Preface
Several years ago in our congregation a
debate occurred over the meaning of Galatians 1:6-9. It was proposed by the
Pastor that this text could be used as a basis to define true churches and true
gospel ministries by whether or not they proclaimed a gospel defined by grace
without works. The Pastor applied the condemnation found in this text to all
churches and ministries that openly denied the doctrine of eternal
security.
In response to the Pastor,
one preacher in the congregation objected and tried to prove that this text
should not be applied to all churches or ministries that openly denied the
doctrine of eternal security. He argued that the distinction that Paul intended
in this passage was not a gospel defined primarily by the objective truth of
grace but rather primarily defined by “power” to save as no other gospel has
such power. He later wrote a booklet in defense of his position and in that
booklet he says;
“I believe a line must be drawn, but drawn where the Apostle Paul
draws it. The true gospel of Christ is ‘the power of God’ unto salvation’. A
‘different’ gospel is NOT the ‘power of God’ unto salvation of the lost, but
leads to one being ‘anathema’, dedicated unto destruction….I can only apply
this passage [Gal. 1:8-9] to people preaching a perverted gospel, one that is
different in substance and character, so changed that their gospel is not the
power of God unto salvation as proclaimed” (Larry K. Gay, Galatians 1:6-9; Defining a Perverted
Gospel. P.14,15)
He wrote a few well-known men
among Independent Baptists and pressured them (according to their own testimony
to this writer) into making a statement for or against his position. Two of
these men rightly pointed out his primary error. However, he went ahead and
used their quotations (without their permission) thus making it appear as
though they were in agreement with his real but somewhat concealed aim (found
in the conclusion) for writing the booklet. After he published his book, three
out of five of those men he used to endorse his booklet openly repudiated it
and denied they had given permission to use their name.
He placed his booklet under
copyright laws, perhaps thinking that this would prevent any critique of it
without his permission. However, copyright laws allow for short quotations for
the purposes of critique without permission from the author.
As it will be later
demonstrated, the idea that Galatians 1:6-9 is distinguishing the true from the
false gospel by “power” simply will not stand up to sound principles of
exegesis. Moreover, the idea that saving “power” is the ultimate defining line God
has given in the courts of human investigation for men to discern between the
true gospel and all false gospels is wrong for many reasons. Although it is
true that saving “power” is restricted to the true gospel, it is equally true
that far more often the true gospel comes in “word only” (I Thes.
1:5-6) without any power and yet is still the true gospel because of a greater
distinguishing principle that is inherent in the gospel. For example, such
ministries as that of Noah and Hudson Taylor where no “power” applications
occurred, yet the true gospel was being preached. Moroever, the “way of Cain” was prominent in the days of
Noah and yet the gospel of Noah had absolutely no “power” manifestation to distinguish it from the way of Cain. Hence, in the greater
majority of cases when the true gospel is being preached, “power” fails to be
the ultimate test or line of distinction.
Furthermore, it is
questionable whether men are capable of validating such “power” in the limited
cases it occurs for at least two primary reasons. First, the Scriptures teach
that inward effectual “power” accompanies the false gospel also (2 Thes. 2:9-11).
“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with ALL POWER....And for this cause God
shall send them STRONG delusion that
they should believe a lie” - 2 Thes. 2:9,11
The word “strong” translates the same Greek word that is used for the effectual power of the Holy Spirit within true believers and is translated “effectual” in Ephesians 3:7 (see also Eph. 3:20).
In addition to this false but effectual
power within lost professors there is also a false piety that characterizes
their lives (Mt. 7:21-23). Hence, neither effectual power accompanied with
changed lives is absolute evidences of the true gospel. Since both the true and false gospel come with “power” and outward forms
of righteousness, then “power” fails to be the definitive standard for the true
gospel at least in the court of human investigation.
Second, another problem for this “power” test is the realm in which this power exists and operates. God’s power operates within the hidden recesses of the human heart and mind. It is the act of God operating beneath the skin of men. It is a realm beyond human ability to access and observe and thus impossible for absolute human validation. No human being can look within the human soul and observe it or distinguish it from “power” produced by the angel of light (Satan). Certainly God knows but Galatians 1:6-9 was not written to God but to men. Paul is not writing to omniscient ones but to finite ones.
“Power” fails to be the “ultimate” test any way you look at it. In fact,
nowhere does the Bible ever use “power” or subjective experiences as ultimate
definitive lines for finite men to prove anything. Isaiah 8:19-20 is the
response to all who would argue so. To
interpret Galatians 1:6-9 to teach such not only contradicts common sense but
other clear Biblical statements to the contrary. If it is answered that “power”
and “fruits” must be ultimately validated by objective truth then that is
admission that objective truth is the ultimate definitive line rather than
subjective “power” and/or “fruits.” The Bible demands that all
subjective experiences or professions must always take a SECONDARY
and SUBMISSIVE role to the objective truth of God’s Word. To reverse this
order is to open pandora’s box and this is exactly what the above preacher has done. It is
the position of this paper that the objective truth of grace is always the
definitive line in the courts of human investigation of the true gospel whether
“power” is present or not. It is the position of this paper that neither “power” or “fruits” are essential to identify the
preaching of the gospel in the courts of human investigation.
The error of the aforesaid preacher is not that he himself denies
the truth of grace. The
seriousness of his error is that (1) He takes a theological truth that is limited
to the elect alone (no power occurs for anyone else) but yet makes it the
ultimate definitive line for the preaching of the gospel in general. (2)
He takes a theological truth that is an exercise of God performed in a realm (the
heart) that only the infinite God can observe but makes it the decisive
evidence to validate the Gospel in the realm of finite human
investigation. Such evidence is beyond the ability of absolute human
observation. (3) In the final analysis such a test can only make professions of
salvation the ultimate proof of the true gospel as no man can observe “power”
inside another being except through secondary and subjective “fruits”
(professions, lifestyle). Since effectual “power” and changed lives accompany the
false gospel, such a test subverts the true intent of Galatians 1:6-9 and opens
the door for false gospel ministries to be accepted through subjective
evidences (profession, power). (4) He reduces objective truth to a secondary
status when it was designed by inspiration to be the primary and ultimate test
of the gospel in the ears of men. He has replaced objective truth with subjective experiential power as the ultimate litmus test for the gospel. Later in
this booklet I make this comment:
“In essence, what is now occurring even among Baptists
is that truth is no longer primarily determined by objective and
definitive Biblical standards. Instead, truth is being determined primarily
by subjective and experiential standards.
The word “primarily” is significant in the above statements. It is not
that objective and definitive standards have been totally evicted. The subtlety
of the matter is simply that they have been shifted to a secondary status in
the definition process. It is a shift of emphasis that places subjective
standards at the top of the process. Indeed the whole evaluation process is
turned upside down. This shift of emphasis opens pandora’s
box to all kinds of errors.”
Having said the above, there is another obvious error in the aforesaid preacher’s line of thinking and interpretation. This preacher fails to understand the area of investigation being considered by Paul in Galatians 1:6-9. Paul never wrote the letter to the Galatians with the intent to prove or disprove the truth of the Gospel by whether or not it is accompanied by “power.” The area of investigation is not the human heart or the limited application of “power” by the Holy Spirit in the elect. The subject of the Epistle is the doctrine of justification as it is correctly or incorrectly PREACHED in the EARS of men.
Paul realized that men must HEAR “the truth” of the gospel in order for saving faith to occur. If there was no specific “truth” content being conveyed to their EARS, there could be no proper object for faith to embrace. Paul says, that “faith cometh by HEARING and HEARING by the word of God (Rom. 1:17). Hence, apart from right PREACHING there can be no saving faith and thus no “power” of salvation as the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to them that BELIEVE” (Rom. 1:16). It is absolutely essential that men must HEAR or otherwise take in certain objective truths of the Gospel in order for saving faith to occur. Indeed, the real experience of the gospel is later described as “THE HEARING of faith” (or faith that is based upon hearing). It is this essential “hearing” of essential “truth” that Paul is making all the fuss about. The essential “truth” necessary to be heard is the doctrine of justification by grace (not election). Throughout this epistle, Paul repeatedly contrasts this essential “truth” of the gospel (grace) to the central error of the false message of justification (works).
Paul’s intent in writing this epistle is to expose and then condemn all PREACHING and PREACHERS that pervert and thereby PREVENT this essential “truth” of the gospel from being heard. He asserts that all who preach justification by works are to be “accursed.” Anciently this term (“anathema”) meant “devoted to destruction” but by the time of the New Testament the Jews were forbidden the power of capital punishment and therefore the term was used as the highest form of ecclesiastical excommunication from the people of God. In the final analysis, to be “accursed” meant they should separate such from their assemblies and homes (the assemblies often met in homes). This complete separation from such preachers is the intended exhortation as Paul says later,
Ye did run well;
who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth
you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump…. I would they were
even cut off which trouble you. (Gal 5:7-9, 12)
The bottom line application of this text is that we are to have nothing to do with ministries, churches, preachers or teachers that preach “works” as essential to justification of the sinner.
Make no mistake, the debated
issue is serious and any interpretation of this text that removes the emphasis
from the realm of objective truth to the realm of subjective experience is
extremely dangerous to the Lord’s churches and to the truth of the gospel.
