Works, Faith and Salvation
By Jerry Williams "Hat Sier"
Eternal Security | Faith Alone | False DoctrineMany who profess Christianity teach a doctrine that states "once you are saved, you are always saved, and it does not matter what you do, for if you believe, you will still go to heaven." A stream of tracts, books, and other sorts of literature have been published in an attempt to support this belief. Using the light of the Holy Scriptures, therefore, we hope to determine whether this doctrine, often referred to as "eternal security," is in fact sound.
We can begin by putting forth this doctrine as it is commonly taught, in order to objectively examine it. The passage most often used to support this belief is Ephesians 2:8-9, which says:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any mean should boast."Typical evangelical interpretations of this passage assert that the word "grace" spoken of here is referring primarily to a divine tolerance for sin. That is, it is taught that Christians will continue to sin in this life, and that the grace of God will continually cover it. As one advocate of this position put it, "We keep sinning and God's grace keeps forgiving."
Moreover, the term "saved" is understood to mean, primarily, deliverance from condemnation, i.e., being allowed to enter into eternal life.
With these words thus defined, the interpretation of Eph. 2:8-9 becomes:"Believers will enter into heaven regardless of whether or not they do what is right, and regardless of whether or not they keep God's commandments."Under this interpretive framework, only two options are believed to exist:
1) Entrance into heaven is gained solely by believing in Christ, in His death for our sins, and in His resurrection. Generally, it is believed that good works do follow, or should follow, this faith; but this is regarded as totally independent of a believer's gift of entering into heaven.
2) Those who believe entrance into heaven is gained by living righteously must therefore keep every single commandment in Scripture, and perform this daily, completely by the strength of their own willpower.
We offer a third option, which has gone quite overlooked. Before presenting it, however, we will explain why we cannot accept either of the two above statements. The second option we reject because of the scriptural teaching that the ability to do good is not found within fallen humans. "I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jer. 10:23) We have all lived in sin, after the manner of the world (Titus 3:3, Eph. 2:2-3), and have all been raised as servants of sin (John 8:34). "There is none good; no, not one" (Rom. 3:10-18, Micah 7:2-4). There is no power in this flesh to live righteously, as Paul said, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing" (Rom 7:18). A fundamental message in the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, is that no human can live a righteous life through his or her own strength, or through mere willpower. Indeed, without the intervention of God, no one could comprehend what holiness even is, let alone have the strength to live it out.
On the other hand, we reject option 1 above just as vigorously, since no passage in Scripture informs us that God ever stopped requiring of us "to do justly" (Micah 6:8). Jesus said that at the resurrection, those who do good will go forth to life, and those who do evil, to damnation (John 5:28-29). And Paul wrote that those who by patient continuance in well doing seek for honor and glory and immortality shall receive eternal life, while those who do not obey the truth, but rather obey unrighteousness, shall receive indignation, etc. (Rom. 2:5-13).
Thus, the third option, independent of either option 1 or option 2 presented above, is as follows:
3) God requires holiness to enter heaven (Heb. 12:14), yet it is only by the divine intervention and work of the Messiah in our life that we can obtain this holiness (John 3:37 James 1:17).
In order to ensure that this position will not be misunderstood, we will outline, in as precise of terms as possible, it's various components. Other scriptural words and phrases which are important parts of this interpretive framework will also be defined, from the Word, in order to make this position very clear.
We can begin by defining grace. It is true that the grace of God is divine favor, the great love and mercy which God has for wretched sinners, who deserve only judgment. Having established what His grace is, let us go on to give examples of what His grace does. It was an act of grace that God came to earth, in person, to die for fallen humans who hated Him (Rom. 5:8). It is an act of grace that God instructs people about their sins, showing them that what they are doing is wrong, convicting their hearts. (Titus 2:11-12) If it is an act of grace when God sends His servants to speak His Word to lost people, hoping for their repentance, even after they show themselves unworthy. (2 Chron. 36:14-16, Matt. 21:22-45, Eph. 3:8) And it is an act of grace every time God grants forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Him and believe (Eph. 1:7). But grace does not stop there. The grace of God is what gives victory over sin, and empowers us to "perfect holiness in the fear of God." (2 Cor. 7:1) It is only by the grace that is from God that one can do the things which He has commanded us, and live and be as He ordained. Some verses which help bear this out are given below.
