Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has
something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say?
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not
counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes
in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
When it comes to understanding the above passage one’s
theology makes all the difference. On
the surface it seems pretty clear that we are not saved by any work we can do
through faith. Since this is the main
point then it cannot be teaching us that faith is a work that we can do in
order to be saved. Yet there are a vast
number or Christians who believe this very thing.
This is mostly seen in the concept that God has provided a
means of salvation and all that is needed to finish the job is for us to agree
with it by faith. But if all men are
born with the ability to believe then how is this not a work? Does not the very term ability necessitate something
we have to aid in our salvation?
The idea is that since none are righteous and can obey God’s
Law then he has lowered the bar just low enough so that everyone has the
ability to get in. Faith becomes the one
thing that we all can “do”. But this is
still a work and the above passage is saying that this is not an option.
Our theology helps here as we know that the Bible teaches
that salvation is a work of God in which he enables us to believe thus faith is
not a work but a means by which the Lord justifies us in such a way that we
cannot boast that we did anything, even believe, in order to be saved. Yes, we trusted in the work of Christ but
only because God regenerated us and gave us the power to do so.
Another reason we know that faith is not the one thing that
God will accept in order to save us is because faith does not equal our
transgressions. The Muslim god for
instance will forgive sin if certain prayers are made. But in essence this is to forgive sin without
it ever being paid for. Prayers don’t
make up for transgressing a Holy God nor does believing. Sin must be paid for which is why Jesus had
to die.
Now you might be thinking, “Well there you have it. Faith doesn’t equal our sin; Jesus also had
to die for them. But Paul tells us in
Galatians that if we add anything to Christ we miss the gospel entirely. In Galatians they were adding circumcision;
in the case of the Church of Christ they add baptism; in the case of most
Arminianism they add “faith”. The idea
is that God has done everything needed for salvation except one thing is left
for us to “add to Christ’s work”. That
is we must add our faith to it. In the
end it boils down to a work that we can do that the lost will not do.
Because of this it is good and necessary to understand that
we are justified not on the basis of faith but through faith. We are saved by grace, through faith. Our salvation is all a gift of God but he
enables us to believe when he gives us the new birth as the mechanism in which
he justifies us. We can take no credit. I will leave you with these verses which I
believe say the same thing, Php 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the
sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his
sake. Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began
rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to
eternal life believed. 2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God
may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.
Impressive set of verses for me to consider.
ReplyDeleteMay I add into the picture John 6:38-29, which says "They said therefore to Jesus, what shall we do, that we may work the works of God?. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." This seems to not imply any God starting point, but leaves the starting point totally on man's belief.
And I think you had a biggie in a recent post with John 1:12-13. To me, that one is the strongest on being born again via the will of God.
On Phil 1:19, I've always heretofore considered the emphasis to be on the granting of suffering, and have taught that many times, but the granting of faith, somehow I've missed, and indeed the ESV commentary right there says God grants BOTH the suffering and the faith.
I'm still unconvinced on Eph 2:8-9 though. I considered the antecedent for the "it" in v. 9 to be grace, not faith. "It is the gift of God" seems to me to refer naturally back to grace. Indeed grace and gift are almost interchangeable. Grace is a gift. Works imply earnings for deeds. And I consider the main point is that cthe ontrast that is being made in that passage is grace v. works, not the source of faith being God's gift.
But, the Acts 13:48 and 2 Tim 2:25 are strong on God granting faith/repentance. I'll research those further.
Thanks for your compelling posts.
Kenny B
Hi Kenny,
DeleteAs far as John 6 goes I would say two things. First of all we interpret passages that might be somewhat unclear by those that are quite clear such as the ones you quoted above. These settle any dispute as to who initiates and empowers conversion so we don't have to wonder what John 28-29 is or isn't saying.
Also even in John 6's context the answer is given to us in vs. 44 where clearly Jesus isn't saying that God has done all he can now the rest is up to us, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
Hope this helps. I answer the next reply below. thanks
Good point. John 6:44 is a super strong counter balance to John 6:28-29.