Mark W. Fenison
by Mark W. Fenison
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some
that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.” - Gal. 1:6-9
I.
Introduction
Can people use the same Biblical words and texts but yet “preach” two different gospels? Is the preaching of the gospel simply a matter of including Biblical language or does it ultimately depend upon how this language is defined by the speaker and hearer? Does the sovereignty of God in the use of His word rule out the responsibility of man to preach the truth of the gospel? Does Galatians 1:6-9 refer to the sovereignty of God or the accountability and responsibility of the preacher? Can God overrule a false preacher who is preaching justification by works but also using Biblical gospel texts and yet save some one in spite of the false preacher, false gospel and false church? These are important questions for the time in which we live.
Common Gospel Terms
For example, in recent times there has been a renewed effort between
Roman Catholic Theologians to heal the division caused by the Reformation. In
the spring of 1994 a joint group of Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians
publicized a document entitled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The
Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT)”. In this document we read the following
affirmation on the part of both:
“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because
of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of
Christ...” -p. 5
On the surface this seems to be a great advancement. Indeed many have concluded that the Roman Catholic Church has finally and basically affirmed the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith. Chuck Colson, Hank Hanegraaff, Pat Robertson and many others have come to the same conclusion as evangelist Billy Graham. Graham says in response to this report:
“I have found that my beliefs
are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics” - quoted in Berean
Call, September 1994
R.C. Sproul
commenting upon this same joint statement points out that the renewed merger by
Protestantism with Roman Catholicism was due largely to the Charismatic
movement:
“Another factor changing the face and landscape of Evangelicalism was
the meteoritic rise of the charismatic movement. This movement exploded in
force in the 1960’s, breaking into mainline denominations and Roman
Catholicism. A new ‘unity’ was experienced, articulated in a kind of spiritual
unity (we are one in the Spirit) that transcended old denominational lines.
Doctrinal differences began to be played down in light of a new experience of
fellowship among diverse ecclesiastical and theological backgrounds.” R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone,
Baker, 1995, p.
14
TBN president Paul Crouch, the mega leader of the Charismatic television media condemned the Reformation as a mistake and openly embraced Roman Catholicism:
“I have come to the conviction that Martin Luther made a mistake. He
should have never left the Roman Catholic Church. I am eradicating the word
Protestant out of my vocabulary. I am not protesting anything. It is time for
Catholics and non-Catholics to come together as one in the Spirit and one in
the Lord.” Praise the Lord,
In recent weeks, America’s newspapers
carried the front page headlines of the Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches
seeking merger. The syndicated Bible Answer Man radio program hosted by
President Hank Hanegraaff aired a program with Dr.
Norman Geisler as guest speaker. Among Protestants,
Dr. Geisler is considered as one of their foremost
apologists. In that program, Dr. Geisler openly
asserted that the Roman Catholic Church is a true New Testament church with
only points of error. Sproul comments on this as follows:
“It seems clear that ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) assumes
that Rome is a true church and that whatever doctrinal differences divide her
from Evangelicalism, though they may be serious, they are not essential to true
Christianity or to personal salvation.” - Sproul, Ibid.,
p. 30
Sproul is concerned that the distinctive that
caused the Reformation is being compromised.
The movement within Roman Catholicism known as the Reformation occurred
over one word and this word was in regard to the doctrine of
justification. That one word was the
Latin word “sola” or the word “alone.” The Reformers argued that justification by
grace “alone” through faith “alone” in Christ “alone” was essential to the true
nature of the gospel and therefore to salvation.
However, the new joint Catholic/Protestant
statement no longer reflects that distinctive.
Indeed that word is omitted entirely. Has Rome changed or has modern
Protestantism decided that the divisive term “alone” is no longer essential to
the true gospel? Read this statement once again carefully:
“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because
of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of
Christ...” -p. 5
The problem with this statement is not only what it omits but how these commonly used Biblical terms are defined. When the Protestant reads it, he assumes that it means what he understands by those words. However, when the Roman Catholic reads it, he assumes that it means what he understands by those words. Hence, in essence the words are empty until they are placed into the context of a distinctive theological framework. When the above joint statement is carefully considered it will be seen that not a word is contrary to the historical theological position of the Catholic Church as carefully defined at the council of Trent where they anathematized all who believe in justification by faith alone.
Is the truth found in Common Terms or
Common Definition of Common Terms?
In this day the novice and the naive are
ensnared by common Biblical terminology. Such are unable to perceive that the
gospel is meaningless apart from proper definition of the words. The gospel can
and often is perverted and radically changed into another gospel simply by subtracting
a single word or concept (e.g. “alone”, denial of the resurrection – I Cor. 15) or the addition of words and/or concepts
foreign to the gospel (e.g. “circumcision” or “works”). Words are vehicles of
expression but they can only express the sense ultimately defined by the
speaker.
Herman Witsius
well states the problem in the following words:
“Our faith consists not in words, but
in sense; not in the surface, but in the substance; not in the leaves of a
profession, but in the root of reason. All the heretics of the present day,
that claim the name of Christian, are willing enough to subscribe to the words
of the [Apostles] Creed; each however affixing to them whatever sense he
pleases, though diametrically opposed to sound doctrine.” - Herman Witsius, Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed,
Vol. 2 (Phillipsburg, N.J.; Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993 Reprint).
p. 29
Witsius knew that even right words were empty and meaningless apart from right definitions. It is the responsibility of the preacher to define his message and this is why God sends preachers to His elect so that they might hear the truth:
“How then shall
they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and
how shall they hear without a preacher?”
(Rom 10:14)
The Eunuch could read Isaiah 53 but could not understand it until the Holy Spirit sent a preacher to explain the words (Acts 8). The unlearned don’t understand Biblical words apart from a proper exposition by the speaker.
And Philip ran
thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest
thou what thou readest? And he said, How
can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would
come up and sit with him. – Acts 8:30-31
The Bible provides the words but the preacher is to provide the sense or meaning of those words. Preaching the gospel to the unlearned depended upon more than mere use of Biblical terminology but requires explanation being given. When Philip came up and stood with the Eunuch, Luke says,
Then
Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him
Jesus. (Act 8:35)
Nehemiah defines proper Biblical preaching when he says
“So they read in
the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” – Neh. 8:8
The issue in Galatians 1:6-9 is not the
sovereignty of God or how God can overrule a false preacher but the
accountability and responsibility of the preacher to speak the truth. God saves
His elect through the proclamation of “the truth” of the gospel. The use of
mere Biblical terminology does not mean Biblical truth is being conveyed unless
the right explanation of such terms accompanies the use of such terms. Gospel addition or subtraction can be done by
merely redefining commonly used words such as those found in the joint
Catholic/Protestant statement. This statement is a premier example of
Evangelical terminology with radically different interpretations.
“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because
of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of
Christ...” -p. 5
How does the Roman Catholic define and understand these words? In the
mind of the Roman Catholic the words “we are justified by grace through
faith because of Christ” would mean to the Catholic that the grace of justification
is received in baptism by means of profession in Christ (or profession by proxy) whereby the
believer is regenerated in baptism because of Christ. Can this kind of
interpretation and understanding save someone?
No!!!!!
“Living faith active in love”
would be understood by the Catholic to mean that as long as he is cooperating
with this infusion of grace received at baptism through obedience to the
sacraments he will merit his way into heaven. However, Catholics also believe
that such “justification” or “infused grace” can be lost by committing “mortal”
sins. The Catholic doctrines of penance, last rites and purgatory are methods
whereby the Catholic can be restored and ultimately merit heaven. Can this kind of interpretation and understanding
characterize true Christian profession??? No!!!
Rome has not changed its doctrine of
infused grace and its anathema upon imputed righteousness. This anathema has
been restated in Vatican II and in the New Catholic Catechism. Nevertheless,
much of modern Protestantism is under the deception that she has changed
because she has agreed to the same BIBLICAL terminology used by Evangelicals.
However, the basic Roman concept of
infused grace in cooperation with human merit for ultimate justification is not
a concept restricted to just Rome. The
great majority of Christian and sub-Christian denominations believe the same
thing although they may not express it the same way. This is to say, the majority of professing
Christendom reject justification by grace alone through faith alone
in Christ alone while still using common Biblical terminology that
professes to be salvation by grace.
How significant is this theological
difference even though both sides share common evangelical terminology? J.I.
Packer, one of the signers of the Protestant/Catholic admits that prior to this
present generation it was held to be extremely important:
“The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone
in Christ alone has since the
Reformation been acknowledged by mainstream Protestants as ‘the article by
which the church stands or falls’ and the tenet that distinguishes a true
from a false church...” -
Resolutions for the Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue, pp. 28-29 -
emphasis mine
According to J.I. Packer, since the
time of the Reformation the doctrine of justification through faith alone
in Christ alone by grace alone has been the ultimate litmus test of what is a
true gospel ministry and true church (Biblical Baptists require more than the
true gospel to be a true church).
However, the majority of Protestant evangelicals as well as many Baptists no longer accept this as the ultimate acid test of a true gospel ministry. These definitive gospel terms (grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE) are being abandoned and what is now being accepted are professions and preaching that use common Biblical terminology without screening it by common definitive truth.
