How Are We Made Part Of God's Salvation?

It may be thought that debates about what constitutes 'salvation' are just arguments for theologians in academia. However, as someone has rightly said, 'ideas have legs'.

That is, ideas don't just swan around in some academic ether but become embodied in preachers' hearts and minds, and in words and actions. Hence, members of congregations become affected.

Dispensationalism And Salvation

Dispensationalism has been defined in posts on my One People Of God blog¹ as a view taken of many Bible issues on a radical theological distinction between Israel and the Church. In short, two people of God exist: one earthly, Israel; and one heavenly, the Church.


An implication of the acceptance of this belief in a radical distinction between Israel and the Church is the associated idea of there being at two gospels: one for the Jewish people, and one for the Gentiles (and Jews) prepared to believe that Jesus is God's Son.

Dispensationalists base this claim about these two gospels on the fact that when Jesus Christ preached to the Jews, he spoke in terms of a 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23). Dispensationalists argue that that gospel is the good news that Messiah would come, end the kingdom oppressing the Jews (i.e., Rome in the first century after Christ), free the Jews from their enemies, and set up a Kingdom to rule over all the earth.

However, as we know that didn't happen! Israel rejected the Messiah and consorted with the Romans to put him to death by crucifixion.

According to dispensationalism, God then put his plans for liberation of Israel on hold -he postponed the preaching of the Kingdom- and ushered in the church age.

This new 'church' age has a different gospel associated with it: the 'gospel of grace' (e.g., Acts 20.24). Hence, the Christian church (according to dispensationalism) does not come under the banner of the 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23) or the 'gospel of God'. (The latter, it is said, was preached only to Israel (Jewry)). The Church comes under the gospel of 'free grace' and theology associated with this viewpoint is dubbed 'free grace theology'(FGT). This FGT then, is strongly linked with dispensationalism². 

How Is One Saved According To FGT?

To simplify the situation: the central principle all the FGT groups hold in common is that belief alone in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Now you may be saying, 'Well that's what I believe too and, furthermore, Acts 16.31, teaches that explicitly so what's the problem?'.

The issue that arises in response to the above question for those outside the FTG group is the one of obedience. The FGT group does not accept that obedience to the commandments of Christ is necessary for salvation. 

In other words, not only does FTG draw a sharp distinction between justification by faith alone and the work of sanctification in believers' hearts, it maintains that justification by faith is all that is required for ultimate salvation.

So, once a person has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved and do not have to do anything else to be saved. That includes anything in the future either; for to be saved means to be eternally saved.

Next time, we will examine the opposition to FGT which comes in the doctrine known as Lordship Salvation.


1. These posts are now also to be found exported to this blog too. See earlier months in this year for relevant titles. The posts are roughly in sequence.
2. However, not all dispensationalists are adherents of FGT. John MacArthur, a dispensationalist, is one of the strongest opponents of FGT.

The Priesthood Of All Believers

An understanding of the People of God as a priesthood of all believers derives from the New Testament. 

In 1 Peter 2.9-10 it says that C¹hurch is a 'chosen race' (ASV), 'a holy nation, a royal priesthood and a peculiar [a people who are his possession and therefore, a special] people'.²  In short, the Body¹ of Christ is a 'priesthood of believers' (see also Rev 1.6, 5.10, 20.6).

What Is The Nature Of This Priesthood?

Again in 1 Peter 2.9 we are told something of the implications of being part of this priesthood.

But ye³ are a chosen generation [race], a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people [a people of his possession]; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (KJV).

The phrase, 'that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light': gives us an indication of what the substance of this calling might be. 

Other translations of the word 'praises' in the phrase 'praises of him' are: 'virtues of the One' (Literal Trans. of the Holy Bible); 'excellencies' (Revised Version); 'excellences' (Young's Literal Trans.); 'excellent virtues of Him' (English Majority Text Version); 'wonderful deeds of the One' (International Standard Version); 'goodness of God' (New Living Trans.); 'goodness' (Twentieth Century New Testament); and 'demonstrate the goodness' (Phillips, paraphrase).