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Cor. 15:10)So by grace Paul was, and accomplished, the things we read about in Acts, and it was by grace that Paul labored.
"Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God. Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also. Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." (2 Cor 8:1-7)His grace enabled them to be zealous to share and to help others.
"And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work." (2 Cor. 9:8)Abounding grace, then, makes it possible to abound in good works.
"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb. 4:16)The context in which this verse is speaking has to do with being tempted (Heb. 4:15). Grace from God is the only thing able to "help in time of need" -- it enables one to endure temptation (James 1;12); not give in, but rather deny ungodliness (Titus 2:11-12). The flesh is weak, but by His grace we can be strong (see 2 Cor. 12:9 and 2 Tim. 2:1).
"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Heb. 12:28)Obviously, according to this passage, it is by the grace of God that we can serve Him in the manner we ought.
The above is a sampling, and it is upon verses such as these that we base our understanding that grace from God is not only to forgive us of sin, but also to enable us to overcome sin, in the sense of enduring temptation -- resisting it, and not committing it. There are, to be sure, verses which bear out that it is by the grace of God that we are called (Gal. 1:15), that we are forgiven of sin (Eph. 1:7), and that Jesus died for us (Heb. 2:7). There are many other verses which refer to His grace, but which can be taken to mean any one of several different things. Such verses are, therefore, difficult to use as proof of one particular definition or interpretation. However, the verses which are more explicit in defining grace in the NT appear, more often that not, to be referring to this overlooked understanding of being His mercy and favor that brings us out of sin, enabling us to do His will. For example, 1 Cor. 3:10 and Eph. 3:7-8 both refer to the grace of God given to Paul which enabled him to minister the Gospel. (Gal. 2:9 seems to be speaking of this same thing, based on the context of Gal. 2:7-8) 2 Cor. 1:12 is a reference to His grace enabling Paul to have his "conversation" (behavior, conduct) upright. Heb. 13:9 tells us that by grace, our heart can be established.
None of this should be all that surprising. We are by no means the first or only people to use this more extended definition of grace. In fact, in the Strong's concordance/lexicon, #5485, Xapes (charis), the Greek word translated "grace" in the NT, is defined as "...[especially] the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life..." Whether or not one wishes to take Strong's word as authoritative, it is clear that the verses which speak of grace, seen in their respective contexts, support the view that it is by the grace of God that we can "live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." (Titus 2:11-12)
Let us now turn to the definition of righteousness. In Isa. 45;19 and Psa. 119:172, righteousness is defined as what God declares to be right, and what He has commanded. This is confirmed as well in the NT, where John writes that "all unrighteousness is sin" (1 John 5:17), and that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) Therefore, we can say that all unrighteousness is transgressing God's laws, and it follows that righteousness is that which is in accordance with His law. For example, lying, murder and witchcraft are transgressions of God's laws, and thus constitute unrighteous acts. Ordinances of the First Covenant which are no longer in effect literally (such as circumcision of the flesh and animal sacrifice) have been abolished in the New Covenant (see Heb. 9:10). They are thus not part of the law of God's everlasting righteousness, and so it does not constitute unrighteousness if they are left undone (see 1 Cor. 7:18-19). However, if we receive help from the Messiah to fulfill the law of loving our neighbor as ourselves (James 2:8), we are working righteousness.
Many who profess Christianity understand the term righteousness quite differently. In typical evangelical circles (i.e., those who hold to option 1 described above), Christian righteousness is understood to be substitutionary, in the sense that Christ's righteousness is substituted on the behalf of believers. Thus, it is taught, Christ lived a righteous life in our place, so that all God sees when He looks at a believer is the righteousness of Christ, whether that believer is actually living in sin or not. This can be called "virtual righteousness," because it never manifests itself in the real world.