For example, according to this new trend, a Campbellite preacher can spend his whole sermon defining the word “believeth” in John 3:16 to mean “obedience” such as being baptized and doing other goods works in order to be saved and that grace is God giving you the ability to merit salvation. And yet, at the end of this perverted message give an invitation using John 3:16 and get many professions that when asked why they think they are saved, they will parrot John 3:16 as their basis while assuming you understand it the way they do. Their profession might very well be “I am saved because I BELIEVED in Jesus Christ as my Savior as taught in John 3:16.” However, the truth of their profession is only revealed after asking them to define how they understand the term “believeth” in John 3:16.
If mere Biblical language is the proof of true salvation then, this reduces the test of true gospel preaching down to simple verbalization of any gospel text by any preacher for any reason just as long as someone professed salvation. If this theory were true then any preacher that used any gospel text for any reason is still a true gospel preacher simply because of the included text and a profession. Do Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults use such gospel texts? Certainly they do.
The present trend is that we are to
accept anyone as brothers and sisters in Christ just as long as they parrot off
correct gospel terminology and/or as long as professions of faith are occurring
under preaching that contains such parroting. The assumption is that if
Biblical terminology is being used and professions of faith are occurring then
such must be a true gospel ministry as the POWER of God is verifying it. It
makes no difference that these “brothers and sisters” may DEFINE those terms
differently than we. It makes no difference that they may take no effort to
qualify their gospel as a message of justification “without” works by faith
“alone.” It makes no difference that they openly and dogmatically assert
justification by works by denying eternal security. Objective definitive truth
is being subverted and redefined by subjective professions and experiences
based upon common Christian terminology.
In essence, what is now occurring even among Baptists is that truth is no longer primarily determined by objective and definitive Biblical standards. Instead, truth is being determined primarily by subjective and experiential standards. The word “primarily” is significant in the above statements. It is not that objective and definitive standards have been totally evicted. The subtlety of the matter is simply that they have been shifted to a secondary status in the definition process. It is a shift of emphasis that places subjective standards at the top of the process. Indeed the whole evaluation process is turned upside down. In so doing, pandora’s box has been opened and all kinds of heresies are being accepted as evangelical. Isaiah 8:19-20 clearly condemns anyone who teaches that “power” or “experiences” of any kind are to be used by finite men as the ultimate litmus test to determine whether God or Satan is at work.
And
when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and
unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their
God? for the living to the dead? (Isa 8:19)
To the
law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20)
In the court of human investigation and human responsibility, the Bible holds us accountable for speaking “the truth” and Galatians 1:6-9 defines both that truth and the accountability of the spokesman.
II. The
Theological Issue of the Galatian Epistle
Most scholars believe that the epistle to the Galatians was written to those churches in Acts 13-14 as products of the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. The precise point at which time this epistle was sent would seem to be at the end of their first missionary journey but just prior to the conference at Jerusalem in Acts 15. This seems to be the case as it would be highly unlikely that it was written after Acts 15 for the simple reason that Paul is silent about the verdict of the Jerusalem council. If he had wrote it after Acts 15 he would have used this weighty support to reinforce his arguments.
Anyone can causally read this epistle and
see that the first five chapters are devoted to a developed argument over the
doctrine of justification. The continual contrast set before the reader is
between justification by grace versus justification by
the works of the law. Paul develops a
very rational and Biblical argument to prove that justification must be by
grace instead of by works. This fact is foundational to a proper understanding
of the epistle. In so doing, Paul drew an objective and definitive line so that
any believer can discern whether or not they are hearing the true versus
a false doctrine of justification. This definitive line is ignored by those who
signed the Protestant/Catholic accord. This line is under assault by many
Evangelicals today. This line is being reinterpreted with a different emphasis
and conclusion than what Paul intended.
Let’s consider the theological issue of
this epistle for a moment. At the
conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15) there were those who would have added the
works of the law to gospel of Christ. Like the Roman Catholic Church, These preachers were not denying or
deleting the Christ
content (Christ’s death, burial and resurrection). If
Christ had been deleted from their gospel there would have been no debate and
no need of a church conference. Instead there would have been just a flat and
quick condemnation. They preached a gospel that included but was not limited to
the person and work of Christ. Their gospel of justification by works contained
both a subtractive and additive error. The obvious part is the addition
of human merit defined as “works.”
However, it is the negative or subtractive aspect of
justification by works that is most often overlooked. This is the aspect that
denies salvation based upon the lack of proper works. Both the additive and
subtractive aspects of justification by works are well expressed in the
following words:
“except ye be
(additive) circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot
(subtractive) be saved” (Acts 15:1b).
The additive side is the assertion that GOOD works are essential (“except ye be circumcised”) to be justified. The negative side (“ye cannot be saved”) is the denial of complete salvation due to failure of meeting the previous condition of works. This denial is what is known as the doctrine of potential apostasy. It is “potential” because it is ultimately “conditional” upon human performance or merit. Any preacher that teaches the potential apostasy of true believers is asserting in the strongest language that he believes and preaches justification by works. You simply cannot lose what you cannot merit.
The Biblical doctrine of justification also has a positive and negative side. Positively stated justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Negatively stated justification cannot be forfeited due to our works, good or bad, as they play no part in our justification. This negative side is often referred to as the doctrine of eternal security or the direct contrast to the doctrine of apostasy. The negative side of justification by works says “ye cannot be saved” EXCEPT by good works. In direct contrast, the negative side of justification by faith says you cannot gain or lose your justification by works. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone then salvation cannot be forfeited by works.
Consider Peter’s response to the positive
and negative sides of justification by works;
“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” - Acts 15:10-11
Peter’s response to their conditional “except ye be……..ye cannot be saved...”
is worthy of careful consideration. His
rebuttal to their salvation by works aspect is found in the words “THROUGH
GRACE” whereas his rebuttal to their conditional security aspect is “we shall
be SAVED.” The “d” added to the word “save” was the response to conditional
salvation under works. They were preaching a gospel of conditional security
(“except”) whereas Peter responded with a gospel of unconditional security
(“grace….saved”).
It is this same
issue (a gospel of conditioned upon merit) that found its way into the churches
in Galatia and Paul responds to the same inclusion of
“circumcision” exactly as Peter did:
“For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is
a debtor to do the whole law.” - Gal. 5:3
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the
grace of Christ.” -
Gal. 1:6
Like Peter, Paul also uses the term “grace” in this epistle to counter the gospel of conditional justification in Christ. The issue at stake among the Galatians is not whether the distinctive of the gospel is “power” but rather it is an issue over the sufficiency of Christ to justify the believer UNCONDITIONALLY before God. The battle cry of Paul is that the truth of “grace” is what distinguishes His gospel from theirs.
Paul is concerned about the theological content of the gospel they “preach.” His area of investigation is the kind of “truth” their gospel proclaims. The precise area under investigation is not the hearts of the hearers but the content of the message that is being heard by the ears of those listening. His words are “if any man PREACH” not if any hearer EXPERIENCE POWER. It is not a question of profession but it is one of definition and expression of Christ’s sufficiency. The false gospel does not exclude Christ and His work of redemption, it simply denies the sufficiency of Christ to complete salvation apart from human merits.
“This only would I
learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the
hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made
perfect by the flesh?” (Gal 3:2-3)
In their gospel, Christ initially obtained salvation freely but they must now continue to maintain it by their obedience to the law. This is what Paul refers to as “another gospel.” Paul’s gospel was sufficient to justify the believer apart from and without works. The point of justification by “grace” is the sufficiency of His gospel.
This is the same issue that divides denominations and churches today. There are two gospels of grace being preached today. Both claim to be teaching salvation by grace. The false gospel of grace today preaches that salvation is initially a gift of God by grace. It is this initial grace that enables the obedient to continue in salvation by good works. However, such a salvation may be forfeited by choosing not to take advantage of the the grace offered to endure in good works. Hence, grace in justification is defined by this gospel as simply divine aide to help you out if you continue to want help. Nothing finished or certain about this kind of grace only a potential for ultimate justification at the judgement seat.
The true gospel defines justification by grace to be completed by Christ alone without our help and apart from and without our works. The true gospel proclaims “eternal life” as a free gift at the point of initial saving faith. The true gospel places the “d” on the word “save” as the conclusion to saving faith. The true gospel
proclaims the finished substitutionary work of Jesus Christ in behalf of the believer making certain the complete justification of the believer as well as making certain complete salvation by the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit unto glorification of the believer– “for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Philip. 2:13). “Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ” – Philip. 1:6. In regard to all of His elect there is no possibility that He will lose even one true believer (Jn. 6:37,39-40; 10:26-30). Hence, grace in justification is defined by the true gospel as divine security in Christ that is unconditionally guaranteed by covenant promise.
In Galatians 1:6-7 Paul introduces the term, “grace” as the theological truth and the distinctive line drawn between these two gospels while the next three chapters of the epistles defines “grace” to exclude all aspects of human merit as the cause for obtaining or maintaining eternal life. The first four chapters of the book of Galatians is devoted to defining the gospel of Christ to be characterized as the “TRUTH” of justification by grace alone without works. Hence, justification by grace is being defined as the definitive line of “truth” that separates Paul’s gospel from the false gospel. Furthermore, when “grace” is completely defined in contrast with the false gospel it is the issue of “eternal security” of the believer that is the distinction that separates true grace from the false definition of grace in the gospel of works.
