The Gospel Is Not A Doctrine of the Tongue

The Swiss theologian John Calvin is much maligned by his critics. Though his name has become a reproachful byword in some circles, the simple fact is that very few of Calvin's most vocal critics have bothered to read his writings in any depth. As with any human interpreter, of course, he is a fallible interpreter and should be read with discernment and compared with the scriptures. Whatever you may think about his various ideas, one thing is clear: The eager student of the Bible can gain much by perusing his works. His insights are very often compact, piercing, thorough, and sometimes quite witty!

There's a short booklet called "Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life", which is an English translation of a portion of Calvin's Institutes. The excerpt I'm sharing has to do with the insufficiency of external Christianity.

"Let us ask those who possess nothing but church membership, and yet want to be called Christians, how they can glory in the sacred name of Christ? For no one has any communion with Christ but he who has received the true knowledge of him from the word of the gospel. The apostle denies that anyone actually knows Christ who has not learned to put off the old man, corrupt with deceitful lusts, and to put on Christ. External knowledge of Christ is found to be only a false and dangerous make-believe, however eloquently and freely lip servants may talk about the gospel. The gospel is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life."

Christianity Without The Resurrection Is Useless

You're probably quite familiar with how in I Corinthians 15:17, Apostle Paul shows that the Christian faith would be useless if Christ really didn't rise from the grave.

The Apostles did not mince their words. They brought a strong antithesis to the non-Christian thinking of their day. They didn't take the "safe" route. They staked their claims on a particular event, and laid everything on that one event. And most of them lost their lives because of their uncompromising dedication to the gospel. And in presenting that gospel, they did so even though they were keenly aware that the natural state of the people listening was such that the message would be rejected (even if they had witnessed the resurrection with their own eyes). But they counted on that way that God graciously works in the hearts of the hearers to open their hearts to the truths being proclaimed.

Some modern thinkers who reject the resurrection try to maintain that there still is some usefulness to Christianity even though they are rejecting a central tenant of it. They think it still has some social benefit or is useful for teaching morals. But they are wrong! If the resurrection never happened, then Christianity is useless and all Christians might as well become atheists. There is no benefit to a "resurrection-less" Christianity; it would be worse than worthless. It would be miserable. Apostle Paul essentially said that if we have Christianity without the resurrection, we are of all people most miserable. Without the core of its gospel, Christianity really has nothing to offer.


J. Gresham Machen spoke of this in "What Is Christianity?:

"...if the Christian religion is founded upon historical facts, then there is something in the Christian message which can never possibly change. There is one good thing about facts — they stay put. If a thing really happened, the passage of years can never possibly make it into a thing that did not happen. If the body of Jesus really emerged from the tomb on the first Easter morning, then no possible advance of science can change the fact one whit. The advance of science may conceivably show that the alleged fact was never a fact at all; it may conceivably show that the earliest Christians were wrong when they said that Christ rose from the dead the third day. But to say that that statement of fact was true in the first century, but that because of the advance of science it is no longer true — that is to say what is plainly absurd. The Christian religion is founded squarely upon a message that sets forth facts; if that message is false, then the religion that is founded on it must of course be abandoned; but if it is true, then the Christian Church must still deliver the message faithfully as it did on the morning of the first Easter Day."

Christian Reincarnationists?

There's a news report about China regulating reincarnation by Tibetian monks in a ploy to try to control them.

This is an example of going above and beyond the common maxim, "if it moves, regulate it". Reincarnation is fake and, yet, some governments wish to regulate it!

But the saddest part of the article is a short comment at the end. It says:

"Recent surveys by the Barna Group, a Christian research nonprofit, have found that a quarter of all U.S. Christians, including 10 percent of all born-again Christians, embrace [reincarnation]
as their favored end-of-life view."

I realize we live in an age of double-speak, but this is getting mind boggling! At this rate, words will have no meaning whatsoever. The terms "Christian reincarnationist" or "Born-Again reincarnationist" carry as much coherent meaning as "Square Circle" or "False Truth".

There are many legitimate explanations and differences on eschatology within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, but reincarnation is not one of them. In can understand a loose usage
of the term "Christian" to some degree, but not "Born Again". I always thought "Born Again" would be held as being quite a bit more specific than "Christian", but that thought was probably naive.

