What it means to Pervert the Gospel of Christ
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,
“It seems clear that
ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) assumes that
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
“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
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
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
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
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!!!
However, the
basic Roman concept of infused grace in cooperation with human merit for
ultimate justification is not a concept restricted to just
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
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
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
“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
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
“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.
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
“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
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.
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
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:
In post-exilic times the ḥerem
as a war measure against idolaters no longer found any application.
Nevertheless it was employed as a means of ecclesiastical discipline to keep the community clear of
undesirable, semi-heathenish elements; and when the new constitution was to be
adopted for the new colony, those that would not participate in the assembly of
the children of the captivity, had, according to the counsel of the princes and
elders, all their substance devoted (A. V. "forfeited"), and were
themselves separated from the community (Ezra x. 8). Here the Ban, or ḥerem,
assumed a new meaning: it meant no longer destruction, but confiscation of goods, and excommunication—possibly
exposure to starvation
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 see Anathema and Ban. – Jewish
Encyclopedia
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
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
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
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
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).