III. An
Examination of the Text
“I marvel that you are so soon
REMOVED FROM Him that called you into the GRACE of Christ.” - Gal. 1:6
The word “removed” translates the Greek
word “metatihemi.”
It has the idea of departing from something to something else. The
question is whether it is to be understood in the passive or middle voice.
Either is grammatically possible. The passive voice might indicate that the
Galatians were being deceived, bewitched by false teachers. On the other hand, Lenski
and many other Greek scholars, are convinced that the
middle voice is to be understood here.
“The middle metatiqesqai is
regularly used to express what the Germans call uebertreten,
to change from political party or from one philosophic school to another and
thus from one religious conviction to another” - R.C.H. Lenski,
The Interpretation of St. Paul’s
Epistles, to the Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians. p. 34
Either way, this term demonstrates that the Galatians are in the process of changing from one theological position (grace) to another (works). Whether it is emphasizing the deception of the false teachers (passive voice)
O foolish Galatians,
who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes
Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (Gal 3:1)
or the
inward change of mind (middle voice) due to such false teaching - the end result is the same – they were in the
process of being mentally removed from one theological position to another
position.
The theological position they were in the process of departing from is clearly identified in this passage as well as throughout the entire epistle. Christ had called them to the truth of grace through the preaching of the gospel of Christ but they were now considering “circumcision” and other works of the law as necessary for justification before God. In other words they had begun by the “hearing of faith” but now they are being convinced that they must be “made perfect by the flesh” (Gal. 3:3).
Are ye so foolish?
having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by
the flesh? (Gal
3:3)
How do we know
that they are in the process of being removed from grace as a theological
position unto works rather than being removed from the state of grace
(position) or the experience of grace (power) unto a lost condition? Those who deny eternal security argue that
the Galatians are in danger of losing their state or experience of grace and
thus in the process of becoming lost.
First, we know this because the words “ANOTHER gospel” are placed in direct contrast to the words “the grace of Christ” (v. 7). This infers that the phrase “the grace of Christ” is definitive of the true gospel because it is in contrast to the words “another gospel.” Why choose this particular phrase “the grace of Christ” to represent the true gospel? He is defining the true gospel by its primary theological truth – “grace.” It should be obvious that the words “another gospel” do not refer to a state or an experience but rather to the primary expression of theological error. That error is the addition of “justification by works” to the gospel of Christ. Therefore the phrase “the grace of Christ” is intended to express the primary theological truth of the gospel and thus later Paul repeatedly refers to it as “the truth” of the gospel.
To
whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of
the gospel might continue with you. (Gal
2:5)
But
when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the
Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do
the Jews? (Gal 2:14)
O
foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth,
before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among
you? (Gal 3:1)
Ye did
run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? (Gal 5:7)
Second, we know this because in the Greek text, the word
translated “grace” is found in what grammarians call the anarthous
construct. This simply means that it is
without the definite article (what we know in English as the word “the”). Dana and Mantey
make this comment upon such a construction in the Greek Grammar:
“Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the
article is not used. This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun
rather than its mere identity.” - A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, p. 149
Paul’s grammatical intent is to emphasize
the THEOLOGICAL truth
of grace as the chief characteristic of His gospel.
Throughout this epistle it is this “truth” of the gospel that is being contrasted to the chief characteristic of the false gospel – works.
Knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works
of the law shall no flesh be justified.
(Gal. 2:16)
This
only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the
law, or by the hearing of faith?
(Gal 3:2)
He therefore that ministereth to
you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth
he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:5)
Third, we know this because when
Paul identifies the very point of their departure he chooses these words - “ye have fallen FROM GRACE.” One
cannot fall from “undeserved favor” as that is an oxymoron (grace can never be
deserved and to fall would only qualify you for “grace”). They are falling from grace as their
theological conviction.
Fourth, we know this because when Paul considers the very error that some were persuading them to add to the gospel, he says, “I do not frustrate the grace of God” (Gal. 1:21). It was their theological error of justification by works that frustrated the truth of justification by grace.
Fifth, another reason that we know
this was a theological issue rather than experiential is because Paul pinpoints
the exact means responsible for their fall or departure from grace. It was in
the area of verbal communication that promoted their fall from grace:
“....PREACH any other
gospel...than that which we have PREACHED...If
any man PREACH....than that ye have RECEIVED.....the gospel which was PREACHED of me...For I neither RECEIVED it....neither was I TAUGHT it....that I might PREACH...” - Gal. 1:8,9,11,12,16
“This PERSUASION cometh not of him that calleth
you” (Gal. 5:8).
“Who hath bewitched you.....” - Gal.
3:1
These verses identify the realm in which
the fall occurred as the area of the mind rather than the state or salvation
experience of the Galatians. The departure was due to “persuasion” and
“teaching” and “preaching” of a false gospel. They had been “bewitched” by
false teaching and they had fallen from grace as their theological position and
belief.
Now there is a vast difference between the truth of justification and
the experiential entrance into the state of justification. The first is
THEOLOGICAL while the latter is POSITIONAL. The first is the CAUSE while the
second is the CONSEQUENCE.
Paul’s choice of terms (preach, teach, receive, truth of the gospel, persuasion, bewitched, hearing) make it clear that what he has in mind is a departure from grace as a theological truth (revealed as justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) rather then a departure from the state or experience of justification. Paul is concerned with a doctrinal change going on in the churches of Galatia. -“This PERSUASION cometh not of him that calleth you” (Gal. 5:8). This point is essential in order to grasp the real issue among the Galatians and is essential to properly interpret the following words.
“Unto ANOTHER gospel which is NOT
ANOTHER” - Thus far we have
seen they were being removed from THE TRUTH of GRACE unto “another gospel” or the “error” of
justification by works. (vv. 6-7). Therefore, the
immediate context identifies the departure point (truth of grace) as
well as the termination point (another gospel). The contrast is between two opposing
theological positions concerning justification.
What does Paul mean by “unto ANOTHER…which is NOT ANOTHER..”? The English term “another” is used twice in the above phrase but represents two different Greek terms. The first “another” translates the Greek word “heteros” and simply means “another kind.” The second “another” translates the Greek word “allos” and means one of the “same kind”.
Paul is making a distinction that the false
teachers were not. They did not deny
that Paul preached the gospel of Christ, they only
denied his gospel was complete. On the other hand, Paul completely denied they
were preaching the gospel of Christ. Paul restricted the gospel of Christ to a grace
kind without works and anything else was not Christ’s gospel at all but altogether a different kind. Here is the
point of deception by all false gospelizers. Today,
those who include works in their gospel claim they are preaching the gospel of grace
when in fact they are preaching entirely and altogether “another (works kind
of) gospel”. The joint Catholic/Protestant statement makes the surface and
superficial claim that they hold to the same gospel of grace but in reality
they do not. Seventh Day Adventists
vehemently claim they preach and believe in salvation by “grace” but they
clearly do not.
Now lets reason together for a moment.
Paul has bluntly defined the true gospel of Christ as the kind which characterizes the “truth” of grace (v. 6a). He has also
noted that their departure is due to the verbal communication of error by means
of preaching and teaching (vv.8-9). These two contextual factors clearly
defines their departure (v. 6) as theological rather than
experiential or positional. Now Paul’s next point is that they have departed unto a gospel that is different in kind to the gospel of grace.
This point is so simple, no defense should be necessary, but, alas, some miss
this very simple contextual point. The
issue is not a contrast in consequences or a contrast in the power of these two
gospels but the issue is between another kind of
gospel than the “grace” kind. The next four chapters in the book of Galatians
repeatedly place this contrast before the readers as the “grace” versus the “works”
kind –
“Knowing a man is not justified by WORKS....not by the works of the
law....I do not frustrate the GRACE of God for if righteousness come by the law.....” - Gal. 2:16,21
“...received ye the Spirit by the WORKS of the
Law...doeth he it by the WORKS of the law....But that no man is justified by
the law.....” - Gal. 3:2,5,11
“Tell me, ye that desire to be UNDER THE LAW...” - Gal.
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by
the law; ye are fallen from GRACE.” - Gal. 5:4
Any gospel that includes works is
different IN KIND from a gospel that excludes works as they are
fundamentally opposed to each other.
This is a very simple and obvious bottom line drawn between these two kinds of gospels that can be easily recognized by anyone who knows “grace” as the distinctive “TRUTH of the gospel.” However, Paul goes on to nail this down with an additional term when he says;
“But there be some that trouble
you and would PERVERT the gospel of Christ” Now, we come to a key word
that further proves the point we have been making thus far. The word “pervert” translates a Greek word that
is consistently used throughout the New Testament to refer to the exact opposite of something.
Let’s summarize what we have learned thus
far. (1) The point of their departure is from THE TRUTH of grace. The fall from this TRUTH had occurred in the
region of their mind through preaching due to the persuasion of false teachers.
(2) The means of persuasion was preaching and teaching. (3) The gospel
they were embracing was different in kind from the “grace” kind of
gospel which they had first received. (4) The overall context in the book of
Galatians repeatedly identifies this different kind as the “works” kind.