One consideration that causes this interpretation to collapse is that it is so variously applied, and ambiguously defined, that it is essentially meaningless. The imprecise nature of the doctrine allows that it can mean all sorts of different things. For example, stricter than average segments of the evangelical world would hold to certain standards in modest apparel, would require parents to keep their children well-behaved, would forbid or strongly discourage watching T.V., and so forth. Yet, many of them would accuse our church of "legalism" because we hold up a higher standard in additional areas of Christian living, such as the woman's head covering and simplicity of lifestyle. Further along on the scale would be people who hold less rigid but still noticeable convictions against various types of immorality, such as drunkenness, smoking, vulgar language, etc. These would often consider "legalists" anyone who requires more, such as those who preach modest apparel (mentioned above), or those of our fellowship. Yet further along are those who don't mind smokers and drinkers, but who still hold, at least, that sins such as abortion, whoredom or homosexuality are incompatible with Christian life, and they, in turn, would call "legalists" those who hold higher standards then they. And then we hit the other end of the spectrum, the hard-core extremist Calvinists, who assume that believers are exempt from any commandment in Scripture, and who therefore would label as "legalism" any doctrine that teaches that sin of any type would keep a believer out of heaven.
It should be obvious by now that how various groups define what is acceptable Christian life, and what constitutes "legalism," has become rather arbitrary. Which commandments a "truly saved" person would necessarily keep or not often varies from church to church, and, indeed, from person to person. One evangelical says that a "truly saved" person who "truly knows Jesus" would not do drugs, but he justifies living with someone out of wedlock because he believes, "God only sees the righteousness of Christ on me." However, someone else says just the opposite: a "truly saved" person would not be living in fornication, but he doesn't think drugs will keep him out of heaven, because "God only sees the righteousness of Christ on me." Yet another would say that anyone who is "truly saved" would commit neither of these, however, when other hard sayings from Scriptures which are not very popular are quoted, he resorts to the same reasoning. Thus, the descriptions of what constitutes the life of one who is "truly saved" and what should be called "legalism" are nearly as numerous as the churches who speak about such topics. Therefore, we can conclude that these descriptions are not from God. Instead, they have been custom designed by fallen humans, based on their own personal preferences, under the delusion that only certain portions of the law of God need to be obeyed, while others can be safely ignored. We reject this "sliding scale of righteousness vs. legalism." Since "all Scripture is inspired of God" (2 Tim. 3:16), it is irrational to pick and choose from the Word like that.
The definition of righteousness, and, consequently, of a righteous man, which is given in the Scriptures, is much more coherent than the nebulously defined evangelical understanding. A righteous person is defined, according to 1 John 3:7, as "he that does righteousness." The righteous is described in the Scriptures as a person who shows mercy, gives to others, considers the poor, and so forth (Ps. 37:21,30, 12:5,10, 13:5, 15:28, 21:26, 29:7). The righteous are contrasted against the sinner, and those which do iniquity (Matt. 13:41-43, 1 Pet. 4:18, 1 John 3:12, Eze. 33:12-19). It is, again, "virtual Christianity" to define a righteous person as someone who continues indefinitely in sin but yet believes God sees him as righteous. Moreover, no passage in Scripture specifically states that God sees only the righteousness of Christ on a believer even though he or she just goes on in sin. (Scriptural passages as "the righteousness of God by faith" are cited to support this view, but these verses can also be interpreted differently, as discussed below.)
The next part of option 3 is, "How is this righteousness obtained? By what means can we live a holy life?" Jesus answers this where He says, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." (Matt. 6:33) We seek the Savior, by faith, to work this out in our lives (Php. 2:12). In practical terms, we do this by first praying for understanding and reading the Scriptures to find out what His righteousness is, and what we ought to be doing (see James 1:22-25, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). We then ask Him in prayer to bring about the change in us, and to help us to do the things we ought.