How Can We Fulfil This Calling? 

We are individually and corporately as the Church to erect signposts all over human life that direct 'travellers' (as it were), to the goodness and excellent virtues of God.

Jesus drew attention to the focal reason for his coming which was to do the Father's will (Jn 4.34, 5.30, 6.38; Heb 10.7-9). And in Acts 10.38, it records that Jesus 'went around doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil for God was with Him'.

The call to follow Jesus' lead and 'do good' is mentioned a number of times in the NT of which these are a sample (Matt 5.16; 2 Cor 9.8; Eph 2.8-10; Col 1.10; 2 Tim 3.17; Titus 3.1; Heb 10.24; 1 Peter 2.12).

Doing Good! What Is That?

Good works are to be done by those in Christ within the length and breadth of the created life in which God has placed us.

All legitimate occupations that are done from Sunday to Saturday are good works because they serve our neighbour⁴ in some way. When Christians act as husbands and wives, fulfilling these callings as unto the Lord, they are involved in good works. No less important are the callings of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and siblings who each contribute in their ways to the nurturing climate of families.

Christian households are especially important. So also is the workplace because most Christians spend most of their time, thought and energy at work. If you work as a teacher, your good work should be your teaching; if you work as a tradesman, then your good work is to be your workmanship within your trade; if as a labourer, then your labouring is to be your good work.

Usually, Christians are good workers but the question is, do we see our daily work as part of God's plan for loving (serving) our neighbours through our work? Do we understand all our work to be of the Spirit rather than 'just secular'.

No Christian's work should ever be 'secular' (i.e., working as if God does not exist) unless s/he has no vision of a unified life lived under the Lordship of Christ.

People Of The Way

The point I am making is further supported by the notion when we became Christians (Christ's followers) we entered into a new way of living life 24/7. Significantly, early Christ-followers were described as people of the 'Way' (Acts 9.2; 19.9, 23; 22.4; 24.14, 22). This 'Way' terminology referred to their manner-of-life or the-way-they-lived.

Our following of Christ is a 24/7 matter and 'whatever we do or say, we are to do it as unto the Lord' (Col 3.23), we are to do it 'in the name of the Lord' (Col 3.17).

Martin Luther tore up the Roman church's claim to be in a supernatural, 'spiritual realm' and therefore, not subject to civil government at all. Luther declared that the Scriptures made it abundantly clear that no occupation, no station in created life was inherently superior in spiritual terms than any other. In his words,

To call popes, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns, the religious class, but princes, lords, artizans [sic], and farm-workers the secular class, is a specious⁵ device invented by certain time-servers; . . . For all Christians whatsoever really and truly belong to the religious class, and there is no difference among them except insofar as they do different work . . . . The fact is that our baptism consecrates us all without exception, and makes us all priests. As St. Peter says, “You are a royal priesthood and a realm of priests,” [1 Pet. 2.9] and Revelation, “Thou hast made us priests and kings by Thy blood. [Rev. 5:9.] (Martin Luther, “An Appeal to the Ruling Class,” Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings, 407-408) [words in italics mine]. 

1. This uppercase C is to draw attention to the distinction between the CHURCH, the Body of Christ, the Universal Church of all ages; and the congregational-institutional Sunday structures we call churches. Of course, the latter have an important, central function: preaching the Word to an assembled congregation and administering the sacraments. The two estates are related but are by no means synonymous.
2. We should also note that these terms derive from the Old Testament being titles bestowed on Israel by its covenant God. See esp. Exod 19.5-6.
3. It is unfortunate that modern English no longer has different words to distinguish between the singular 'you' and the plural 'you' as is found in the KJV. 'Ye' in the KJV stands for the plural form of you.
4. The 'neighbour' is one who we meet in life's many situation and who needs our help. We are bidden by the second commandment to love the neighbour by an appropriate response to his/her need.
5. Luther's word (in translation) 'specious' means 'deceptively attractive but in fact wrong and incorrect. (Definition given is mine not Luther's.)