Now, this additional new word summarizes
all of the above. It tells us that the gospel they had departed unto was not
only ANOTHER kind but the kind completely opposite to grace. This
is the exact point of Paul’s antithetical statement to the Romans:
“And if it be of grace then it is no more works; otherwise grace is no
more grace; and it be of works then it is no more of
grace otherwise work is no more work.” - Rom. 11:6
A gospel of works is different (heteros) than
a gospel characterized by grace. However, this next word defines the nature of
this difference. It (works) is the exact opposite to grace. Paul could not have
chosen more precise language to identify the exact and precise fine line
existing between these two gospels. They
are DIFFERENT gospels and the difference is found in the fact they are exact
opposites to each other. Grace cannot include works nor works include grace without ceasing to be one or the
other as they are mutually opposed to each other. Here is the defining line of “the truth” of
the gospel.
“But though we or an angel from heaven PREACH any other gospel....let him be accursed.” For emphasis, I have capitalized the word “preach” in order to identify the sphere that is being specifically addressed and condemned by Paul. Paul is concerned with what people are hearing to be the gospel of Christ. Later in chapter three Paul contrasts the gospel of ”works” to the “hearing of faith.” Paul had verbally communicated “the truth” of grace to them when he had preached in the province of Galatia. He knows that faith is placed in what a person hears being preached. If the unsaved place their faith in a gospel that perverts “grace” then those hearing are PREVENTED from being saved by what they hear. Moreover if the saved are mentally deceived into embracing a false gospel they will frustrate the grace of God in their minds and in their witnessing.
What does Paul mean when he says “let him be accursed”? The term “accursed” is a translation of the Greek term “anathema.” This term is used a number of ways in the Scripture. Is it the expressed desire that such preachers go to hell? Does it describe their lost condition and final destination? Is it a recommendation to physically destroy them? Is it an ecclesiastical censure that would require open condemnation and separation from such?
It is a Censure Applicable to Christians
Significantly, he includes himself (“we”) as possible candidates of such a censure. Indeed, later he demonstrates that both Peter and Barnabas were capable of being “carried away” by this false gospel and false teachers (Gal. 2:13). Moreover, the remaining context of the epistle demonstrates that true believers were already “bewitched” and thus guilty of this very act whether actively proclaiming it or passively accepting it. To deny that truly born again Christians are not potential subjects to this censure is to ignore the Apostles inclusive words (“we”) and read this epistle with unjustified bias.
However, the potential application of this term to Christians in the
sense of devoted to eternal destruction would prove to be a problem to those
who believe in eternal security. They would argue that verses 8-9 cannot be
applied to misguided or deceived believers nor any true believer (such as Paul,
Peter or Barnabas) because such are not potentially or actually
dedicated to eternal destruction or in danger of such. Obviously, Paul does not
share this view as he included true believers when he said “we.” However, this is only a problem if the
disputed term is defined as “eternal destruction.”
Another problem with limiting “let
him be accursed” to only lost people is that it makes preaching
rather than believing in a false gospel the basis of eternal damnation. If Paul
were describing the actual lost or the POTENTIAL damned state of those who
preach this message he would have said, “If
anyone BELIEVES in another gospel
let him be accursed.” Ultimately it
is faith in a false gospel that damns you rather than the preaching of a
false gospel. Paul chose his words well.
Paul is talking about preaching not believing. Some may
argue that the act (preaching) defines the state (believing) and you cannot
preach what you do not believe. However, that is only true if there is no
such thing as a DECEIVED or “bewitched” believer, Paul tells us that some
had been “bewitched” (Gal. 3:1) and some were under the “persuasion” of false teaching
and other preachers had been “carried away” with such a gospel and yet he is
confident that they are saved because of their initial faith in spite of their
inconsistency. Hence, what one may
profess to believe, or teach and preach may not reflect the true state of their
heart or final destination. For
example, can one be truly saved and then later led to believe that they must
keep up their good works if they are to ultimately enter heaven????? For example, Paul tells Timothy that two
false teachers had undermined the faith of some by teaching the resurrection
had already occurred. Nevertheless, Paul says in regard to those deceived that
God knoweth those that are His even when they don’t
know themselves. According to the
damnation theory, all such are accursed and dedicated to eternal
damnation.
Does the Scriptures offer alternative meanings to the word “accursed”?
Biblical Uses of “accursed”
I believe the Bible provides another clear
alternative that better fits this particular context. When both the Old and New
Testament use of this term are carefully considered, at least five applications can be
seen.
(1) It is used for a gift “dedicated”
unto the Lord
(2) It is used to describe things
devoted to
PHYSICAL or
SPIRITUAL destruction
(3)
It was used as an non-effectual WISH for physical
and/or
spiritual destruction upon self or others.
(4) It is used to describe things and
persons that God’s
people
should abhor, condemn and separate
themselves
from.
(5)
It was used to describe the possessions of those who
were separated or banned from the congregation for
their
personal rebellion – Ezra 10:8
The first two uses above are not questioned by any scholar as there is
abundant evidence for such uses.
The third reason is also fairly clear in the Scriptures. Acts 23:14 and
Romans 9:3 refer to self-imposed curses for different reasons. Romans 9:3 makes
it clear that such self-imposed curses are without effectual power. The grammar
used by Paul in Romans 9:3 makes it clear that even though this may have been
the wish of Paul it was impossible for him to make effectual. The point is that
whenever it is used in a context where a person is calling this upon
themselves or upon others it is without EFFECTUAL application as no human
possesses such power to make it effectual.
Galatians 1:6-9 is an instance where one created being (Paul) is calling
down a curse upon other created beings. Such a curse may call for the strongest
condemnation possible but it is without force as no human can impose such on
another human. No human can discern the final spiritual state or final
consequence of another.
What then is the true understanding of the words “let him be accursed”? In this particular context, it is the fourth
and fifth views mentioned above that fully satisfies
Paul’s intent to the Galatians. These veiws find it’s understanding in a
couple of Old Testament uses of the term “accursed.”
“Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it; but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.” - Deut. 7:26
Since the “cursed thing” could be persons
as well as inanimate things, the above verse would require separation (“neither shalt thou
bring it into thy house”) and condemnation upon such a person or
thing by the people of God (“thou shalt utterly
detest it...abhor it...).
The Jews clearly saw the connection
between anything “accursed” and separation from such. In fact, if a person did
not separate from such accursed things, then they too would be considered
accursed (“lest thou be a cursed thing
like it”). Hence the term implied a certain right response toward things or
persons under such a censure. The right response was separation and
abhorrence of whatever is accursed. Moreover, they particularly saw in Ezra
10:8 a direct relationship between the use of this term and separation of a
person from the congregation.
“And
that whosoever would not come within three days according to the counsel of the
princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited (anathematized - Septuagint) and himself SEPARATED from the
CONGREGATION.”
This verse implies a two fold separation. The guilty party would be separated from his things and from the congregation. Separation from the congregation was the consequence of having ones things anathematized. It was an easy step from physical things to spiritual things (heresy).
The Jews clearly saw and understood that these two Biblical texts demanded condemnation and separation of such persons from their homes (Deut. 7:26) as well as from the assembly (Ezra 10:8) whenever those persons possessed anything anathematized or were themselves anathematized. These facts cannot be refuted. Anyone who failed to respond thus to such things or to such a person would also be placed under the same censure or curse - “lest thou be a cursed thing like it.” This is a revealing fact. A person could be cursed for simply not responding correctly to accursed persons or things. The proper response was separation and condemnation. It is well known that this is exactly how the Jews understood this term in the context of heresy and the promoter of such in the synagogue. To place such a censure upon such a person was to call for separation from and condemnation upon that person by the people of God. This was not an empty threat but a practical command that would shut up and shut out such a person from the Churches of Christ. Under the articles of “Post-Exilic Ban” and “Anathema” as well as “A Measure of Synagogal Discipline” the Online Jewish Encyclopedia states:
The highest ecclesiastical censure, the exclusion
of a person from the religious community, which among the Jews meant a
practical prohibition of all intercourse with society. For the etymology of the Hebrew terms used
in this connection and for a clear exposition of the historical development and
of the ethical significance of this institution
Anathema
But later on, specifically after the community is subdivided
into congregational bodies, under the rule of their own officers, the ḥerem or Anathema is designed to control the moral
deportment and obedience of their members; acting as a check upon insubordination, proclaiming or
threatening expulsion from all advantages derived from an integral membership
in the covenant of God; yet operating beneficently in its self-declared
reversible character, under which the authorities might take cognizance of the
transgressor's repentance and restore him to his former place in the
congregation and community – Jewish
Encyclopedia
A Measure of Synagogal
Discipline.
it might be safely assumed that, in its main features, the
Anathema of the first and later centuries of the present era resembles the ḥerem of earlier, specifically the pre-Maccabean, times, in its general tendency to fortify the
foundations of the covenant
by imposing penalties upon heresy as well as upon defections from the ethics of
private life. Heresy, in particular, was the great offense during the dominancy
of the sects.” – Jewish
Encyclopedia
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia and
the Bible, the Jews were forbidden the power of capital punishment during the
first century under Rome. The common meaning “devoted to physical destruction”
would have been forbidden. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that during this time
“anathema” came to be used as the highest form of eccelesiastical
separation in the place of “physical destruction.” In fact, this is the understanding of the
Jews in regard to the “ban” used by the Jews to “cast out” some one from the
synagogue such as the blind man in John chapter nine. Casting out was the consequence of falling
under this ecclesiastical ban of excommunication.