Putting these terms, thus defined, together, we arrive at a working definition of the phrase "being made righteous by faith." It means being transferred by the power of God into a person who "does righteousness." (1 John 3:7) It means to be changed, by the grace of God through faith in Jesus, into someone who lives "soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:11-12). It means God enabling us to "perfect holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1). It means that God, through His Holy Spirit, will "cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Eze. 36:25-27) It means He will make us to be able to "serve Him without fear, in holiness and in righteousness before Him, all the days of our life." (See Luke 1:73-75; this was an oath, a promise.) It means that God, through His Spirit, will write His law in our hearts (Jer. 31:31-33, Heb. 8:8-10), so that it becomes our nature to keep His commandments, to the end we might behave ourselves "holily and justly and unblameably" (1 Thes. 2:10). This is the righteousness of God, because it is completely His work. It is not of us, from our efforts, or of our own power or might; it is by His Spirit in us (Zech. 4:6). It is the Spirit that sanctifies (1 Pet. 1:2), it is the Spirit that "mortifies the deeds of the body" (Rom. 8:13). Further, it is true righteousness; it is not "virtual righteousness," because it actually is manifested in the real world. Jesus came to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21), and though we do "hope for that we see not" (Rom. 8:25) because we are waiting for it to ultimately by manifested, that is quite different from a make-believe world where one remains content in sin while supposing he is saved from sin. To live in transgression against the commandments of God does not bring glory to Jesus' name ("Let everyone that names the name of Jesus depart from iniquity" -- see 2 Tim. 2:19). Sin is not "God's righteousness," and therefore to live on in sin while claiming to have "the righteousness of God" is simply absurd.
Another component of option 3 to outline is related to the question, "Does God in fact require holiness to enter heaven?" The Scripture says that without holiness, no man shall see God. (Heb. 12:14) Many who hold to option 1 will respond that the holiness referred to is that which is "imputed" if someone believes in Christ -- a "virtual holiness," wherein God sees believes as holy even while they go on in sin. First, we can point out that this does not fit the context of the verse; for the holiness we need is something that Paul is exhorting believers to "follow" (12:15). However, to respond to this adequately requires a clear, scriptural definition of holiness. Let us turn to this.
The phrase "Be ye holy, for I am holy" is stated several times in the OT. (Lev. 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:26, 21:8) Peter quotes it in the NT (1 Pet. 1:15-16), and Jesus says something similar: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) This all suggests strongly that we are to be, in this world, as He is (1 John 4:17). Now, of course, we cannot be as the great and majestic God of heaven who speaks worlds into existence, and establishes the laws of the universe. But we can partake of His holiness (Heb. 12:10). We can be partakers of His divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), by escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust. We can behave ourselves holily and justly and unblameably among the believers (1 Thes. 2:10), by His grace.
Holiness is the opposite of uncleanness (1 Thes. 4:7). Paul lists being holy along with various upright characteristics in Titus 1:7-8, such as being "not self-willed, not easily angered, not given to wine," etc. And then in Titus 2:3-6, Paul lists ways in which the aged women should behave themselves, "as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine," etc. In Eph. 4:22-24, the new man, "created in righteosuness and true holiness," is contrasted against the old man, who is "corrupt according to the deceitful lusts." We are to offer our bodies a holy, living sacrifice to God (Rom. 12:1), and to suppose that Paul means by this that we should live in sin for God is preposterous. Rather, our life for Him is to be holy, upright; we should seek to be "holy both in body and in spirit." (1 Cor. 7:34) Peter wrote in 2 Pet. 3:11 that we should be holy in all manner of our behavior. ("Conversation" is translated from the Greek word anastrophe, which means behavior, conduct.) And Paul tells us in 2 Cor. 7:1 that we ought to perfect holiness by cleansing ourselves from "all filthiness of the flesh and spirit." Thus, it is obvious that the NT writers believed holiness was, in fact, something having to do with how we behave ourselves, and not just some make-believe concept.
It is true that an inanimate object, such as the altar of God, or the garments of priests in the OT, can be considered holy or hallowed in the sense of being separated for the service of God (e.g., Ex. 29:37, 31:10). And, very rarely, this sense can be applied to persons, such as those who were ceremoniously consecrated, as in Lev. 6:18. However, the reason we reject this as a complete or usual definition of holiness, particularly in the NT, is that in all too many passages, it simply makes no sense int he context. The verses given above make this clear.
In the NT, the word holy, which is nearly always translated from the Greek word hagios, is usually referring to the Holy Spirit (by my count, it is 95 out of 181 times). Another bunch of times the word is used to describe God, His angels, and His Word. In none of these instances can the idea of purity be divorced from the word holy, because the nature of God is, in fact, sinlessness.
