Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Our nation has been somewhat shocked and, perhaps, sobered by the news report of the death of over nine hundred people in Guyana. Following the murder of Representative Leo J. Ryan, a Democrat from California, Jim Jones led his people in the commission of mass suicide. The newsreels have shown the mass self-murder victims; the papers have given a tremendous amount of space to this event. Undoubtedly, it will be the major news story of the year.

So far as I have been able to piece together, the story of Jim Jones and his group may be briefly summarized as follows. Jim Jones began a rather respectable (in the eyes of the world) religious group in Indianapolis. Because of “persecution,” he left Indianapolis with about 120 followers to establish the People’s Temple in California. For several years, he worked in California primarily ministering to the blacks and underprivileged. During this time, he rubbed shoulders with some of the well known political figures in California. When things happened which did not please Jones in California, he started a colony in Guyana. During the course of this time, Jones became paranoid and tyrannical in his control over his religious sect. Mass suicides were rehearsed periodically. When Ryan was murdered after his investigation of the sect, the whole colony (with the exception of a few survivors) committed suicide by drinking cyanide poisoning mixed with Kool-aid. The death total reached 914.

In thinking of this horrible event, let us try to assess what happened in light of the Scriptures and remember some of the lessons revealed therein. Let us glean what good we can from these stark events.

Lessons Which We Need To Be Reminded Of

1. Call no man “lord. ” We need to be reminded of the dangers of following any man religiously from what has happened in Jonestown. Even the most dedicated and zealous of men can be wrong. Their thinking can become distorted to lead hundreds, yea even thousands, of people into error. If the people in Jonestown had realized that no man had authority over them to the degree that Jones exercised, they would not be dead at this time. They would not have administered cyanide poison to their infants.

Hence, we need to be reminded that there is but “one Lord” (Eph. 4:5). Jesus said, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master; even Christ” (Matt. 23:810). Although we have used these verses to teach the sinfulness of wearing religious titles (a legitimate usage of the passage), a more important point to be observed is that only God has the right to command men what to do.

The difference between the Pope, a council or synod, and Jim Jones is only in regard to what they command their followers to do. All of them assume a position of authority (to legislate to man) which has not been given to them. Indeed, we need to be reminded that all authority belongs to Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18).

2. One church is not just as good as another. For many years, denominationalists have been preaching that one church is as good as another. Indeed, anyone who has the audacity to teach the oneness of the church (Eph. 4:4), is considered to be some kind of narrow-minded, bigoted idiot. Yet, the naked truth was driven home with force as secular newsmen and political commentators alike could see that this was not a “good” church.

Yet, Jim Jones’ church has just as much authority for being in existence as does Joseph Smith’s, Martin Luther’s, John Wesley’s, or John Calvin’s. He had just as much authority for making rules for his members – yes, even the rule of mass suicide – as does any one of these above-mentioned men or the councils and synods which presently govern these bodies started by these men. They legislate spiritual laws for their members, although Jones had just as much authority to demand his followers to commit suicide as the United Presbyterian Church had for demanding its followers accept homosexuals as priests. Jones had just as much authority to demand his followers to commit suicide as the Roman Catholic Church has to legislate regarding birth control, eating meats, forbidding priests the right to marry, and a host of other pernicious doctrines.

We need to remember, from the lesson at Jonestown, that one church is not just as good as another. Christ built His church (Matt. 16:16). He built but one church (Eph. 4:4). The church which He built is governed by Him as its Head (Eph. 1:22-23). There is no human denomination, planned by men, built by men, and governed by men which is as good as the church which God planned, Jesus built, and continues to govern! Whereas it is true that one human denomination is just as good as any other human denomination, no human denomination is as good as the church built by Christ. One church is not as good as another.

In a day when some Christian men are wanting to court denominationalism, Christians need to be reminded of the sinfulness of religious denominationalism. It is condemned of God (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Churches which wear human names, follow human creeds and men, practice things not authorized in the Scriptures, and other similar departures from God’s revealed word are disapproved of God. Men cannot be saved while associated with them.