The Jews were discerning enough to recognize that such accursed things were not always tangible things which could be separated from the person possessing them. The connection between tangible abominations and intangible abominations (heresies) was easy for the discerning Jew to see. Deuteronomy 7:25 includes idols as well as anything God considered an “abomination” to Him. Therefore upon the basis of Biblical usage the Jews applied the term to describe the treatment (separation, condemnation) of those who embraced such things.
How would such an interpretation be applicable to our text in question? Well, the instigators of this false gospel were Jewish as was the Apostle Paul. Galatians 1:6-9 deals with false doctrine and the consequences for preaching it. For any Jew to apply such a term to another Jews in the context of false teaching and the teaching assembly was clearly understood. It would be clearly understood that Paul is commanding these churches to censure such and respond by separating them from their church assembly and homes. Since the assembly met in the home many times this would effectively remove that leavening influence. If such were church members, then, this censure would demand steps of church discipline. If they were not members it would require the churches to forbid such from speaking in their assemblies or fellowshipping in their homes.
What about Angels?
How would this injunction apply to angels? The Bible describes fallen angels as the source of all false doctrine:
“Now
the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils;
(1Ti 4:1)
However, such demons always appear as “angels of light” rather than demons (2 Cor. 12). Moreover, such angels (demons) are the controlling influence behind false preachers. This is exactly what the Apostle John means when he commands us to “try the spirits” in regard to doctrine being preached by men. Such preachers are to be forbidden to preach in the churches or welcomed into the homes of church members because of their demonic influence. Also, the “angel FROM HEAVEN” may refer only to its claim or to its arrival out of the clouds such as the angel Moroni who allegedly visited Joseph Smith and whom became the representative of the angel Moroni. To remove such preachers from their churches and homes would be to remove the influence of such “angels” as well.
This understanding and application of
“let him be accursed” is the only interpretation that is practical for dealing
with the leaven among them as Paul says in the same epistle a little later, “a
little leaven leaventh the whole lump”. This understanding deals effectively with the
problem and removes it from the home and meeting place.
The Pauline Term for Eternal Condemantion:
Another problem with the eternal damnation theory is the fact that in
the same book when Paul does speak of the eternal consequences for embracing a
works gospel he chooses an entirely different Greek word “katara” translated “curse” (See Gal. 3:10,13). The Linguistic
Key to the Greek New Testament says concerning this term as used in
Galatians:
“This was the covenant curse for disobedience to the conditions of the
Mosaic covenant.” (p. 508).
Lenski make
this comment upon the meaning of “katara” in these passages,
....”Under a curse” means first, under a divine verdict of curse, secondly,
under the power which works out and finally completes the curse. - The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles
to the Galatians, Ephesians and Phillippians. p.
141
My question is simple. If
“anathema” is intended to describe the actual state or future potential
consequence of all who preach another gospel, then, why does Paul switch to the
Greek term “katara” when the actual state and
potential consequence are unquestionably the subject
of the context???? Why not stick with “anathama”
when the contextual subject is eternal destruction if that is how Paul used “anathama” in Galatians 1:8-9?? On the other hand, since we know that
“anathema” was a technical term applied to heretics in Paul’s day and “katara” was a technical term used in Paul’s day to describe
the fate of the unjustified state then why reject the use of the current
meaning of anathema when the context of Galatians 1:6-9 is describing such
especially when Paul changes to “katara” when
describing eternal consequences of judgement?????? It would seem from all appearance that Paul
is using each term in each context according to the current usage of each in
his own day.
Conclusion
Certainly there are texts where this word
(“anathema”) is used to describe the utter destruction that will take place
upon the lost at the coming and judgment of Christ.
However, my point is that it is the
context which determines the intended meaning of the term “anathema.” In the context of offerings it refers to a
“dedicated gift” unto the Lord. In the
context of tangible things it refers to something dedicated unto “physical
destruction.” In the context of human
application to self or others it refers to the ineffectual wish for utter
destruction (physical and/or spiritual).
In the context of heresy it demands present SEPARATION and CONDEMNATION
of those things or persons that offend God.
One writer who argues for the eternal damnation position fully sees the implications of Ezra 10:8 and the Jewish application of separate and condemn.
“Some have made reference to Ezra 10:8 to show the beginnings of the extra-biblical sense of ‘anathama’ having to do with the separation of a man from the congregation, similar to the Jewish ‘ban’ from the synogogue….The man is simply scattered away from the people.” – Larry K. Gay Galatians 1:6-9, Defining a Perverted Gospel, p. 7
He feels the force of this passage and tries to deal with it in two different ways. First, he would like to steer his readers away from this conclusion so he says it is an “extrabiblical” use. However, he full well knows that this was the current use among the Jews DURING Biblical times. Second, he intentionally omits the Biblical words (“separate” and “congregation”) in his own explanation of this text and substitutes the terms “scattered away” and “the people” in order to steer his readers away from the idea of “ church discipline.”
However, Paul is definitely referring to such a “ban” and implies this
by saying “Let them be” considered such by the Galatians. Only this kind of application would
effectively remove the “leaven” from their midst. Of course this censure would
not only effectively remove them from the churches but it would at the same
time place a real question upon the actual salvation of such and therefore
would imply that their final end may be eternal destruction. However, it is a
horse of another color to intepret these words to
demand that such a person is lost and going to hell rather than merely
treating him as such. Paul wants them to treat them as such as this
would effectively remove them from the pulpits and homes of these believers.
IV. Summary of
the Passage
Paul introduces the fact of a departure in
verse 6a by the term “removed.” This
term as found in the middle voice and according to the historical usage of this
term in the middle voice, it demonstrates that the form of departure is
philosophical, a change from one conviction to another. The following context
supports this conclusion that it is a theological or philosophical
departure. In verse 6b he identifies the
exact point of departure to be a departure from a conviction in grace as the characertisic truth of the gospel. In verse 7a he
identifies the destination of the departure or termination point. This
theological departure terminates with another gospel that is different to the
grace kind of gospel. In verse 7b
he further identifies the difference of the false gospel to be opposite in
nature to the grace kind of gospel. In verse 8-9 he identifies the means
responsible for this departure to be verbal communication (preaching, teaching,
receiving). These facts demonstrate that the
perversion is a theological error that occurs through the persuasion of false
teaching. The remainder of the epistle
positively identifies the theological error as a gospel of works. This passage is drawing the line of
distinction between the true and false gospel to be the difference between
grace and works. Paul is defending a message that proclaims salvation by grace
alone through faith alone in the person and work of Christ alone.
The words “let him be” is an imperative command unto the Galatians to “regard
and treat” such preachers as “accursed.” The word “accursed” is used in perfect keeping with the current Jewish use of
Paul’s day in regard to false teachers and simply calls for immediate action by
them to take the strongest measures of condemnation and separation - separating
them from their home and church. This
action removes the “leaven” from among them. This is the action that all
evangelicals should take toward those who deny the sufficiency of Christ in salvation.
V. Application
of this Passage
The Apostolic censure is contextually
applied to anyone that perverts what is essential for sinners to HEAR for the
basis of faith in order to be justified before God.
We know from the scriptures that such distortion may occur when any essential of the gospel is omitted and/or denied (I Cor. 15). We know from the scriptures that such distortion may occur when anything is added that invalidates or distorts any essential of the gospel message.
We know from scriptures that the primary emphasis of the gospel message
is the completed and sufficient substitionary work
and person of Jesus Christ . Galatians 1:8-9 is
intended to draw a line between the message of a sufficient Savior and any
message that distorts, denies, omits or redefines that essential truth. It
commands that definitive actions (separation and condemnation) be taken toward
those who CHARACTERISTICALLY distort, deny, omit or redefine this truth.
This censure is clearly applicable to all ministries that openly deny
the doctrine of eternal security. Such a denial radically distorts the
essential gospel truth of justification without works. Indeed, such a
denial cannot be even verbally defended without the open assertion of works.
Why? Because loss of salvation is only possible IF works are
included for justification. Denial of eternal security strikes at the
very center of the gospel as it is the denial of Christ as a complete and
sufficient substitutionary Savior. It strikes at the very verbiage of the gospel
as the gospel offers “eternal” life and the promise to be “saved.” It strikes at the very “truth” of the gospel
as it distorts the meaning of “grace.” The Galatian
censure is aimed precisely at those who distort the doctrine of justification without
works (not the doctrine of election). The Galatian
censure is aimed precisely at those who pervert what is necessary for sinners
to HEAR in order to be justified before God (they do not need to hear about
election, conditional or unconditional to be justified before God).
However, this text is not applicable to
those who characteristically preach justification by grace without works.
VI. The Value
of Objective truth as the Primary test of Gospel preaching
The value of Galatians 1:6-9 is that it provides the believer with a
very important principle. It provides an easy objective test that may be
applied to all gospel presentations and professions. It draws a clear line
between the true and false gospel and true and false professions that is easy
to see. That line is the TRUTH of grace. This line is stated clearly in the
book of Romans where Paul also defends the gospel of grace against the gospel
of works:
“And if it be of grace then it is not more works; otherwise grace is no
more grace; and it be of works then it is no more of grace
otherwise work is no more work.” - Rom. 11:6
Here is an unambiguous easy definitive
line that anyone can use to discern a true gospel ministry and professions of
saving power. This is the primary and objective line of defense that the
Apostle lays down in Galatians 1:6-9 (“from the GRACE of Christ unto another
gospel”).