Next, we can quote again from Strong's. The word which is commonly translated holiness in the NT, and from which the word sanctification is always translated, is #38 hagiasmos, which is defined as "purification, i.e., (the state) purity." Vine's Expository Dictionary defines hagiasmas (under Sanctification, Sanctify) by saying it is:"...used of (a) separation to God, 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2; (b)the course of life befitting those so separated, 1 Thes. 4:3, 4:7, Rom. 6:19,22, 1 Tim. 2:15, Heb. 12:14." Later, he adds, "Sanctification is also used in the NT of the separation of the believer from evil things and ways. This sanctification is God's will for the believer, 1 Thes. 4:3, and His purpose in calling him by the gospel, ver. 7; it must be learned from God, ver. 4, as He teaches it by His Word, John 17:17,19, cf. Ps. 17:4, 119:9, and it must be pursued by the believer, earnestly and undeviatingly, 1 Tim. 2:15, Heb. 12:14. For the holy character, hagiosune 1 Thes. 3:13, is not vicarious, i.e., it cannot be transferred nor imputed, it is an individual possession, built up, little by little, as the result of obedience to the Word of God, and of following the example of Christ, Matt. 11:29, John 13:15, Eph. 4:20, Php. 2:5, in the power of the Holy Spirit, Rom. 8:13, Eph. 3:16."
It is therefore in this sense that hagiosmos must be understood in Heb. 12;14 -- "Follow peace with all men, and holiness (hagiasmos: sanctification, purity) without which no man shall see God." Of course, we want to emphasize that this sanctification is only possible through the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2 -- the Spirit bringing us "unto obedience"); but someone who does not "follow after" this sanctification/purity/holiness to attain it will not see God, according to any plain reading of this test. They will not be saved; they will not enter into the place where Jesus will be; they will be separated from His presence. We do not see how else this passage can be understood without doing violence to the Word. It is the pure in heart who will see God (Matt. 5:8).
The meaning that advocates of the eternal security doctrine and similar teachings wish to give for the word holiness, that it has nothing to do with upright behavior, is thus impossible to extract from any honest handling of the Word. It disagrees with dictionaries and lexicons, and any other objective source of information on the topic. The idea that someone could be considered holy while they continue to disobey God, and continue on in sin, is therefore indefensible. Its only purpose seems to be to advocate and defend rebellion against the Creator.
Another way of stating that God requires holiness to enter into heaven, in the sense of holy conduct, is to point out that there are whole hosts of actions one can commit which will cause us to not be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven. These include Gal. 5:19-21 the works of the flesh; Eph. 5:5-6 uncleanness, fornication, covetousness, etc.; Rev. 21:8 lying, idolatry, etc.; Rev. 21:27 doing things that defile (examples of this are given in Matt. 15:19-20 and Mark 7:20-23); and Rev. 22:18-19 adding to or taking from the Word. The fact that these things were originally written to believers leads us to understand that these warnings are, indeed, intended for Christians. Moreover, Jesus Himself told us that it will be those who endure to the end who will be saved (Matt. 10:22, 24:13).
Moreover, Heb. 10:26-29 brings out that those who sin willfully after having received the truth, who trod on Jesus' blood after being sanctified by it, have no more sacrifice for sins left; and therefore have only judgment, fiery indignation, and a punishment "more sorer" than death without mercy to look forward to. As well, 2 Peter 2 speaks of people who were "bought" by Jesus (v. 1) but for whom damnation awaits (v. 3). Other verses which support this view include Matt. 7:21-27, Matt. 19:16-17, James 2:14-26, 1 Pet. 4:17-18, Rev. 3:5, Rev. 21:7 and Jude 4-6.
The explication of option 3 has been greatly belabored here, in order that it would not be misunderstood. Simply stated, this position asserts that only by divine help (acts of God's grace) is it possible to be saved from sin and be enabled to live a holy life; and that without this holiness one will not be allowed to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Those who yield to the works of the flesh will miss out on the kingdom (Gal. 5:19-20); but those who overcome the works of the flesh, by means of the Spirit, will receive life (Rom. 8:13).
