The Separation of Faith and Obedience is Anti-Gospel
“….faith is not faith until it does something”
While on sabbatical to write TTANC, Susan and I have been visiting Calvary Baptist Church in Xenia, Ohio pastored by David Conrad. By the way, our home used to be the building they worshiped in. Pastor David is preaching through the book of Romans, and 10:13-21 was on the plate for last Sunday. The focus of this post is verses 16 and 17:
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
What does it mean to obey the gospel? This is so simple that it is easy to miss: verse 16 could rightfully be restated as, But they have not believed the gospel. The apostle Paul first frames acceptance of the gospel via obedience, then he quotes Isaiah who frames acceptance of the gospel via belief: “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” Then Paul restates what Isaiah said in the context of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” Faith, belief, obedience—all the same. Obedience doesn’t come from faith or flow from faith, it is faith.
Let’s visit another passage that illustrates this. Christ said in John 3:36;
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Again, in this verse with two independent clauses linked by the same subject of eternal life, obedience and belief could be switched between the two clauses, or either one used for both.
Is this really that hard to understand? You can’t separate obedience and faith (the hindrance of sin will not be addressed in this post). Why? Because faith isn’t faith until it does something. What a pity that theologians have made the book of James so controversial in regard to the whole supposed works/faith issue. All James was saying is that faith isn’t faith until it does something:
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (James 2:20).
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works (James 2:22).
And what is the standard for the works of faith? What works? Again, James does not leave us without an answer:
But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing (James 1:25).
What about boasting? There isn’t any because faith is a gift from God. If God doesn’t grant it to us, we do not have it. But be sure of this: like all gifts, once one receives it—they own it. It is our faith, and we also own the obedience that is faith—it’s our obedience as well. And as James wrote, the blessings are in completing our faith with obedience to the truth (2:22). In the parable of the talents Christ warned against separating faith and works, calling those who do so “wicked, lazy servant[s].”
Christians can get in the middle of the Arminian/Calvinism fray if they want to, but both are guilty of distorting saving faith; both separate what is one, obedience and faith. Both brainwash our children with the faith alone mantra. Yes indeed, faith alone, but also obedience alone. You can obey the gospel or believe the gospel—pick one, they are both good. Say it anyway you want to; it’s all the same. Arminians separate the two by teaching faith alone without works. That’s simply not true. Once the gift is given, obedience comes with it. We are justified by the gift, but after that, faith works, or you don’t have it, or you are not working out what has been worked in.
The Reformed are a little more craftier in their damning lies. They concur with the proposition of this post, but in their endeavor to be the gatekeepers of God’s self-esteem, they devise complicated theological systems that make our faith and obedience Christ’s faith and obedience. No gift has really been granted, we are merely the prepositions of salvation. This comes from not only separating faith and obedience, or law/gospel, but then synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if there is no difference between the two, we must be sanctified the same way we are justified which is passive. Receiving a gift is passive, putting the gift to work is not. But if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, it’s all about receiving and no giving.
Even as an unbeliever I knew this truth intuitively—I think by the common grace of God. I was begged by an Arminian to just “say the prayer.” Bless his heart, when I wouldn’t, he wept. Better than a Reformed person who would have responded this way: “Oh well, just means you’re not chosen.” Of course, I wouldn’t have bought into that either. I wouldn’t profess because I knew I wasn’t willing to leave the old Paul behind. I still liked the old Paul. Even then, I wouldn’t have known how to word it, but I knew that there is no difference between faith and obedience.
Christ, the apostles, and the prophets used the two words interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. I wish we could pose a question to James: “James, can one be saved if he/she doesn’t understand that obedience and faith are the same thing?” Is love for God a requirement for saving faith? Ok, well, Christ said the following in John 14:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Then immediately following that statement He said:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper
Sure, we can’t do it without two “helpers,” Christ and the Holy Spirit, but I’m thinking with those two helping the job should get done! What kind of gospel displays a life that is no better than many others with both Christ and the Holy Spirit helping? But Michael Horton says that exerting our own effort in the process is trying to “be the gospel” rather than merely preaching the gospel. That’s a lie.