If you believe in reincarnation, perhaps call yourself a marginally cultural "christian" with eastern leanings, if you absolutely must. However, please reserve the use of "Born Again" and the unqualified use of "Christian" for those people whose worldview resembles the worldview of Christ and the Apostles more than an elephant resembles a shrew. I'm serious. There can be a Square Non-Circle, but not a Square Circle. Sure, the consumer mentality may prevail here in the West and you can "pick and choose" the details of what you believe with a greater degree of freedom and safety than perhaps ever before in history. However, now is the time for truth, the time to weigh what you believe and whether it is true truth, and not just some supposed contradictory "truth" that makes you feel good. The name mere self-appointed name "Christian" or "Born Again" won't do you any good (as its often used, it hardly means anything nowadays anyways), and neither will reincarnation. Only Christ can save us from who we are and reconcile us with God. Only God's saving grace manifested in drawing us to Him can avail.

As an aside: I must now state that my sincere apologies to all fellows with the given name of "Christian" who believe in reincarnation, but make no claims at being of the Christian religion. You, my dear friends, are the only ones who have the right of sincerely being called both "Christian" and "reincarnationist".

How Am I Made Right Before God?

Romans 4:4-6: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.'"

The issue of Justification by Faith is, and always has been, a very central issue in the Christian church. While pretty much everyone (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.) concurs that faith plays a role in justification, when it comes to the sufficiency of faith they differ radically. Most often, the history of religion has been filled with people trying to make "minor" additions to the equation by saying "Yes, Christ is in the equation, but we need to add [insert whatever: circumcision, baptism, restitutions, good deeds, alms, time in purgatory, etc.] to make it sufficient". However, from Galatians we lean that such additions are not "minor". If any one of those things enter into our perception of how we are made right with God, we are frustrating the grace God! ( Gal.2:21)

The Biblical position is that the only thing that can make us right before God is the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom.4:23-25, Eph.1:7, etc.). This means that when God judicially declares a believer righteous, the only basis for that declaration is Christ's finished work, which excludes works ( Rom.4:3-4, Rom.3:28, Rom.11:6). The believer clings to that work of Christ made on their behalf via faith and receives His righteousness because his own righteousness is futile in regard to justification (Phil.3:9 ). Our works are not what is under consideration when God graciously saves us--if they were we would be all destined to eternity in hell ( Rom.6:23). And even that faith that we have, according to the Bible, is an empty hand grasping on Christ's sacrifice. And, incidentally, even the faith is granted to the believer by God (Phil.1:29, Luk.7:5, Eph.2:8, John 6:28-29, etc.). We stand as the poor, weak beggar on the receiving end in every aspect of our salvation.

Salvation is God redeeming us from our lawlessness unto a new life and that new life can only come about by a decisive act of God (Titus 3:5). This is not to diminish good works. God's delight is that those who are saved through faith be zealous about good works ( Mat.5:16. Tit.2:7-14, Titus 3:14, etc.) . We are God's workmanship unto good works (Eph.2:10). But the good works flow from the regeneration and the faith, not the other way around. So it is that we say that the Bible teaches Sola Fide (a Latin term used to refer to Salvation by 'Faith Alone'). A theologian put it well when he once said: "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone". This concept is supported by careful study of both Romans 4 and James 2 in their individual contexts.

Being justified by faith, we are not only liberated from the burden of trying to measure up to God's perfect standards with our filthy-rag works, but our hearts are changed as sons and daughters of the living God. We then should look for evidence of this lively faith. As the London Baptist Confession says of a believer's good works: "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life."

Here are some quotes from the history of the church on the matter:

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: "God justifies by faith alone." (Deus ex sola fide justificat). In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.

Chrysostom (349-407AD): The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, "Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness." Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7

Ambrose (c. 339-97): "Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted." George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 220.

Augustine (354-430): "But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence." John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, ¡±7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Therefore it is clear that, as the soul needs only the Word of God for its life and righteousness, so it is justified by faith alone and not any works; for if it could be justified by anything else, it would not need the Word, and consequently it would not need faith."

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758): "This is evident by these words — 'that justifieth the ungodly' (Rom 4:5), which cannot imply less than that God, in the act of justification, has no regard to anything in the person justified, as godliness or any goodness in him, but that immediately before this act, God beholds him only as an ungodly creature, so that godliness in the person to be justified is not so antecedent to his justification as to be the ground of it. When it is said that God justifies the ungodly, it is as absurd to suppose that our godliness, taken as some goodness in us, is the ground of our justification, as when it is said that Christ gave sight to the blind to suppose that sight was prior to, and the ground of, that act of mercy in Christ. Or as, if it should be said that such an one by his bounty has made a poor man rich, to suppose that it was the wealth of this poor man that was the ground of this bounty towards him, and was the price by which it was procured."