DeleteI'll add John 6:44 to my growing God-drawing-first list from listening carefully to you.
Kenny B
But also, I'm having problems grappling with your logic in your set-up passage of Romans 4:2-5.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, the on-the-surface-clear-meaning seems to be we are saved by faith and not works. Yep. That appears apparent.
But you seem to say that it can't mean what it clearly says, because it can't mean that, because there are some pre-supps that you bring to the passage which preclude that meaning.
I find that kind of reasoning circular at best.
I prefer to go with the foremost clearest meanings of passages.
I would just leave this passage as is, and make my election points from other passages which are clearly election passages.
Kenny B
I didn't mean to suggest that this passage isn't teaching salvation through faith alone; it clearly is. What I mean my our theology helping us to understand this passage is that once we understand God's sovereignty in our salvation then we know that this passage is not contradicting other portions of Scripture by teaching us that faith is the one work we must to in order to be saved. Obviously I agree with what you said about clearer passages. It is only by comparing Scripture with Scripture that we can save ourselves from contradictory beliefs. I hope this explains what I said, if not, let me know. thanks
ReplyDeleteI hear you. That explains it better.
DeleteHere's a couple of examples of passages that seem out of sync with the rest of scripture, whereby we should go with the bulk of scripture:
1) James 2 -- people want to add works to faith, or supplant faith with works via James 2. Of course, people like me and correctly say that James 2 in no way does this. Most commentators do a poor job of debunking those errors. Likely, me and you way more clearly debunk those errors.
2) This one comes from your evangelist from NYC (which I learned a ton from, and I think I liberally plagarized 1 of his 4 sermons). He said that God hates the sinner based on Psalm 5:5. I reject that, and go with what I find to be all thru scripture, which is God loves the sinner, and God hates the sin. To me, Psalm 5:5 is an outlier, and the one that needs to be downplayed via a "comparing scripture with scripture".
But, make no mistake, there are plenty of topics that we have to "compare scripture with scripture" and it isn't always super clear.
Kenny B
The problem is that Ps. 5:5 says he hates evildoers, not evil (which he does also). I would like to know what other Scriptures tell us that God only hates sin but not sinners. We are born under his wrath, Eph. 2 for example. The problem many make here is that they assume that if God loves someone he can't at the same time also hate them. We like to make God's love and hate more simplistic than the kind he gave humans. The truth is that he can hate and love at the same time. He both loves men and yet his wrath can abide on them because of their rebellion.
DeleteIt is also good to remember that hate can simply mean to despise as in choose to do nothing to save. This is the meaning in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 where it is quoted. It is the idea of comparison. He choose to set his saving love on Jacob while leaving Esau in his sin. Again, Provs. 6:16-19. This clearly says he hates people, not just the sin they commit. You might consider Hosea 9:15 and Lev. 20:23. These things might not fit neatly in what we have been taught about God but we can't deny what the Scriptures teach, sometimes we have to sit back and just accept it.
I'm teaching 1 Thessalonians tomorrow--all of it--it is my penchant to grab and teach big glops, and get the big picture. But, in prep, I've found three God-first-choosing/calling verses to add to my list: 1:4, 2:12, 5:24.
ReplyDeleteKenny B
I'll have to find time in the very near future to take a peek at your other "God-hates-the-sinner" verses. Perhaps it is more than just Psalm 5:5.
ReplyDeleteBut on the surface, I'm not sure I like the proposal that God can both love and hate people at the same time. That just doesn't jive on the surface of it.
Not sure I like your other possible solve-the-puzzle proposal that hate can mean do-nothing-to-save.
In the mean time, I'm sticking with the "God hates the sin, but God loves the sinner" distinction.