Here is the crux of our problem with some in regard to this passage. Instead of accepting this simple and uncomplicated objective truth as the primary standard or test, they instead, complicate and confuse the matter by redefining this apostolic line in subjective terms and secondary standards. In so doing, what was intended to be easy and clear now becomes difficult and confusing. The focus is changed from objective truth to the profession and from definitive truth to mere common terminology. As long as the “form” of the gospel is being presented and professions of salvation are made then it does not matter what they mean or how they define common terminology both in their preaching and professions. This is one of Satan’s greatest deception and distortion of the gospel.
VII. What are Some Subjective Substitutes
Today?
A
very subtle attack upon this apostolic line of defense for the gospel is to
regulate it to a secondary status beneath subjective and experiential tests.
Some remove the test from the sphere of
THEOLOGICAL CONTENT & DEFINITION of grace to the sphere of CONSEQUENCES and/or
EXPERIENCES of grace (but the true gospel cannot always be discerned by such -
e.g. Noah’s preaching was without such results. On the other hand, the false
gospel does produce professions and experiences – Mt. 7:22-23). Some remove it from the DEFINITION of grace
to the TERMINOLOGY of grace (Every cult uses Biblical terms while denying the
Biblical definition). Some remove it from the PREACHING of grace to the POWER
of grace (External words can be objectively analyzed but internal power can be
either Divine or Satanic - 2 Thes. 2:9).
Whenever objective and primary truth is given a secondary status to subjective experiences and secondary standards, then the door of error is open and a heretic will walk through. Subjective evidence has its place but not as the primary test of truth. Let’s consider in more detail some subjective standards that some have attempted to make the primary test for defining true gospel preaching.
.EFFECTUAL POWER THEORY
Some would have us believe that the primary aim of Paul in Galatians 1:6-9 is to prove that the primary litmus test between the true and false gospel is “effectual power”.
Now, no one is
going to deny that effectual salvation is a product of the true gospel. However, the problem with this theory is that
the true gospel does not always produce salvation. In fact,
most of the time it does not produce salvation. How would anyone during
the days of Noah been able to test His ministry??? How would anyone during the
long ministry of Hudson Taylor in
However, the greatest argument against
this theory is that it would require omniscience to validate the gospel as only God is
capable of discerning whether or not the power of salvation has occurred within
the human heart. Paul is not writing
to omniscient ones but to finite ones. Hence, the test of the
gospel must be capable of finite application.
For example, the false gospel many times
has the outward appearance of effectual salvation and only omniscience
can discern the reality. Jesus claims that many condemned to hell will claim
him as “Lord” in the last day and give testimony of changed lives for his glory
(Mt. 7:21-23). Jesus said the Pharisees were outwardly spotless. Therefore a
changed life or a life of good works is not necessarily proof of salvation.
Moreover, not only is there an outward appearance of power, but such a gospel may come with the actual demonstration of effectual internal power as well.
“Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with ALL POWER....And for this cause God
shall send them STRONG delusion that
they should believe a lie” - 2 Thes. 2:9,11
The word “strong” translates a word that is used of the effectual power of the Holy Spirit in true believers and is translated “effectual” in Ephesians 3:7 (see also Eph. 3:20). Since inward “effectual” power can accompany both gospels, and since outward lives of religious piety can accompany both gospels, then, what on earth can be the final test of the true gospel? Isaiah 8:19-20 provides the Biblical response to this question.
Another problem with this theory is the fact that the words “effectual power” or “non-effectual power” are completely absent in this context. Paul uses the term “power” in Romans 1:17 where the context goes on to show the need of changed lives but He employs no such term in Galatians 1:7-9 where it is the doctrine of justification that is the primary subject of this epistle.
It must be kept in mind that Paul is not writing this epistle for the purpose to help them discern between true and false salvation but between true and false preaching of the gospel. It is the “preaching” of the gospel that is under consideration not the power of the gospel. It is the doctrine of justification that is under consideration rather than the experiential entrance into the state of justification. It is the content of the gospel that is being debated not the consequences. It is that which is being heard through preaching that is the object of this test not that which is experienced within. Paul is concerned with what they HEAR as he knows that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. He knows that the gospel has no power to save anyone apart from the objective truth of grace being communicated to the ears as what a man hears will determine what he believes and what he believes will determine His justification before God. This is the point of the book of Galatians.
GOSPEL TERMINOLOGY OR GOSPEL MEANING?
Some believe that a false preacher can
give a whole sermon dedicated to a false gospel and yet at the end of the
sermon by the use of salvation terminology turn his false gospel into a true
gospel. If someone is saved under such preaching the assumption of this theory
is that the gospel was proclaimed or else that person could not have been
saved.
For example, according to this theory, a Campbellite
preacher can spend his whole sermon defining that “whosoever believeth upon
him” in John 3:16 means to be baptized and do other goods works and IF some one
comes forward professing to be saved by
this preacher’s invitation to “believe” in Christ, then according to this
theory the true gospel was preached. This reduces the test of true gospel
preaching down to simple verbalization of any gospel text by any preacher for
any reason just as long as IF someone gets saved. This theory subtly shifts the
test of discerning the true gospel from the objective truth of grace to the
supposed profession of grace.
What are the errors of this theory? This theory errs in five distinct ways. First, it makes primary the PROFESSION of
salvation as proof of true gospel preaching (
Second, it fails to understand what is the subject of Galatians 1:6-9. God’s power in the HEARTS
of men is not the subject of Galatians 1:6-9. The subject of Galatians 1:6-9 is
how to determine what MEN PREACH TO THE EARS OF OTHER MEN.
Third, it confuses God’s work IN THE HEART of men with men’s
presentation to the EARS OF MEN. God can
overrule the distortions of men and use whatever Word is made available to deal
with the HEARTS of men? God says that he
actually changed the words in the mouth of Baalam the
false prophet so that Baalam blessed
Fourth, it is a grave error to assume
that simple quotation of Biblical language or a Biblical text is equal to
preaching the gospel. All “Christian” cults use such texts in their ministries.
They use the exact Biblical terms and texts we do but yet define them
differently. THE GOSPEL OF GRACE IS NOT
A MATTER OF TERMINOLOGY BUT A MATTER OF DEFINITION and presentation of specific
truth as substance. In Galatians
1:6, Paul does not say that the contents must merely use grace texts or
grace terms but the content must CHARACTERIZE the TRUTH of grace. The content and the intent of the preacher is under consideration in Galatians 1:6-9.
Fifth, this theory totally invalidates
Romans 11:6. Romans 11:6 denies that
grace and works can co-exist together.
But this theory transforms a message and exposition of justification by
works into a gospel of grace IF someone is saved during such preaching. This theory in essence makes a message of
justification by works the true gospel as long as someone professes salvation
under it or is genuinely saved under it in spite of the preacher’s intent and
definitions. It confuses the internal
working of God with the external workings of the human messenger. Such a false preacher may present the
true gospel in terminology while perverting it in meaning and explanation. God
can overrule the instrument and intended meaning and use the substance of His
Word to save but this does not mean that the instrument is a man of God or a
true gospel ministry or that he was preaching the true gospel. It is at this very point that the “power”
theory is dangerous as it would ascribe a true gospel ministry to any church or
preacher where people are saved or professing salvation. There are many saved within the Catholi church,
None but God can say for certain that
the POWER of the gospel has occurred within the heart. If it is replied that
every profession must be ultimately tested according to the Biblical doctrine
of grace, then, this is admission that the truth of grace is not only the
bottom line determiner between a true and false profession but also between a
true and false gospel. Case closed.
VIII. How Important is Eternal
Security to the Gospel Presentation?
Is it possible to present the gospel of
Christ without including the truth of eternal security? No it is not. I did not say that you must
include the terms “eternal security” as these terms are not found in the
Bible. I said you must present THE TRUTH of eternal security or you cannot
possibly preach the Gospel of Christ.
What is THE TRUTH of eternal security?
In Biblical language it is the truth expressed by the terms “eternal
life” and “saved.”
Eternal security is simply a synonym for “eternal life.”
Life is either temporal or eternal there are no other options. Any gospel
without the hope of eternal life is no gospel. Any salvation without eternal
life is no salvation. Any attempt to
define the terms “eternal life” apart from the truth of eternal security
perverts the gospel of Christ.
The conclusion of the gospel message is if
you repent and believe then you are SAVED! Eternal security is simply the
addition of “d”
to the term “save.” Now either you are “saved”
(grace) or you are trying to be (works) there is no in between. Any gospel without this “saved” conclusion is
no gospel at all. The Biblical terms
“justified without works” cannot be truthfully explained without expressing the
truth of eternal security. You are either justified without works (eternal
security) or by works there is no in between. The Biblical term “grace” cannot
be truthfully explained without teaching the truth of eternal security. You are either saved by unmerited favor or
you must merit it – there is no in between. Any attempt to define any of these
Biblical terms without expressing THE TRUTH of eternal security is false
doctrine and a distortion of the gospel of Christ.
When it is understood that the primary
purpose of the gospel is to present a sufficient Savior and a sufficient
salvation for the purpose to ETERNALLY save, then it will be recognized how
inseparable eternal security is from the gospel.