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892): ". There is no means among men of justifying a man of an accusation which is laid against him, except by his being proved not guilty. Now, the wonder of wonders is, that we are proved guilty, and yet we are justified: the verdict has been brought in against us—guilty—and yet notwithstanding, we are justified. Can any earthly tribunal do that?"

Monday's Question

Q. Does baptism save?

A. No. Baptism is neither a prerequisite for salvation nor does it actually save in the sense of causing salvation. The Biblical understanding of the gospel is that salvation is apprehended through faith in the finished work of Christ, and no outward ordinance or work of our hands could accomplish that (Titus 3:4-7). The wonderous work of salvation is accomplished by the blood of Christ and not anything physical on the part of the believer (1 Peter 1:18-19). Baptism signifies or symbolizes the identification of the believer with Christ, his/her being buried and rising again with Christ (Col. 2:11-12), and is used as an entry rite into the visible church. Believers are not saved because we are baptised, but rather believers are baptised because they have been saved.

Some common verses put forward that allegedly "prove" that baptism saves or is a prerequisite to salvation include Acts 22:16, I Peter 3:21, John 3:5, and Acts 2:38.

Acts 22:16 says "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." It should first be noted that "Rise" and "calling" are "aorist participles" while the references to baptism and cleansing or washing are "aorist imperatives". It is in accord with the text to say that individuals are being instructed to rise and be baptised in view of the fact that their sins have been washed through calling upon the name of the Lord.

I Peter 3:21 says "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". The "..which corresponds.." refers to the previous discussion of Noah and the ark. As Matt Slick from CARM points out, "antitupon" is used here, and its meaning includes "a type" or "a copy". However, the difficulty here is determining what exactly the correspondence is refering to. Does baptism correspond to the ark? Or the water? Or the salvation that Noah experiences? Or the patience of God in the days of Noah (which is the greater context starting with v20)? Or perhaps way which the correspondance occurs is the link between both baptism and the ordeal with the ark involving "brought safely through water". It is difficult to know exactly what this is refering to, but either way it says nothing to tie baptism to salvation, in fact it denies that by stating that baptism doesn't save us in the sense of washing our filth, but rather "saves" in the sense of being an appeal to God for a good conscience, and even that is ultimately brought to us through Christ's resurrection and symbolized through baptism.

John 3:5 says "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The first thing to notice is that this passage nor the previous four verses do not refer explicitly to baptism. So, if this passage is talking about baptism, it would have to be because "born of water" refers to baptism. There are several common interpretations of what "born of water" means. One of them is baptism. Another is the work of the Holy Spirit, which is elsewhere refered to by the analogy of washing. But, in my opinion, the strongest match for "born of water" is the natural birth. Why? Because of the context. In John 3:5 "born of water" and "born of spirit" are listed. In the very next verse, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" is stated. Notice how "born of water / born of spirit" is set along "born of flesh / born of spirit". It would be a very large coincidence if Jesus were to use such a parallel and all the while be really speaking of baptism, which isn't mentioned explicitly anywhere else in the narrative.

Acts 2:38 records Peter as saying "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". This is perhaps the most genuinely difficult text out of this particular set. On the surface it does seem to teach baptismal regeneration. A full discussion of this text is beyond the scope of this post. However, it should be noted that the Greek word "eis" is rendered in this passage as "for". Both "for" and "eis" can be used in various ways. Sometimes they can mean "in order that" (in other words indicating a cause/effect), and other times they can be used in a way which moreso means "in light of" or "in acknowledgement of". For example, if I say "I'm going to school FOR my Masters Degree", I'm using "for" in the "..in order to obtain.." sense. However, if I say "I'm buying you a book FOR your birthday", it would be silly to understand "for" in the "in order that" sense!! Does my gift to you cause your birthday? Of course not! My gift is "in light of" or "in acknowledgement of" your birthday. In the same manner, I believe there is a number of strong reasons (context, theological consistensy, and other textual issues) to suppose that Acts 2:38 is using "eis" in the "in acknowledgement of" sense instead of the "in order that" sense. That mean Acts 3:28 is teaching that "Baptism is in acknowledgement of forgiveness of sins", not that "Baptism is performed in order that forgiveness of sins may occur". There are many more academic and comprehensive surveys of this issue with Acts 2:38 which you may want to review. They are from: CARM, Christian Research Journal, Got Questions?, Alpha & Omega Ministries, and Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal.

