned for the first time that I am saved by grace.

However, for many years, I still struggled with whether the standard is higher for doctrine. Must we get all the rules right to be saved? Eventually, it occurred to me. As Phil said in Proposition One Response from Phil: “error is equated in God’s eyes with sin.” And that means that doctrinal sin is forgiven on the same terms as any other sin – by grace, for penitent believers.

I find the principle in such verses as –

(Heb 10:13-14)  Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Those who are “made perfect forever” are those “being made holy” — those whom God is still working on but hasn’t yet made perfect. The point is that we are saved (“perfect forever”) because we are growing in Christ — not because we’ve perfected our doctrinal understanding.

Or consider —

(2 Pet 1:5-10)  For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall … .

If you grow in the virtues listed in vv. 5 – 7, “you will never fall.” It’s not that we have perfect faith or perfect love; it’s that the direction of our lives (as baptized, penitent believers) is toward God.

Of course, if I’m rich in faith and goodness, then as I become aware of my mistakes and failings, with God’s help, I’ll work on them to continue to grow in faith, but my salvation is shown to be sure by my growth in these very virtues, not by how well I’ve mastered the laws of general and specific authority.

Of course, as a penitent believer who loves God and submits to Jesus as Lord, I study to learn God’s will because I delight in his teachings and because I want to please him by submitting to them. Grace is not license to sin, and the penitent wish to grow in Jesus. But because I’m not yet through growing in Jesus, I’m not yet through making mistakes — nor will I ever be.

But what if someone — a preacher, an elder, a writer — charges me with sin and I disagree with him, finding his reasoning flawed? Am I still penitent if I refuse to accept the accusation?

The frivolous answer is that it depends on whether he is right. I mean, the most prominent leaders within the Churches of Christ can’t agree on everything! How on earth am I to be held accountable for which one (if any) has the true interpretation? Which periodical has the final authority? Today’s Gospel Advocate doesn’t agree with all that it wrote 30 years ago. It sure doesn’t agree with much of what David Lipscomb wrote. Which editorship is the final authority? It’s a hopeless way to seek salvation.

This is not the same case as Peter rebuking Simon Magi, because no one living today is an apostle. If an apostle rebukes me, I must submit to his authority if I’m penitent (1 John 4:6). If an uninspired man rebukes me, and if I honestly disagree with his doctrine, I may be wrong, but I’m still penitent.

Fortunately, the scriptures don’t speak in terms of my getting all doctrines right as a condition of my continued salvation. That’s not what “repentance” means. Yes, I absolutely should care enough about God’s word to study to try to learn all I can from it. And I should certainly take seriously those who try to teach me better. But my critics aren’t my judges. Only God is. And he has already judged me “perfect forever” because I’m in the process of being made holy.

by Jay Guin

Repentance

Phil writes,

Repentance is always a qualifier. Those who repent of moral sin can find forgiveness, and those who repent of doctrinal error can also find forgiveness. Time plays a part in this. 2 Peter 3:15 reminds us to regard the patience of the Lord as salvation. God does not want anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance, and this included those who were caught up in falsehoods in 2 Peter 2. …

I do believe in patience with people, giving them time to grow and learn. Peter notes that we should regard the patience of the Lord as salvation (2 Pet. 3:15).

Patience, however, is granted so that people will come to repentance and not perish (3:9). Some who were untaught and unstable were distorting the Scriptures “to their own destruction” (3:16). Peter said, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (3:17-18).

2 Pet 3:15 is not speaking of patience with those in doctrinal error, but God’s patience as to his return.

(2 Pet 3:3-4,9-15)  First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” …

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. 14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

Verses 9 and 15 certainly seem to be saying that God is delaying Judgment Day in hopes that all will repent — not that God’s patience with all doctrinal error is limited. And the “repentance” mentioned in v. 9 isn’t speaking to repentance from all doctrinal error but the repentance that leads to salvation (v. 15) — and all Christians have repented, or else they never could have become Christians (Acts 2:38).

In his commentary on 2 Peter 3:9, Coffman writes,

A viewpoint on this verse (including v. 12) which is ancient, reaching all the way back to Ecumenius, was quoted by Macknight thus: “The time of the end is deferred, that the number of them that are saved may be filled up.”