 

Hypocrisy and Grace

We've been watching a DVD series, South Riding¹, and it's got the usual Christian character who is held up for ridicule. He is judged harshly because he is a hypocrite. The character is a married, Methodist lay preacher -always fertile soil for Christophobia- who is committing adultery with a seductive, deceptive Delilah. He is conscience stricken about what he is doing but she can always bend him to her wishes.

But it got me thinking. Are Christians really more hypocritical than others as is often alleged and represented?

What is hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy is the sin of professing one thing but acting in a way inconsistent with that appearance. One writer has said, 'Hypocrisy is the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue.'

My simple point would be that all people are guilty of hypocrisy whether Christian or not because we are all tempted to present ourselves in a certain way which is contrary to what we truly are.

However, perhaps Christians are an easy group to hang upon this judgement of hypocrisy. All those who attempt to live by a code that calls them to moderate their actions so that their bare desires and lusts are not given preeminence over God's wishes for them will find it difficult to act consistently. Western societies in general are societies that cultivate the desire for sensation, pleasure and entertainment; hence, living in such societies does increase the ready access to the forbidden.

Perhaps Christians also are a 'soft' target because they are usually law-abiding people and commanded not to take revenge on their opponents but rather clothe and feed them if required (Prov 25.21-22; Matt 5.43-48; Rom 12.17-21).

This foregoing discussion raises the question of the grace of God because it's just possible that the presence of hypocrisy is directly connected to the grasp one has upon the teaching of grace.

Differences about the Grace of God 

C.S. Lewis went as far to declare that grace is what sets Christianity apart from all other religions. Yet as ever, we in this mortal, fallen existence have various 'schools' of opinion haggling over the action of grace in our lives.

Now you might not believe my next statement but at least four positions exist concerning the receiving of God's grace which have various disagreements even within themselves. (These brief summaries do not purport to sum up everything a particular view teaches.)

1. The classical Reformed (Calvinist) view is that we must repent of our sins and receive Christ as our Saviour by faith. Furthermore, we must become disciples of Christ and follow Him as Lord in order to be saved, so-called 'Lordship Salvation'. 

2. The 'Free Grace' group believes that all we have to do to be saved is to confess Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God has raised Him from the dead² (Rom 10.9). They draw most of their understanding from John's gospel account with its emphasis on believe/believing and from Paul's letters.

3. The 'evangelical Calvinists' believe that God has already extended his grace to all people without their needing to meet any conditions such as faith or repentance. (However, oddly this doesn't mean all will be saved.)

4. The Arminian view (stemming from Jacobus Arminius) is that all people receive 'prevenient' (preceding) grace that precedes the decisions made by hearers of the gospel message enabling³ them (but not coercing them) to respond positively.⁴

The Gospel of Grace

Despite all this disagreement, isn't it encouraging to know that you can be saved despite your faulty theological views? Salvation isn't based on the rightness of your knowledge about salvation as much as it is based on whether you have believed from the heart in Jesus as Saviour. (I for one hold that the people of God are found holding all these different views.)

The gospel is the good news about the God of grace, the God who showers his grace upon us in magnanimous variety. We don't deserve his grace but he gives it freely to us nonetheless. 

Pointedly, we deserved not his mercy but his wrath (Rom 5.9). Yet, God has sent His Son into the world to save us from the fundamental sin of our broken covenant with Him by dying for our sins and rising again to life in Palestine 2000 years ago. 
 
If I know grace to be God's initiative towards me to do me eternal good, how might that alter how I might view my own hypocritical failings? 

1. Set in Yorkshire in the fictitious South Riding, it is based rather on experiences related to the East Riding.
2. I went to a Brethren Sunday School in my primary school years and remember our singing a chorus about 'Romans 10 and 9'. It's now interesting to find out all these years later that the song related directly to this teaching about 'free grace'.
3. Contrariwise, Augustine much earlier (c. AD400) had a similar idea but for him 'prevenient' grace was irresistible.     
4. John Wesley held an Arminian view and hence, the Pentecostal Movement I was raised within was much dominated by it as Pentecostalism is a direct heir of Methodism's emphasis upon experience.