Throughout redemptive history, people confused symbols with the inward reality they were meant to portray. The Israelites misunderstood circumcision in this way, forgetting that circumcision was not an end to itself, but rather was a means to represent and portray what God would do to the heart of His people. In Romans 4, Paul demonstrated that since Abraham was justified before God before circumcision, it followed that it was faith and not circumcision that made him right before God. It should be noted that the false teachers which Paul upbraided in Galatians also were teaching the same errant view of the relation of the "sign" or "seal" and the actual reality it was meant to represent.

In the Gentile church in this era, circumcision no longer seems to be an active controversy. However, baptism is an outward sign of a greater inward reality, and many confuse the sign with the inward reality much in the same way that the judiazers in the Galatian church and the Israelites of old did. They rightly regard the outward sign as being important, but they confuse it and mingle it too closely with the inward reality failing to understand that the seal is not a condition to the inward reality nor does it cause it. Biblically, as Abraham's justification was not dependant on his circumcision, so too the baptism of a believer is not a prerequisite or cause of justification, but rather an outward representation pointing to it.

The understanding of baptism not being a condition or cause for salvation comes from both a Biblical understanding of baptism, and also a Biblical understanding of how it is that sinners are made right before God. It is a horrible error to confuse baptism with salvation to the extent that baptism is seen as either a part of or prerequisite to salvation. However, it is also a horrible error to view baptism in a deragatory way, seeing it as an insigificant step. Baptism is both very significant and important! And it is an express command of Christ. Hence, for a disciple to purposely avoid it would be an rebellion and disobedience. But yet baptism or lack thereof does not initiate nor negate the work of Christ. The Biblical teaching that salvation is an act of God accomplished by the work of Christ alone apart from baptism does not minimize the need for baptism, but rather establishes it! Being in truth united with Christ by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, there then is a basis and desire to publically manifest that inward reality with a "sign" or "ordinance" signifying it.

Monday's Question

Q. Can a Christian's salvation be lost?

A. This question actually contains several other questions. I would like to refer to three questions that are contained within this question, answer each one, and then proceed to provide Scriptural proof for my last answer.

Can someone who claims to be a true Christian be lost? YES

Can someone who seems to be a true Christian be lost? YES

Can someone who is a true Christian be lost? NO

The Bible passage which I will now present prove that a truly regenerated (born again) Christian can not be lost. This is not to say that they can't stumble and fall, just that they can't fatally. This is not to say that a person can say a "sinners prayer" and be assured of their they are saved no matter whether their life bears fruit of their salvation. We only have security in Christ only in so much as we are truly in Christ, and those truly in Christ WILL produce fruits and they WILL persevere in the faith.

The passages I'm refering to are divided into two basic categories: "Descriptions of a True Believer" and "Descriptions of What God Does For The True Believer".

Descriptions of a True Believer

• They will never perish and are never snatched out of Christ's hands (Jh.10:28)
• The will be raised on the last day (Jh.6:39-44)
• Their inheritance is imperishable, does not fade away, and is reserved in heaven (I Pe.1:3-4)
• They conquer and can't be separated from God's love (Ro.8:37-39)
• They are born again of imperishable seed (I Pe.1:23)

Descriptions of What God Does For The True Believer

• He protects them with His power through faith unto the end (I Pe.1:3-5)
• He perfects His good work in the saints until the day of Christ Jesus (Ph.1:6)
• He sustains them to the end so they will be guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (I Co.1:7-9)
• He rescues them from evil and brings them into His heavenly kingdom (II Ti.4:18)
• Christ saves completely those who who come to God through Him, and always lives to interceed for them (He.7:25)
• He keeps them for/by Jesus Christ (Jude 1:1)
• He prevents them from being snatched out of Christ's hand (Jh.10:28-29)
• He lets them stumble but keeps them from falling, He upholds them with His hand (Ps.37:23-24, Ps.121:3)
• He keeps them in His own name (Jh.17:11)
• He is determined to lose nobody and will raise believers on the last day (Jh.6:39)
• He guards them from the evil one (II Th.3:3)
• He causes them to walk in His laws and obey them (Eze.36:27)
• He puts fear in their heart so they don't turn away (Je.32:40)
• He sanctifies them and keeps them, because He is faithful (I Th.5:23-24)
• He keeps them from stumbling and presents them blameless (Jude 1:24-25)
• He establishes them and seals them with His Spirit as a guarantee (II Cor 1:22, Eph.1:13-14)
• He doesn't forsake His saints, He preserves them forever (Ps.37:28-29)