Phil writes,

God desires all to repent. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 says:
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Again, the meaning of the verse is found in the meaning of “truth.” “Truth” is what allows people to escape the snare of the devil. “Truth” is what opponents of the Lord’s servant need to know. “Truth” is the gospel.

Phil writes,

Grace teaches correction (Titus 2:11-14); one may not continue in moral or doctrinal error. How can the misled, deceived, sprinkled infant say he has faithfully repented in later years, if he does not correct the situation with an immersion?

Here’s the text he is referring to —

(Titus 2:11-14)  For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Yes, without a doubt, Christians are called to live righteously. But it is the gift of Jesus that redeems us from all wickedness and purifies us. Notice the irony:  grace teaches us to be godly, but it’s grace that makes us fully godly. We can’t complete the work ourselves.

(Titus 3:4-7)  But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Should we strive for righteousness? Absolutely. Will we ever achieve it? No. God’s grace teaches us to be godly people — to deepen and further the repentance with which we began — but it does not impose on us the burden of either doctrinal or moral perfection.

Phil writes,

Should a person repent of error, God grants forgiveness.

There’s no verse cited. Let me suggest one: Acts 2:38.

(Acts 2:38)  Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice what “repent” means in context. He’s not saying “stop all sin and doctrinal error.” Rather, he’s saying “turn from your old ways to the way of Jesus.” And notice how the word is used in Acts –

(Acts 3:19-20)  Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you — even Jesus.

(Acts 5:31)  God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

(Acts 11:18)  When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

(Acts 13:24)  Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.

(Acts 17:30)  In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

(Acts 19:4)  Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

(Acts 20:21)  I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

(Acts 26:20)  First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

In each case, “repentance” is speaking of a change in the direction of one’s life, not eliminating all sin from one’s life, or even some particular sin, with one exception —

(Acts 8:22)  Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

In this case, Peter is imploring Simon Magi to repent of wanting to make a profit on the Holy Spirit. Obviously enough, if my life is turned toward God and I’ve submitted to Jesus as my Lord, when I become aware that I’m guilty of sin (such as when an apostle tells me to my face), if I’m penitent, I’ll work to repent of the sin, now that I’m aware of it. (Of course, some sins are easier to repent of than others – some require time to overcome.) That hardly means that I’m required to repent of error that I’m not even aware of as a condition to remaining saved.

I’ve just read every verse in the New Testament mentioning “repent” or “repentance.” I don’t see a one that says only those sins repented of by no longer sinning are forgiven.

The factious man

Phil writes,

Paul said that we should “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned” (Tit. 3:10-11).

Absolutely.

“Factious man” is from the Greek hairetikos, meaning  a divider. The King James says “heretic,” which isn’t a translation but a transliteration. In modern English, “heretic” means a false teacher, but the original meaning is someone who divides. Thus, modern translations use “divisive person” (NIV), “factious man” (NASB), or “person who stirs up division” (ESV), for example.

Many among us equate “factious” with “in error,” but it’s a false equation. I can be wrong and not divide. I can be right and divide. If my brother is in error on the fate of the saved between death and the Judgment, and if I treat him as damned, I’m the divider because I’ve divided a saved person from the body of Christ.

by Jay Guin

Phil cites numerous texts to demonstrate his view of repentance and God’s patience in “Proposition One Response from Phil.” In this post, I’ll review those texts to see whether they truly support the points made.

I apologize for the length of this post, but we are now covering some of the central passages in the case for the conservative position. We need to study them closely.

To keep each post to a readable length, I’m posting this in three parts.

Galatians

Phil writes,

Galatians 1:6-9 and 5:4 are sufficient to show that doctrinal error can lead to eternal damnation. Those who are in error are misled by a lie, a falsehood.

It is true that those passages show that certain doctrinal errors can damn, but they hardly show that all doctrinal errors damn.

(Gal 1:6-9)  I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Obviously enough, not all Biblical teaching is “gospel.” The warning here is against teachings that pervert the good news. We sometimes err by trying to hang the label “gospel” or “faith” on any teaching that we believe is a scriptural truth — but “gospel” is about Jesus being Lord and Messiah (= Christ).

Paul defined “gospel” succinctly in Romans —

(Rom 1:1-4)  Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God — 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

The gospel is the gospel “regarding his Son” incarnate and resurrected. I’ll not attempt a comprehensive definition here, but surely if we are saved by accepting the gospel, it’s what we have to hear, believe, and confess to become Christians: “Jesus Christ our Lord.”