The doctrines taught by these groups will damn men souls in eternity and, frequently, destroy their lives while on this earth beneath. The ways revealed in the word of God must be understood to be the only ways which have the “promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8).

3. The body is devoted to the service of God. The mass suicide of 914 souls is hard to comprehend. I cannot imagine hundreds of people thinking that they are best serving God by murdering their babies and themselves. Yet, this is what happened in Guyana. Christians need to be reminded of the truth of God’s word regarding their bodies.

First of all, I need to be reminded that my fleshly body is not inherently sinful. Some, having so concluded, believe that its passions are to be indulged or that asceticism is the means of controlling this sinful body. Both views are wrong. My body was created by God. Its desires are not inherently sinful; every desire that my body has can be legitimately fulfilled without transgressing god’s word. What has happened is that Satan uses the body as a means of persuading men to sin.

Secondly, I need to remember that nothing is to control my body. “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor. 6:12). Anything which enslaves my body is sinful.

Thirdly, I need to remember that my body has been purchased by Christ. “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Inasmuch as my body belongs to Christ, He is the one who determines how it is to be used. My body is to be presented as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2) wholly dedicated to His service. Whatever He commands me to do with my body is what must be done with it.

Fourthly, I need to remember that my body will be raised up in the last days (1 Cor. 6:14). The Bible teaches a bodily resurrection. This doctrine is altogether undesirable to some present-day eastern religions and first century gnosticism which religions had the hope of a release of the spirit from the body. Christianity, however, teaches the resurrection of the body.

Remembering these doctrines taught in the Bible regarding the body, we cannot hold in high esteem those who wilfully destroy their bodies. There is nothing glorious in suicide, under any circumstances. Any person who holds such a low view of his body as to be willing to destroy it, has departed from following the revealed will of God.

4. “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). The lesson that the blind followers of blind guides will be equally destroyed can be clearly seen from the events at Jonestown. Jones not only hurt himself, he took others with him into hell.

For years, Catholics have been teaching blind obedience to their spiritual leaders. Here are some quotations from Catholics which demonstrate this dogma:

“There is only one remedy for this evil (over scrupulous conscience – SGD), and that remedy is absolute and blind obedience to a prudent director. Choose one consult him as often as you desire, but do not leave him for another. Then submit punctiliously to his direction. His conscience must be yours for the time being. And if you should err in following him, God will hold him, and not you responsible” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 24).

“Once he does so (enters the church – RJM), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern at the door” (Ibid., p. 76).

“Obey blindly, that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor . . . In a word, keep before your eyes this great rule, that in obeying your confessor you obey God. Force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey him you are secure” (Liguori, Spouse of Christ, p. 161).

(These quotations are taken from Handbook of Religious Quotations, edited by Samuel G. Dawson and Rod MacArthur, pp. 43-44.) This position which is taught by Catholics regarding their members’ responsibilities to obey implicitly their leaders is exactly the kind of obedience which led to the death of 914 people in Jonestown. We simply must remember that one has a responsibility to find out whether or not what his teacher is teaching him is the truth. If a man follows a false teacher in his damnable doctrines, his would will be damned, according to Jesus.

Despite the fact that we can see this so clearly with reference to the people in Jonestown and with reference to the Catholics, some cannot see the ‘same thing with reference to problems among us. There are some who are teaching that those who blindly follow their leaders into using instrumental music in worship, participating in the sponsoring church arrangements, supporting recreational activities from the church treasury, and other such false doctrines will not suffer the consequence of their sins. They teach that if one openly and rebelliously participates in these sins that he can lose his soul. Yet, if he ignorantly commits these sins, the grace of God forgives him of that sin automatically. If this works for some people, it should work for all people. Will the grace of God automaticaliy forgive those responsible people who followed Jim Jones in Jonestown? Will the grace of God automatically forgive those Catholics who blindly and ignorantly follow their leaders? If not, by what authority does one teach that those who blindly and ignorantly follow their teachers into the sins committed with reference to the sponsoring church, church sponsored recreation, and other sins will receive automatic forgiveness?