Several arguments have been presented against the belief from Scripture that we hold, but they have not only been unconvincing but have manifested that people are not even bothering to try to understand what we are saying. For example, among the most common arguments has been the statement, "If we could be holy, we wouldn't need Christ." That is a valid response against option 2 presented at the beginning of this paper. However, since our position is clearly dependent on the Messiah for salvation from sin, and the holiness we need, this argument serves only to prove that those who state it have completely missed the point we are presenting.
Another response is to simply refer again to verses such as Rom. 3:22 which speak of the righteousness of God by faith, and interpret them to mean that one is righteous if he just believes in Christ's death and resurrection. It is important to understand, however, that while the phrase itself is Scripture, and therefore true, the interpretation is of human origin, and thus may be either true or false. To simply assert that one interpretation of a biblical phrase is the only correct one, when it can be viewed differently, particularly in the absence of passages stating such a position, is pure dogmatism: "It is so because it is so."
In the same way, every Christian must accept as true the scriptural phrase that we are "saved by grace," but this does not necessarily mean that the eternal security interpretations of this phrase are correct. Being able to interpret a passage in a particular way does not ensure that it must be viewed that way. Overlooking this fact has caused many evangelicals to quickly and arrogantly dismiss any understanding of Scripture that does not coincide with their own, without even considering it.
We are familiar with the reasoning used to support the conventional evangelical position (option 1), and we are not ignorant of the passages which can be interpreted within that framework. Nevertheless, several points must be considered. The first is that no verse in the Scriptures specifically and directly opposes the belief that we must live a holy life to enter heaven. Neither does any passage unambiguously state that believers will be allowed to enter heaven even if they go on living an unrighteous life. The complete absence of such verses is very difficult to understand if the message of option 1 is so central to the Gospel. The phrase "You can never lose your salvation" is so often repeated that it has virtually become Scripture in many evangelical circles. However, when we turn to the Word itself to find such a phrase, we discover that it simply isn't there. Interpretations of Scripture are not themselves Scripture, and should not be allowed to attain such exalted status.
The second point is that there are passages which are very difficult to reconcile with the understanding of option 1. In order to accept that interpretation, it would become necessary to relegate a large portion of scriptural messages to "virtualdom:" one would have to pretend he is righteous, even though he knows he is sinning and believes he is bound to continue in it; one must pretend that God does not see when he transgresses the Word, even though he knows God sees everything and is recorded to have struck dead two members of the Church for telling a lie (Acts 5:1-11); one would need to pretend he is enduring unto the end (Mark 13:13), even while he is giving into temptation (James 1:12); one must pretend that he is "overcoming" (Rev. 21:7) even when he can plainly see he is being overcome (2 Pet. 2:19-20); one would have to pretend to be striving for perfection (Php. 3:12-1, 2 Cor. 7:1), even though he believes perfection to be unattainable in the world; one would need to pretend that there really is a "cost" to being a Christian (Luke 14:28-30), even while holding that there really is no necessary cost; and many other phrases in Scripture would need to be converted into "virtual truths." I confess that I am frankly short on the ability to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to believe such things.
Some years ago, I asked a man who professed Christ to read Luke 13:23-24: "Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." The phrase "strive to enter in" was translated similarly in his version; something like "Make every effort to enter in" through the narrow door. (The Greek word agonizomai in this verse signifies earnest effort, fighting, struggling.) The man read that passage aloud; then, somewhat perplexed, said, "That seems to be a contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-9." It was in fact a contradiction of his understanding of Eph. 2:8-9. If this passage is interpreted to mean that nothing a believer does is relevant to whether he or she will be allowed to enter heaven, then yes, Luke 13:23-24 presents a glaring contradiction. However, if Eph. 2:8-9 is interpreted alternatively, the contradiction evaporates.