(Gal 5:4-6)  You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The Galatian heresy was seeking justification by means other than faith in Jesus.

These passages are not about doctrinal error regarding the role of women or instrumental music. Such teachings are not “faith” nor are they “gospel.” You see, “faith” in the New Testament is faith in Jesus.

Liars

Phil writes,

God will punish all liars (Rev. 21:8).

This passage certainly pronounces damnation on liars, but Greg’s post “Talking Past Each Other” gives a powerful lesson from Carrol Ellis (a delightful, dearly missed man who married my wife and me at Otter Creek many years ago) about how God forgives liars. Of course, God doesn’t forgive all lies, but he does forgive some. Thus, the question becomes, not whether someone lies, but whether someone is forgiven.

Blindness

Phil writes,

What some are calling “mistaken,” the Bible calls blind (Matt. 15:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Being blinded does not keep people from falling into the pit. …

Jesus spoke clearly to the Pharisees, who went beyond the Scriptures with their oral Torah, in Matthew 15:6-9, “So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”

Jesus makes this observation about the Pharisees and man-made doctrines in Matthew 15:13-14: He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” False doctrine can indeed cost the souls of both the deceiver and the deceived.

In Matt 15:14, Jesus declares the Pharisees “blind guides” after they challenged him for allowing his disciples to eat food with unwashed hands (vv 1-2). What was the Pharisees’ sin? They added a command that God did not make.

The Pharisees were trying to win God’s approval by being safe. After all, a devout Jew would become unclean if he touched a Gentile, a corpse, a menstruating woman, or many other things. In a dry, dusty country, the dirt on a man’s hands could have come from any number of unclean sources. Eating with dirty hands might put unclean dirt inside the man! (And who could deny that washing before you eat is a commendable practice?) Surely, the Pharisees reasoned, this would be wrong. But Jesus condemned them for adding to God’s law.

It’s an important lesson in hermeneutics — on the danger of adding commands that God did not make himself — but it hardly teaches that all error damns. Rather, the condemnation is for arrogance in thinking you honor God by building fences around the law.

(2 Cor 4:4)  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Certainly this passage warns us of the penalty for being blind, but “blind” refers to someone who is blind to the gospel and so is an unbeliever. Of course, all unbelievers are lost. That hardly shows that a disagreement over any point of doctrine damns. He’s speaking of what one must believe to be saved.

“Truth”

Phil writes,

Paul’s discussion of the apostasy with the Thessalonians has some mysteries, but he notes that those who do not love the truth are vulnerable to a “deluding influence so that they might believe what is false” (2 Thess. 2:10-12). Belief in the false and lack of love for the truth are matters of salvation.

I’ve just posted a five-part series at www.OneInJesus.info called “What is Truth?” on the meaning of “truth” in the New Testament.

• The Teaching of Christ in 2 John
• John’s Gospel
• Paul, Part 1
• Paul, Part 2
• Hebrews, James, and 1 & 2 Peter

In these posts, I explore the meaning of “truth” in nearly every New Testament passage that uses the word. I undertook this study because many of the “truth” passages are classic conservative proof texts, by which many conservatives argue that error in, say, instrumental music denies the “truth” and so causes one to fall away. That’s not how the New Testament writers use “truth.”

The short answer is that “truth” means the truth about Jesus and is often used as a synonym for gospel. Understanding this radically changes our understanding of many verses.

(2 Th 2:9-14)  The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. 13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In context, “truth” is what you must love and believe to “be saved.” And those who have not “believed the truth” are condemned.

Paul is not addressing any and all true teachings found in scripture. He’s speaking of what we must believe to be saved. And so, yes, as Phil wrote, “Belief in the false and lack of love for the truth are matters of salvation,” but not just any truth or any falsehood. It’s just the Truth who is Jesus (John 14:6). Reject the gospel and, yes, you are lost.

by Todd Deaver

The answer Greg and Phil have given (see my last post, “Phil’s and Greg’s Position on Apostasy“) is by no means unusual in Churches of Christ. You don’t have to search long in our journals and books to find this position repeatedly and emphatically expressed. But there are, I believe, some serious problems with it. (more…)