Brethren, we simply must manifest confidence in the statement of Jesus. He said, “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). The blind followers of blind guides are just as lost as are the blind guides. They need salvation! That is why it is so important that we reach them with the truth of God’s word.

Conclusion

Perhaps there are several other lessons which we need to learn from Jonestown which I have overlooked. However, these lessons are so blatantly obvious that all of us need to learn from what happened there this points that we might never forget our responsibility to obey the Lord’s commandments.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, pp. 51-53
January 18, 1979

By William V. Beasley

Do you have eternal life? This is something that we can know (I John 5:13). It is something that each of us should be striving to know. To know, yea, means a hope of heaven when this life is over. To know, nay, means hell as long as we remain in that condition. Let us continue our study of 1 John that we may know concerning our eternal salvation.

“Prove The Spirits” (1 John 4:1-3)

“Beloved, be not believing every spirit but (ever) be testing out the spirits whether they are from God, because many pseudo-prophets are gone out into the world” (4:1, R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of Peter, John, Jude, p. 484). All Christians have the responsibility to “ever be testing out the spirits.” This is not reserved for the elders, deacons, preachers -or even for George (“Let George do it”). What “spirit” are we testing? It is not the speaking of the Holy Spirit (a part of the God-hood), but of the “spirit” within a man. The warning is about false, pseudo prophets (these have a spirit in them). Is the prophet abiding in the Son? Father? Is God’s word (seed) abiding in the man? This proving is a continuous process (re-read Lenski’s translation). Those who preach truth may begin to preach error. All false teachers teach some truth.

John tells us (4:2-3) how we “prove” the spirits, but there is more in these verses than is apparent with a hasty reading. It is not speaking of a simple verbalization, “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” After having given (by our count) some 18 or 19 things to know one has eternal life this “seven word salvation” would be completely out of place. We test, try, prove by considering a man’s confession; we cannot see his heart. A man’s confession is made not by his lips alone, but also by all his actions. It is a confession (profession) by word and deed that Jesus Christ is personally Lord (Ruler) and Savior. We are to be, as it were, fruit inspectors (Matt. 7:16, 20). Unless the confession is correct, the heart cannot be.

John did not object to negative teaching: “Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God. . . ” (4:3). “Confesseth not” is a stronger and broader term than “denieth” (2:23). One is a negative action; the other is the lack of a positive action. We must be confessing Jesus Christ in our lives. People can, yea must, see Him in us (Gal. 2:20; Matt. 5:16). The marginal reading in the ASV for “confesseth not” is “annulleth Jesus.” We can annul Jesus in a great many ways other than by verbalizing, “Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh.” Any and all refusals to obey are an annulment of His Lordship in our lives. Our lives may, indeed, disagree with what we say (Luke 6:46).

“Overcome” False Prophets (1 John 4:4-5)

To “know that ye have eternal life” you must overcome the false prophets, the servants of the Devil, “he that is in the world” (4:4). We have at our disposal the “greater” One (James 4:7-8; Phil. 4:13). The false prophets are “of the world” (4:5) and can attract the world(ly). We must have a love of truth (2 Thess. 2:11), be spiritually minded (1 Cor. 2:4) and set to stop the mouths of false prophets (Tit. 1:10-I 1). Beloved, we cannot stop the mouths of false prophets while we play `footsie” with them. When someone goes astray we are wont to ask, “How could this happen?” The answer is apparent: They were of the world for the “world heareth” (4:5) the false prophets (see John 8:47). They lacked a love for the truth.

Respect Apostolic Authority (1 John 4:6)

Today we hear such things as, “Well, the apostles were just men,” “That was only Paul’s opinion and Paul was a woman hater” or “We do many things for which we have no authority.” Jesus taught that the words of the apostles were authoritative (Luke 10:16) and John re-affirmed that authority: “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (4:6). The apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-13), wrote scripture (2 Pet. 3:14-16). The “spirit of truth” is in the man who goes to the apostles (New Testament) for authority; the “spirit of error” sees no need for such “legalism.”