Can a person be saved that does not
understand the truth of eternal security? If the gospel must include this
truth then to some extent the hearer must believe in this truth in order to be
saved. To what extent?
The sinner must believe in this truth to the extent that they embrace
Christ as a SUFFICIENT Savior to completely SAVE them from their sins. The
sinner must understand that the gospel is the offer of ETERNAL life through
Jesus Christ.
The new believer may not understand these concepts fully nor may he
later be consistent with them in his theology but he must initially embrace
them to this extent for salvation. John
Some object and refer to I John 5:13 as
proof that a person does not need to understand the truth of eternal security
in order to be saved. However, this is
not the intent of I John 5:13. The
epistle of First John was written to provide certain well defined experiential
tests which would either confirm or deny that they were in possession of
eternal life. John was offering proofs for eternal life rather than
informing them of the existence of eternal life. This epistle has been used
in Baptist churches for years where every member knows about eternal security
but needs to know the evidences of it in their life so that they can make their
calling and election SURE.
Eternal security is the distinctive line
between the doctrines of justification without works and justification by
works. You cannot believe in justification WITHOUT works and deny the doctrine
of eternal security and neither can you believe in justification BY works and
accept the doctrine of etenal security. You cannot believe in the sufficiency of
Christ and deny eternal security nor can you deny the sufficiency of Christ and
accept the doctrine of eternal security.
Deny the doctrine of
eternal security and you remove any distinction between justification by grace
and justification by works. Deny eternal security and you deny any final
conclusion to the gospel that distinguishes it from justification by works.
Therefore, just as the bottom line between a true and a false gospel is
the truth of grace, the bottom line between grace and works is the truth of
eternal security. Eternal security is inseparable from grace as defined
in Scripture.
Today the earmark of all ministries that preach another gospel is denial of eternal security. This denial is the open assertion of justification by works as any denial of eternal security is based wholly upon the failure to produce good works.
Can you preach the gospel of Christ
without understanding or denying the truth of eternal security? Yes, and
there are many in this category. There are many who preach the sufficiency of
Christ in the simplest terms and yet in their minds have not connected what
they preach and what they experienced in their own salvation with the truth of
eternal security. When asked if they
believe in eternal
security there is usually a confused and uncertain reply that
indicates they are unsure and searching. They don’t deny it and usually inclined
to it but they are not sure of all that it means.
Can ministries that openly deny eternal
security be considered gospel ministries simply because people get saved under
them? No! Almost all “cults” use the
gospel verbiage while redefining the gospel terms. Do they preach the gospel
when they use the Biblical verbiage?
No! Why? Because the definitions
and explanations that characterize their ministry reveal their gospel
message. If people are saved, it is in
spite of them not because of them.
Seventh Day Adventists are an example of such a deceptive and perverted
gospel ministry. Often Seventh Day
Adventists will stress in their preaching that you are saved by trusting in
Christ by grace WITHOUT works but like the Roman Catholic verbiage such
statements are void of grace meaning and definition.
Balaam is a case in the Old Testament
where God changed the words in the mouth of the Prophet so that he could not
utter what he wanted. He wanted to curse
In conclusion, let me restate very clearly once again the significance
of the doctrine of eternal security in regard to justification in these words:
Just as the bottom line between a true and a false gospel is the truth
of grace, the bottom line between grace and works is the truth of eternal
security. Therefore the doctrine of eternal security is essential in
order to define grace and/or justification without works as neither can be
explained without eternal security being the conclusion of that explanation.
Denial of eternal security is essential to justification by works.
To preach that salvation is by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE by grace ALONE is the doctrine of eternal security. To believe that salvation is not by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE by grace ALONE is the doctrine of justification by works and the rejection of eternal security.
IX. Is the
Gospel perverted by those who deny unconditional election?
The question may be asked, “How can Galatians 1:6-9 be used to condemn preaching that denies grace in justification without also condemning those who deny grace in election?” One writer tries to make the two inseparable when he says concerning Galatians 1:6-9;
“This segment of scripture has
been used by some to try to show that those who do not believe in eternal
security of the believer or in unconditional election are preaching ‘another
gospel’ since man’s will has a place in those
theological systems. Those who don’t believe in eternal security may be said to
be holding on to salvation by their actions and those who don’t believe
in unconditional election may be said to have obtained salvation by
their actions.” - Ibid., Larry K. Gay, p. 11
Galatians 1:6-9 and the gospel deal with the doctrine of justification
and not the doctrine of election. Paul realized that what men PREACH determines
what men HEAR and what men HEAR determines whether or not they have a basis for
saving faith to occur. They must hear the doctrine of justification as this is
the only basis for saving faith. It is the doctrine of justification that Paul
is protecting in Galatians 1:6-9. A man can believe in the wrong doctrine of
election and still be saved but a man cannot believe in the wrong doctrine of
justification and be saved. Many preachers of the doctrine of unconditional
election were saved under men who taught election wrongly. How could this be if
one’s view of election determined the nature of the gospel message they
preach? The gospel presents the doctrine
of justification not election. Galatians deals with the doctrine of
justification and not election. Galatians 1:6-9 is designed to safe guard the
right view of justification not election.
Conditional election THEORETICALLY denies
grace in salvation but justification by works ACTUALLY prevents salvation by
grace. The gospel calls upon all sinners to CHOOSE life rather than to
determine what is the cause for making such a choice.
Moreover, the precise contextual application of Galatians 1:6-9 is toward those
that preach a gospel of justification by works rather than those who preach
conditional election. Justification before God does not depend upon one’s view
of election but rather one’s view of justification.
Therefore, it is an error in logic and in Biblical understanding to argue that if this text is applied to those who deny eternal security it therefore must also be applied to those who deny unconditional election. The denial of eternal security is the open proclamation of justification by works and that is a damnable doctrine.
X. The
Seriousness of this Debate?
How serious of an error is this “effectual” theory when applied to Galatians 1:6-9? It is very serious. Why? Because this theory would lead the listener to first consider “are people professing salvation” rather than “is the truth of salvation being presented.” Why is that so serious? If it is concluded that people are being saved then the assumption is that the true gospel is being preached. This is circle reasoning without a true basis. The error of this reasoning can be shown by simply asking the question:
“What saves a person, a profession or faith in the truth of the gospel?” or “does it make any differences what my profession is based on or in?
Does the profession of the joint Protestant and Catholic statement of faith mean salvation has occurred? The Roman Catholic, 7th Day Adventist and good Methodist can easily make this profession:
“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because
of Christ. Living faith active in love that is nothing less than the love of
Christ...” -p. 5
Should the professor be asked if he/she is saved by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone WITHOUT WORKS?????? Is such a definition of profession necessary for the day in which we live? Is it necessary to determine whether or not a church really believes in the gospel of grace??? To say no is to open pandora’s box to all sorts of confusion. Profession and experiences become the standard of a true gospel church and ministry rather than the truth of the gospel.
Another problem this backward approach creates is that it invalidates itself. It moves the line of discernment between the true and false gospel from the realm of objective truth to the realm of subjective standards and experience. Instead of objective doctrine, it is subjective power experienced within the heart that defines the true gospel. In so doing, it invalidates all practical use of this text for anyone less than omniscient as the heart is beyond the realm of human investigation and discernment. This is a fine test for God but Paul was not writing to gods but to men.
If it is argued that the subjective experience must be FIRST tested by objective truth, then, this is an admission that the primary and ultimate test is OBJECTIVE TRUTH rather than subjective “power” or profession or any other experience. If it is established first, that the true gospel was preached and believed in, then, these secondary tests follow as valid supporting tests. Reverse this order and unnecessary confusion is the result.
Conclusion
We have entered into that time the New
Testament predicted would be the great apostasy at the end of the age.
Evangelical Christianity has rejected the litmus test of “grace alone through faith alone
in Christ alone without works” as the ultimate test of true gospel
preaching and of a true gospel church.
When the objective truth of grace is replaced with subjective experiences and secondary standards as the primary test of TRUE gospel preaching, TRUE professions and TRUE experiences then the door to error has been opened and a heretic will walk through it.
Only a very clear and precise line can be narrow enough to keep the gospel pure. That narrow line is again spelled out clearly by Paul to the Romans:
“And if it be of grace then it is not more works; otherwise grace is no
more grace; and it be of works then it is no more of
grace otherwise work is no more work.” - Rom. 11:6
Even Reformed Protestants acknowledge that
this is the exact line they have used to distinguish between true and false
churches:
“The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone
in Christ alone has since the
Reformation been acknowledged by mainstream Protestants as ‘the article by
which the church stands or falls’ and the tenet that distinguishes a true
from a false church...” -
Resolutions for the Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue, pp. 28-29 -
emphasis mine
This bottom line has been the historical test which Baptists have put to all denominations and preachers of the gospel. Anyone who removes the objective truth of grace as the primary defining line of the gospel to a secondary status is not a friend of the truth.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [condemn him and separate yourselves from him]. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed [condemn him and separate yourselves from him]” - Gal. 1:8-9
Galatians 1:6-9 is applicable to any
ministry that characteristically defines its message to be anything
more or less than by grace alone through faith alone in
Christ alone without works. It is completely applicable to any ministry
that openly declares justification by works by either positive (gain salvation
by good works) or
negative assertion (loss of salvation because of bad works).