This brings up a third point to consider: the passages interpreted within the framework of eternal security fit just as well, any often better, into the interpretive framework which we hold. Ephesians 2:1-10 is a case in point. Vs. 1-3 speak of how the Ephesians were living in sin, given to lust, rebelling against God, etc., and that they were destined for wrath. Vs. 4-7 speak of how God saved them by His love and grace; and the context is clear what this salvation entails. Since verse 1 says they "were dead in trespasses and sins;" since verse 2 says that "in time past" they had lived as the world did, and since verse 3 restates that their behavior in the lusts of their flesh was "in times past," it is apparent that they were no longer in this awful state. This is, of course, because they had been saved out of that manner of life. They had been forgiven of their past sins (Rom. 3:25), and also that God had turned them away from their iniquities (Acts 3:26, Rom. 11:26-27), so that they might inherit eternal life (2 Pet. 3:13-14). Thus, as we understand it from the context, Eph. 2:8-9 is not saying that all you have to do is believe and then it makes no difference, concerning eternal life, how you live. That does not in any way even relate to what the context is talking about. Rather, Eph. 2:8-9 is teaching that salvation from sin (that is, both forgiveness of, and actual victory over, sin) is by grace, love, help, divine intervention of God.
Eph. 2:10 helps to clarify that thought, by bringing out that good works are ordained for us to walk in, and that it is God who works this out in us. We are "His workmanship;" the work of His hands, that He may be glorified (Isa. 60:21). Ephesians 2:10 does not clarify the preceding verses by saying anything like, "Therefore, you can be sure that regardless of how you live your life, you will go to heaven if you just believe in Christ."
Let us summarize: first, no verse unambiguously states the major beliefs held within the framework of option 1 (eternal security and closely related beliefs), though numerous passages can in principle be interpreted that way. Second, the verses interpreted within the eternal security framework can be interpreted just as well, and often better, within option 3 which we present; including Eph. 2:8-9 (the passage most commonly cited to support eternal security). Thirdly, many passages are very difficult to reconcile with the conventional evangelical understanding (e.g., Luke 13:23-24). And fourthly, there are passages which state the understanding of option 3 quite clearly (such as Heb. 12:14). We thus conclude that the typical evangelical interpretations concerning this subject are simply a colossal misunderstanding of Scripture.
An interesting mental experiment helps to bring out these considerations more clearly. Below are two statements, exactly opposing and mutually exclusive. Therefore if the first statement is of God the second is of the devil and visa versa. The object is to choose which of the two is of God, and thus by process of elimination, which is of the devil.Statement 1: We must live a holy, righteous life to enter into heaven.We have found by experience that most people who hold the standard evangelical interpretation of Scripture often have a difficult time answering this question; and usually their first reaction is to avoid it entirely. The reason is obvious: if they believe the first statement of God, then we are correct in our interpretation, and the evangelical's option 1 (presented at the beginning of this paper) collapses. However, if they choose the second statement as being of God, then we have Satan preaching righteousness, and God saying it's OK to live in sin! That is so thoroughly contrary to the entire message of Scripture as to make nonsense of their belief system. Remember that Satan's plan since the beginning has been to convince souls to sin: "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Therefore, it must be the plan, intention, and requirement of God that His people live a righteous life, through His help (see Luke 1:73-75).
Statement 2: We can continue on in sin, and still enter into heaven.
We are persuaded that there is no sin from which God is not able to deliver us (Jer. 32:27). Further, we are convinced that there is no sin that God does not mind that we commit. Is there any part of His everlasting righteousness that God does not care if we transgress? (Heb. 10:26-31) The Scriptures exhort us to follow holiness (Heb. 12:14), and to perfect holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1). The way we follow after this holiness is by prayer and searching the Scriptures. According to Mark 11:24, when we pray for something, we are to believe that we will receive it (see also Matt 21:22). Now it is impossible to pray for something believing we will receive it, while at the same time, knowing that we will not receive it. One cannot simultaneously believe it will happen, and know it will not happen. Since, therefore, we are exhorted to strive towards perfect holiness (Php. 2:12-15), it must be attainable through Jesus. The things in the Holy Scriptures that we are to follow after, seek, and strive for are things we are to pray for; and that which we pray for we are to believe that we receive. Any other conclusion is not of faith.