Conclusion

Do you know you have eternal life? Are you ever testing the spirits? Are you daily confessing Christ in your life? Are other people constrained by your life to “glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16)? Have you overcome (overcoming) the false prophets? Do you respect (obey, abide in) the apostolic authority? Does your life set forth the “spirit of truth?”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, p. 50
January 18, 1979

By Irvin Himmel

Frequently Paul mentions works or deeds in his epistle to the saints at Rome. Whatever he means by “works,” the term expresses something opposed to grace and faith. He insists that justification does not find its source, in works.

Let us take a look at some of his statements In chapters 3, 4, 9, and 11 in this connection.

“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (3:20).

This remark comes at the conclusion of a series of Old Testament quotations designed to show the Jew that he stood convicted of sin by the law in which he took so much pride. He could not keep the law without sin. When he sinned, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away his sins (Heb. 10:4), -so he became guilty before God. Consequently, no one could be justified in God’s sight by the deeds or works of the law. For this reason, the righteousness or justification offered by God, witnessed by the law and the prophets, is manifested apart from the law.

Works and Boasting

“Where !s boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (3:27, 28).

If a Jew had lived sinlessly under the law, he could have boasted of his accomplishment. He would have been justified by his human perfection, therefore by the law of works (his own spotless deeds) boasting would follow logically. However, no Jew attained such sinless perfection. The law made its subjects keenly conscious of guilt by pronouncing a curse on them. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. 3:10).

Justification comes through the channel of submissive faith, not by works of merit. This forever excludes human boasting about one’s salvation. The law of faith rules out glorying. Justification by faith shuts out the deeds of the law.

Abraham’s justification

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (4:2, 3).

The case of Abraham illustrates Paul’s point. The Jews took pride in being the fleshly offspring of Abraham. Whatever facts about Abraham might be recited, the interest of the Jewish reader would be aroused. Abraham was not justified by the law of works. God did not count him righteous on the basis of human accomplishments or deeds of merit. The great patriarch’s faith in God, demonstrated in obedience, was the foundation of his righteousness.

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (4: 4,5).

Anyone who relies on his own labors to recommend him to God is expecting reward from God as a matter of debt. But we frail humans can no more earn salvation than a cowboy can lift himself off the ground by pulling on his own bootstraps. We need help from heaven. God provides that assistance through grace. Our reward is based, therefore, on divine grace, not on divine indebtedness to mankind.

The expression “to him that worketh not” must be kept in its context. The working under consideration is that which is apart from grace and faith. Paul is not saying, “to him that obeyeth not.” He is describing the person who attempts to be saved by the law of works rather than the principle of faith. The one who “worketh not” in this passage is the individual who does not rely on his own deeds as if they could save without his showing faith in God, but recognizing his inability to merit God’s favor, he exercises faith which is counted for righteousness.

Human Perfection vs. Forgiveness

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (4:6, 7).

There are two possibilities relating to how man might be accepted before God: (1) by sinless deeds; (2) by forgiveness. The first of these possibilities would make grace needless and would allow human boasting. In the first three chapters of Romans, Paul showed the universal need for salvation by demonstrating the sinfulness of both Gentiles and Jews. This leaves the second possibility as man’s only hope. The quotation from David confirms what Paul has said already. Righteousness is imputed without works (apart from our trying to work or merit our way into acceptance) through the forgiveness of iniquities. The phrase “without works” does not mean without obedience to God. The contrast is not between faith (in the sense of mental assent) and obedient; the contrast is between faith (in the sense of submission) and works (in the sense of spotless deeds that would leave one without guilt).

God’s Purpose Not Built on Human Merit

In the Old Testament, it is clear that God made certain choices in working out the plan of redemption. He chose Isaac, not Ishmael, as the heir. He chose Jacob, not Esau. The choice was made before Jacob and Esau were born,

. . . that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”(9:11).

Abraham and Sarah worked up a plan to try to help God. Ishmael was born. God was not impressed with their little scheme. His purpose does not rest on such works. He made a determination relating to Jacob and Esau before they were born. The eternal purpose of God reflects His own will. Human works or actions are not the source of the scheme of redemption.