A couple of months ago, the teacher in the SS class that I go to but do not teach, mentioned Psalm 5:5 in passing. I stopped the class and asked the whole group of maybe 8 folks about the proposition of "God hates the sinner", as proposed by the evangelist from NYC, as opposed to me always believing "God hates sin, but God loves the sinner". They all (including a preacher dude) without exception came down strongly for "God hates sin, but God loves the sinner" and had their ways of minimizing the one verse of Psalm 5:5.
The other Kenny-specific issue here is that, when I was a little boy, I memorized tons and tons of Bible verses under the memory plan of Bible Memory Association, (now Scripture Memory Fellowship). It was a thing that kids from the local Bible Church did. We were Southern Baptist, but my mother found out about this program, so I did it almost exclusively with Bible Church kiddos.
Several years, the memory books opened up doing the first few memory asssignments with the verses literally grouped under the titles "God Hates Sin" and "God Loves The Sinner". So it is a distinction that I've grown up with and feel very, very comfortable with. It seems really really logical too. And I've taught this concept occasionally in adult SS over the years. Not directly, but in passing, as part of a lesson. It is a distinction that helps explain quite a few things.
Nevertheless, I WILL take a peek at your other verses real soon. I always want to hear people totally out on views that I don't initially embrace.
Kenny B
So far your reasons have do with childhood experiences, what you are comfortable with, etc. Read, the verses, and there are others, and go by that. Whether it all jives is not important as much as accepting what the Bible says. Being under his wrath at birth should setting the question it seems. Hate doesn't mean God is foaming at the mouth wanting to hurt someone. It simply means that he justly will exercise his divine justice against sinners.
ReplyDeleteJust to finish the thought. There are verses that say God loves sinners and that he hates sinners. If you are uncomfortable with hate, why aren't you uncomfortable with love? We can't have it both ways. Yes, God hates sin but he isn't going to throw sin into hell but those rebels who dared to reject him as their God.
ReplyDeleteWell, I just read the verses--Proverbs 6:16-19, and Hosea 9:15, and Leviticus 20:23.
ReplyDeleteBut before we get down and dirty into these verses, and you say there are more, I think this post ought to deal in an on-top fashion with the RESULT you get from these verses--i.e., does the result make sense?
Your resultant theology is that God both hates and loves people at the same time.
Well, as I look in the back of my Ryrie Study Bible, under the attributes of God, I find "love" listed as attribute #11, but I don't find "hate" anywhere on this rather exhaustive list. So, that should give us a quick intial pause for contemplation.
But really, the main issue is that what you propose--both love and hate of man by God--honestly, seems oxymoronish. I can easily see why most folks don't agree with you, because it just doesn't make sense, or jive, or appear logical. It seems impossible on the surface.
But the distinction of God hating the sin, but loving the sinner, does seem to be a distinction that people can and do grasp. Kind of a lawyerly type distinction.
Your position doesn't seem to be a distinction, but an impossibility.
Kenny B
Okay, where to start. The result that we cannot get away from in these verses is that God does hate sinners, not just their sin. If you don't like my statement that he can both love and hate someone at the same time, we can discuss that later. But these verses are clear enough that God's wrath is aimed at sinners. Here are some more, John 3:36; Rom. 5:15; Ps. 11:5.
ReplyDeleteSecondly we do not determine what we believe by public opinion polls. I heard recently that the great majority of evangelicals agree with the statement that God the Father created Jesus. The majority of people will always be wrong especially when it comes to theology so saying most folks would disagree with me is no argument. You could quote the biblically solid commentators and I will consider what they have to say as I wouldn't want to hold a contrary position to the majority of those who have proven themselves. Of course, I have spent years doing that so I know what they believe.
Thirdly, Ryrie has some major theological issues as far as I am concerned; we can discuss that at another time. But a list in the back of his study Bible is no argument. Show me why these verses don't mean what they say. So far you haven't done this; you have only told me why you don't like the position. Does this make sense?
Also I try to be careful not to assume that I can understand God so well that I can decided who he can love and hate and how all that works. He is infinite and I am not. We can't understand God by using merely our own reason but he has given us his revelation that we must go by.
Hope this helps, Nathan