As a final note, we would like to mention that some statements made by those who hold to the standard evangelical interpretation of faith and works are in agreement with what we teach. A young man advocating that position once defended his belief by saying, "If a man claims to have faith and yet does not obey God, he is a liar." Amen to that. Faith without works is just "virtual faith." It's not true believing; it is rather make-believing. It should be pointed out, however, that this whole topic nearly always arises through the following sequence of events: a brother relates to a professing Christian some of the commandments that Jesus delivered in the Gospels; and if that person does not want to obey what He taught, then he proceeds to bring up other verses which he interprets to mean he is not required to obey what Jesus taught. This is a series of occurrences which is now quite familiar to us. We do not go about looking for evangelicals with whom we can argue the subject of faith and works; it seems to just spontaneously arise when people don't wish to obey the Scriptures. The irony of it is that as they explain and defend their position, they rarely fail to make statements along the way that condemn the very disobedience they are attempting to justify. Yes, if we don't obey the commandments of God, but still claim to know Him, we are liars. This is born out of 1 John 2:3-4. Yet, how many women who profess to know Him will obey the verses about wearing modest apparel and refraining from adorning themselves with jewelry? (1 Tim. 2:9, 1 Pet. 3:3-4) If our experience is any indication, the vast majority will certainly not. Neither will hardly anyone humble themselves to obey what the Master taught about discipleship in John 8:32, Matt. 6:32-34, 10:16-25, Mark 10:17-21, Luke 9:23-24, 12:32-34, 14:27-33, John 6:27, and many other passages. Most couples who are living in an adulterous situation according to Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 will undoubtedly continue in adultery, regardless of what the Scriptures say. In fact, most congregations will permit men and women to divorce their spouses and then will even be willing to do the marriage ceremony to new wives and husbands themselves -- what do they care a few verses in the Bible?
And now, much to our grief, although not altogether surprising, the acceptance of homosexuality is beginning to be encouraged in professing Christian circles. Peggy Campolo, the wife of the widely known false Christian writer Tony Campolo, is a leading advocate for "dignity of the lesbi-gay Christians" in the "Christian" community. As bad as that sounds, it is the conclusion that must ultimately be drawn from the standard evangelical understanding, the option 1 presented at the beginning of this paper. If people can be adulterers, military soldiers, covetous businessmen, and generally unrighteous people, and yet consider themselves "righteous in God's sight by faith in Christ," then why cannot homosexuals do the same? They believe precisely what other evangelicals believe: that "when God looks at me, all He sees is the righteousness of Christ." Bear in mind that there are more verses in the New Testament that speak against covetousness than there are against sodomy; and there are more verses about the cross-bearing life of a disciple as well. Therefore, if you are going to disobey the Scriptures on this point and still consider yourself a brother or sister in Christ (see Luke 8:21), then you are going to have to allow the gays to have their place in the church as "Christian brothers and sisters" also. It is the conclusion that must logically follow from these false Christian beliefs.
We strongly exhort you of the importance of not taking sin (= transgression of God's Word) lightly. Do not just accept it as something we must all live with. All of us need to seek Jesus' help to save us from our sins; in our fellowship we are also aware of our own faults, so this exhortation should not be taken as a condemnation. However, we firmly believe in Jesus' ability to turn us away from iniquities; and for this we seek Him. The Messiah's bride, the Church, will be ready on that day, without spot or blemish (Eph. 5:26-27, 2 pet. 3:14, Rev. 19:7). God has promised to redeem us from all iniquity, and to make us partakers of "divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4). Having this hope, the hope of righteousness by faith (which we are praying and waiting for -- Gal. 5:5), we seek to be purified (1 John 3:3, 2 Cor. 7:1).
Many are twisting Paul's writings unto their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures also (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Just calling Jesus "Lord" will not ensure a place in heaven; only those who do the will of the Father will enter in. He will say to many on that say, "I never knew you." (Matt. 7:21-23) How do we know that we know Him? "If we keep His commandments." (1 John 2:3-4) That that do iniquity, Jesus warned, will be cast into the furnace of fire. (Matt. 13:41-42) So please do not listen to any message that concludes that we can continue in sin. The end of that will only be destruction of your own soul. (Consider 2 Thes. 2:10-11.)
More About Eternal Security | Faith Alone | False Doctrine