Jews Relied on Works

God’s gracious plan includes both Jews and Gentiles. Although the Jews had the law of Moses to tutor them in preparation for the gospel, the Gentiles proved to be more receptive to the offer of forgiveness.

“But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law” (9:31, 32).

Moses’ law was “the law of righteousness.” At the same time it was “the ministration of death” (2 Cor. 3:7). It brought death and condemnation by pronouncing a curse on all who fell short. It was righteous within itself, and it was designed to bring true righteousness by pointing the Jews to Christ (Ram. 10:4). But they tried to attain justification by the deeds of the law (which they could not keep) apart from Christ. So they were seeking righteousness, not by faith in Christ, the fulfillment of the law, but by the works of the law, which works could have commended them to God only if they had kept them to perfection.

The vast majority of the Jews were lost because they were relying on the rites and ceremonies of -the law of Moses. A remnant remained “according to the election of grace.” This refers to the relatively few Jews who were willing to follow the Messiah.

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But (f it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work” (11:6).

The “election” is the way of salvation: This is by grace, not by works. Again, the word “works” does not refer to obedience to the Messiah, but rather the deeds of the law, or such works as provide room for boasting. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9).

Paul Upholds Obedience

Having surveyed “works” in the book of Romans, let it be noted that all these deeds which Paul excludes from our justification stand opposed to grace and faith. In this same epistle Paul acknowledges that “obedience to the faith among all nations” (1:5) was the grand object of his receiving grace and apostleship. Obedience is the companion of grace and faith. It is through faith expressed in humble obedience to Jesus Christ that we receive what is made possible by grace.

The apostle taught in 9:9, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Confessing with the mouth is essential to salvation. It is an action required of man. It is a part of justification by the principle of faith.

In the same letter the apostle taught that we are “baptized into Jesus Christ.” We are buried in baptism then raised to walk in newness of life (6:3-5). This is included in our obeying from the heart to be made free from sin (6:17). Baptism, like confessing with the mouth, is a part of justification by faith. It is something that man must do, but it leaves no room for boasting. No one earns forgiveness by believing, confessing Jesus, and being baptized. The law of faith demands submission through these acts to receive what is freely provided by grace.

Confession and baptism do not belong to the “law of works.” Paul never referred to the requirements of the gospel as works of which we could boast, nor did he put confession and baptism in the category of deeds opposed to grace and faith. The “works” excluded from the plan of salvation are not to be confused with faith which works (Gal. 5:6) in response to the grace of God.

Paul and James

Some imagine that James contradicts Paul on the subject of works. This is not the case at all. James speaks of “works” in a different sense. He refers to “works” as they express faith, whereas Paul speaks of “works” that stand in opposition to the law of faith. James asks, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save them?” He proceeds to give a number of illustrations to show that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17-26).

Just as Paul used Abraham to demonstrate man’s inability to be justified by his own deeds without faith, James used the case of Abraham to show how faith blesses through works. He concludes, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Paul showed that human deeds, works of merit, are not the ground of justification; he affirmed that we are saved by grace through faith apart from accomplishments that would earn favor with God. James showed that saving faith is an active faith. We are justified by faith, but not a dead faith. Faith must work to avail. Therefore, we are justified by works in the sense of obedience.

Paul wrote about “works” in one category; James, about “works” in a different category. The teaching of one is in perfect harmony with the teaching of the other. Men have problems because they take their statements out of context, or else they attempt to make these statements crutches for some humanly-devised system of theology.