These verses provide a comprehensive all-encompasing refutation of the idea that a truly regenerated (born again) believer could ever lose their salvation. On the basis of the believers new nature, their new status, and God's faithfulness and power, there is no way in which any true sheep of the fold of Jesus Christ could ever perish. Not only do all these texts support the idea that true believers never perish and always endure unto the end, the concept is indirectly supported by many Biblical concepts and doctrines, including but not limited to: God's sovereignty, election, God's love for the elect, the work of the Holy Spirit, the efficacy
(effectiveness) of Christ's redemption, etc.

As convincing as the evidence I have just presented is, there are some verses which are difficult (but not impossible) to explain and reconcile with the great doctrine truth of the surety of the "perseverance of the saints". Here are the ones mainly used by those who want to teach that truly regenerated believers can be lost: He.6:4-6, He.10:26-31, II Pe.2:20-22, etc. Giving an exegesis of those passages is beyond the scope of this answer, but that can be found elsewhere. These passages do genuinely speak of apostasy and departure from professed faith, but a survey of context and a careful attention to what the author is saying and not saying undoubtedly shows that they don't in one iota contradict what the Bible teaches about perseverance.

We see, in the visible church, many people who abandon their profession in the Lord Jesus Christ. This does not prove that true believers lose their salvation, because we are not infalliable and we can't see in their heart as to whether they were ever really true salvation. We can only share the suspicion that John had, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (1 Jh.2:19 - ESV) The Bible does not say that those who do not continue in their faith lose anything, but rather that they do not have it at all (see II Jo.1:9).

As professing believers, we can have assurance of being presented blameless and above reproach on the last day before God on the basis of His work on the cross for us. However, we lose that assurance if we don't "continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel" (Co.1:23 - ESV). Why? Because true saving faith keeps on keeping, and if we don't keep on keeping, we don't have true saving faith.

--
Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Monday's Question

I'm instituting a new feature. Monday's Question. On Saturday I post my Mini Codices and on Monday a "frequently asked question" coupled with my attempt at an answer.

--

Q. If God predestines who will be saved, why should we go out and preach the gospel to the world?

A. First and foremost, Christians have a mandate from God's word to preach the gospel and evangelize, so that in and of itself should compel us to do so. We must consider that God's means of saving those He predestined is by the preaching of the gospel. Romans 10 makes this clear. So, by obeying God's directive to evangelize, we are potentially being used of God in His master plan to save sinners.

We need to also consider that while only the elect are saved--we as humans do not necessarily who the elect are. Our duty is to plant and water and leave the increase in God's hands. That means that Christian evangelism spreads the word to many (both elect and non-elect) trusting that God will bless the effort as He sees fit by opening hearts to receive the message. This is just like the parable of the seed and the sower, we KNOW that some of the seed will fall on bad ground. It is not the evangelists job to determine who is elect and who isn't, it is his job to faithfully carry out the assignment God has given him.

There is no contradiction between God predestinating individuals as per Ephesians 1 and a free offer of the gospel to all inhabitants of the earth. People that feel there is a conflict probably have unwittingly accepted a false cariciture of the doctrine of predestination.

John Newton on Salvation by Grace

Salvation is wholly of grace, not only undeserved but undesired by us until God is pleased to awaken us to a sense of our need of it. And then we find everything prepared that our wants require or our wishes conceive; yea, that He has done exceedingly beyond what we could either ask or think. Salvation is wholly of the Lord and bears those signatures of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness which distinguish all His works from the puny imitations of men. It is every way worthy of Himself, a great, a free, a full, a sure salvation. It is great whether we consider the objects (miserable, hell-deserving sinners), the end (the restoration of such alienated creatures to His image and favor, to immortal life and happiness) or the means (the incarnation, humiliation, sufferings and death of His beloved Son). It is free, without exception of persons or cases, without any conditions or qualifications, but such as He, Himself, performs in them and bestows upon them.