QUESTIONS

• What must the Jew have done if he were to boast of his own justification?
• Why was Paul’s use of Abraham especially appropriate for Jewish readers?
• Upon what is the reward based when we are justified by obedient faith?
• What is meant in Scripture by “worketh not”?
• David explained what is meant for God to impute “righteousness without works.” What did David say?
• Since God chose Isaac not Ishmael, and Jacob not Esau, in his use of the Jewish nation we know His purpose or choice in a plan for salvation is not based upon what?
• After the coming of Christ, what is the only way that the Law of Moses could have saved someone?
• Who among the Jews were the elect according to grace?
• What is the companion of grace and faith?
• Compare the use which Paul and James make of Abraham in explaining how we are justified.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 2, pp. 43-45
January 11, 1979

By Daniel H. King

The Historical Roots of the Problem

Martin Luther, in his zeal to undermine and cast down the indulgence and merit systems of the Catholic church, fell prey to an oft-repeated fault. He went to the opposite extreme. Fearfully running away from Rome, he ran all the way past Jerusalem. Throughout the lectures which he presented on the book of Romans (1515-1516), he insisted that it is faith alone that justifies and that faith is by nature a passive affair. To him faith meant “a living trust of the heart.” It could not be an active thing, for were it so, it would involve a work of righteousness and that is impossible for man: “All our good is outside us, and that good is in Christ” (p. 267). Faith cannot count as a good work. Faith only comes in because this good, that is, righteousness apart from works, is imputed to believers (p. 36). On the other hand, good works can be done only as works of faith “done out of the spirit of liberty and solely for the love of God” (p. 234). Thus, it is through faith in Christ that we are made righteous for the performance of works of righteousness.

This concept as promulgated and promoted by Luther and Lutherans, has infiltrated the ranks of almost every modern Protestant body through their founders and creeds. It became crystalized in the Lutheran confession of Augsburg (1530) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and passed from these to others. The latter document in questions 60 and 61 deals with faith in the following manner:

Q: How are you righteous before God?

A: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. In spite of the fact that my conscience accuses me that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have not kept any one of them, and that I am still ever prone to all that is evil, nevertheless, God, without any merit of my own, out of pure grace, grants me the benefits of the perfect expiation of Christ, imputing to me his righteousness and holiness as if I had never committed a single sin or had ever been sinful, having fulfilled myself all the obedience which Christ has carried out for me, if only I accept such favor with a trusting heart . . . .

Q: Why do you say that you are righteous by faith alone?

A: Not because I please God by virtue of the worthiness of my faith, but because the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ alone are my righteousness before God, and because I can accept it and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone . . . .

Under the first question, the inaugurators of the Catechism (Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus) offered seven citations from the book of Romans. There is therefore little doubt as to the importance of Paul’s letter for this approach to the concept of faith. Moreover, it stems in very large measure (if not entirely) from Luther’s dichotomy between faith and works which portrayed faith as passivity and works as activity. But as we intend to show, this doctrine bears no resemblance at all to Paul’s concept of “faith in Jesus Christ” versus “the works of the law of Moses.” Rather it reflects the issues of the sixteenth century A. D., e.g. the battle between Luther and the Catholic hierarchy. When seen in this light, there is little difficulty in understanding either what Paul meant in his epistle or the pirating of the letter’s words by the Wittenberg scholar arid those who have succeeded him.

Must Faith Be Passive To Be Faith?

Perhaps the question that heads this section is the wrong one to ask. For wherever the Bible mentions passive and inactive faith, it condemns it. The dissertation of James in chapter 2 came out so strongely on the subject that it led Luther to label it “a right strawey epistle,” saying that “there is not much of the gospel in it.” With the heavy emphasis upon activity in faith in the letter to the Hebrews, especially chapter 11, he treated that book the same way. For Luther, Romans was “the chief part of the New Testament and the very purist Gospel.” It causes us to wonder when we read modern authors who endeavor to justify what they call “Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone” and the teachings found in James and Hebrews. At least Luther was candid! As a matter of fact it is not possible to make those two views complementary. They are as different as day and night and contradict one another as clearly as do capitalism and communism. But I would never identify the “doctrine of justification by faith alone” as Paul’s. It is Luther’s doctrine and he should be credited with it and discredited by it! Paul never authored any such doctrine. The Bible does not contradict itself; Paul does not contradict James; but Luther and his spiritual heirs contradict both.

Let me begin by going to the Old Testament and looking at faith in that body of literature. For it is certain that Paul used a word and a concept that was well-known and muchused in the scriptures of the prophets. There, if a writer has reference to some requirement made by God upon man, then if the term “faith” is used in such a context, it clearly intends both the acknowledgement of the requirement and man’s obedience (Deut. 9:23; Ps. 119:66; 2 Kgs. 17:14). And it was out of that context that Paul penned his Roman letter. As a matter of fact, the passage which represents the cornerstone of Paul’s argument as well as the introduction to the theme of the letter (Rom. 1:16-17), has as its Old Testament basis the divine remark recorded in Habakkuk 2:4. Plainly, that passage has reference to “faithfulness” and not just “belief” or even “trust.” The footnote to the RSV of that text offers this meaning for the word. This puts a whole new slant on the Pauline usage, since the idea of “faithfulness” in every way demands activity and withstands the connotation of passivity. Habakkuk is in his book announcing impending and imminent doom for Israel, whereas God allows that only those who remain patient and faithful will live through that crisis. Moreover, it is through their steadfastness and faithfulness that they will live. Utter and total belief in, dependence upon, and faithfulness to God are all embraced within the divine demand. To suggest that he intended anything less is simply out of the question. And to say that Paul gave the concept any different intention is just as much so.

A second observation needs to be explored as we consider the Old’ Testament background of Paul’s use of the term. This is the little-appreciated fact that in the Old Testament “to believe” was one of the works of the Jewish law (Ex. 14:31; Num. 14:11; 20:12; Deut. 1:32; 9:23;).

Once more, this gives us a different perspective for seeing Paul’s meaning clearly. How can it be viewed as purely a passive thing for man when it was indisputably seen as an activity under the law? Obviously it can not. What is more, that point could not have been made any more clearly than it is in Rom. 4:4-5 where the apostle uses the Greek word pistil with the meaning of “faithfulness” or “fidelity.” It is explicitly implied here that Abraham at an advanced age had sexual intercourse with his aged wife with a view toward the conception of a son in fulfillment of God’s promise. He was not passive but active. “He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.. .” (Vs. 19).

It appears very odd, to me at least, based upon the preceding and the implications which necessarily follow, that Luther’s approach to the concept of faith in Romans has any modern adherants at all. Nevertheless, all are aware that it does and in very large numbers. Yet it is interesting that modernists are fairly outspoken in rejecting the Lutheran interpetation of Paul. For instance, the liberal theologian Werner Georg Kummel in his book The Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1973) brazenly declared that, “faith in Paul’s sense is by no means adequately described therewith (acknowledgment of the Christian message). Faith in its actual nature is not intellectual acknowledgment of a state of affairs, but obedience . . . . Faith is the response of the man who has encountered in the preaching of the gospel the message of God’s saving action at the end of time which produces righteousness and who obediently embraces the grace of God which is offered in this message” (pp. 201-202). Rudolf Bultmann, just as forthrightly labeled it a “free act of obedience.” Futher, in his article on pisteuo in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. IV, p. 205) he said that ” `to believe’ is `to obey’ as in the Old Testament.”

In this case the modernists have shaken off the shackles of denominational tradition and orthodoxy and returned to the simple sense of the text. We could wish that we could encourage those with some conviction regarding the value of Scripture to do likewise.

Faith, Law, and Obedience

The word faith (pistis) is used with at least five different specific nuances in the New Testament. Interestingly, Paul utilizes the term in each one of these ways in the book of Romans: (1) Simple belief or mental acceptance of ‘historical facts’ (Rom. 10:17; and Heb. 11:1); (2) Trust or dependence upon another, i.e. God and His plans and ways (3:25); (3) Faithfulness or fidelity to a commitment or promise, either on the part of God (3:3; 10:6) or of man (9:30); (4) The body of doctrine which is believed (10:9); and, (5) Personal opinion in matters of indifference (14:1, 22). On the other hand, it is essential to recognize that the apostle has a specific idea in mind when he makes the declaration that “a man is justified by faith” (3:28; and 5:1). But how may we ascertain exactly which meaning or meanings he intends for his readers to understand? I would suggest the following considerations.

First, from a literary standpoint, two references in the book are of particular import: 1:5 and 16:26. There appears to be little doubt that these two passages were meant to act as and inclusio for the conceptions and doctrines which hinge upon a correct understanding of “faith” in the body of the book: “. . .through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith. . . ” (1:5), and “. . .the mystery. . .is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith . . .” (16:26). There is no question but that the intention of the Holy Spirit for the word pistil is “that obedience which is faith” at both of these openings. Here faith equals obedience and vice versa. In 1:8, Paul continues his thought by announcing that the pistis of the Romans is known throughout the world. Just as obviously he intends to refer to their adherance to the gospel, i.e., belief, trust, and fidelity. For in 16:19 he declares “your obedience is come abroad unto all men.” The two verses are exactly parallel and equivalent! In 1:12, he talks about the encouragement that their mutual faith would offer one another. He has the same idea in mind. Then he introduces his theme in 1:16-17: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is the power of God to everyone that believeth (to pisteuonti); to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, but the righteous shall live by faith.” Once more, the implication of the Habakkuk quotation (as we earlier pointed out) is that of obedient and steadfast belief and trust. It is everything except passive!

That sets the stage for Paul’s discussion of faith in Jesus Christ as a means of justification versus the Jewish attempt at reconciliation through observance of the Mosaic Torah or Law. And a proper evaluation of this discussion is critical for an appreciation of the whole purpose of Romans. To begin with, he uses the term “Law” (nomos) with and without a definite article giving it three basic significations: (1) The whole Jewish economy, as contrasted with Christianity. He uses it in this way when contrasting “law” and “grace”; (2) The moral law which any enlightened conscience would recognize, but especially as that moral system has been incorporated into the Mosaic code; and, (3) Most often he has reference to the Jewish Torah itself. Now in the book of Galatians he seems to condemn especially the ritual element of the Law being bound upon Christians, but in Romans (chapter seven especially) he refers to the “moral” element in the Torah (note his example in verse seven), denying both the ability of man to keep it perfectly and its ability to save. This is quite plainly the major polemic in Romans. Paul does not disparage faithful obedience to God, nor does he diminish the importance of obedience for the Christian life. Instead, he shows the utter impossibility df pleasing God through this system which had demonstrated its bankruptcy in the past and, for that reason, had been removed and thus offered no security even for the Jews (10:1-4) at that point in time.

The absolute necessity of obedience for faith to qualify as “saving faith” is given cogency by Paul’s following-up of the faith section of the epistle (3:21-5:2) with the pragmatic and practical section on service (chapter 6). The ideological center falls at 6:16-18: “Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the hearts to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.” Here belief and trust have brought about an obedient response to the divine gift of Jesus and the decrees that, when obeyed from the heart, bring one into that state of “freedom from sin” made accessible in the act of baptism (6:3-11). From that day forward, the person who has thus responded in faith must continue to act in faith by being a “servant of righteousness.” That was Paul’s intention for the Christians at Rqme and everywhere, as he intimates also at 15:18: “For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles . . . .”

Conclusion

Obedient faith is the only faith that has ever justified anyone. The book of Romans offers no salve for the consciences of those who walk in disobedience and no consolation for those who teach the false doctrine of “justification by faith alone.” “Faith” in that book implies a living, vibrant and active force in life which can under no circumstances be identified with passivity.

QUESTIONS

• How did Martin Luther define “faith” so as to exclude conditions of active obedience from salvation?
• Explain the difference between active and passive faith.
• Do the creeds of men teach that we are justified when we obey the gospel, or when we acknowledge and accept the Christ carried out all obedience for us?
• How did Martin Luther describe the book of James, and why?
• What Old Testament passage is quoted as a cornerstone of Paul’s argument (Rom. 1:16-17)?
• Did the faith by which Abraham was justified involve action in obedience or was it inactive and passive?
• Some modern scholars have made it clear that obedience is involved in the very definition of faith. Quote some of these statements.
• Give some passages in Romans that prove obedience is essential to true faith.
• How had the experience of both Jew and Gentile shown that law alone would not save?
• What had the saints at Rome obeyed, in order that they might become the servants of righteousness?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 2, pp. 41-43
January 11, 1979