However, I have some truthful news for both Arminians and the Reformed alike. To the Arminian: No love for God—no salvation. To the Reformed: In your favorite Bible, the ESV, Christ called the Holy Spirit our “helper.” A helper doesn’t do it for us, they help. I thought you guys are educated? Even a child knows a helper helps and doesn’t do it all. And the fact that we do something in the process of sanctification is not “bad news.” Stop lying and start telling the truth for a change.
What faith is in regard to the gospel is obviously a critical question, and separating faith and obedience is a false gospel. The idea that obedience is optional or done by “Christ for us” is not the good news of salvation. True faith is a gift that we cannot earn, but once we have it, it is never without works, or it is not true faith—being alone. The devils merely believe only, and do tremble.
paul
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 1
“RL” is a New Calvinist and author. I am pleased to have this clarifying dialogue with him. I was going to write a review of a book he wrote on marriage which would have included some sensitive information. While obtaining his side of the story, which I believe to be the true side, an ability to work together in distinguishing doctrinal views was exhibited. Not only that, I have grown to like him personally. Why? Because he tells it like he sees it. Of course, it’s no secret that I disdain New Calvinist doctrine, but what I disdain more is nuanced doublespeak concerning doctrine. For crying out loud, if that’s what you believe—state it and let the chips fall where they may. No doubt, if I believe someone is trying to trick others into believing what they believe, it does become personal—I can’t respect that.
Here is what RL agreed to:
“Thanks. Actually I would like to just have an open discussion on marriage so that you can present the New Calvinist side. Q and A format. It would be posted on my blog–and I am primarily interested in a clear presentation of the New Calvinist side. You would then be welcome to address any comments that come in.”
Well, while we are at it, let’s just take this opportunity to learn more about New Calvinism. I look forward to several productive parts:
Q: Do you consider yourself to be a “New Calvinist”?
New Calvinism(ist) (hereafter NC) could be a very broad term. It’s sort of like saying,
“Are you reformed?” To some, that can speak of paedo-baptist practices; to some it is
soteriological, to some it is non-dispensational, etc. Can we get a working definition
of the NC concept and then go from there?
Q: Yes, one that would associate themselves with T4G, TGC, SGM and their general
tenants such as “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you”–ie., gospel-
driven this and gospel-centered that. Then we can cover some other specific tenets
from there.
Yes. I do believe the gospel that saves, also sanctifies. However, to suggest that the
term gospel is strictly limited to the doctrine of justification alone would be a
misnomer. Contextually, sometimes the term “gospel” refers to a God centered
perspective on the Christian life.
The gospel is a God centered declaration of both His glory and grace. Hence, because
of the “amazing grace” there is a sense of gratitude that compels/motivates our
sanctification. Simultaneously, because of the concurrent experience of glorifying
God, there is an inexpressible joy that also compels/motivates our sanctification.
“NC’s” are motivated by both glory and grace.
Q: So how is this experienced? Say I believe the NC package. Let’s say you are discipling
me day one. Where do I go from here?
Depending on the age, of course, of the individual, there is obviously a
contextualization discernment made as to where to begin. But, for argument’s sake,
we’ll say our new convert is 25 years old.
Initially, we’d direct them to begin reading Scripture (allowing the HS to renew their
mind before we begin to “reform” them) to begin familiarizing themselves with God.
Much along the lines of how Calvin puts things, “We must first know and understand
who and what God is before we can truly begin to know anything about ourselves…”
That being said, much of the confidence of the NC would derive from the perspicuity of
Scripture, as our new convert begins to read the story of redemption and allow the HS
to begin to teach him. Law and Gospel, we would say, underlies the believer’s new
life.
For some new believers, the realization of the necessity of regeneration is something
that is seen/learned, sooner than others. Such is why all Calvinists stress the theological
and sanctifying importance of how the Holy Spirit has overcome our depravity and, as
Jonathan Edwards penned so eloquently, “liberated the will” to once again please God.
Hence, there is an immense measure of grace that fuels the believer’s obedience once
they understand how enslaved they once were to their sin.
From there, we proceed to train/instruct the new believer as to how to go about living the
Christian life. We would explain to them that the Christian life is not about learning an
endless list of “do’s and don’ts” in order to gain “justifying” favor with God. Our
foundational emphasis for empowering the believer stems from the finished work of
Christ that has been applied to his life, that there is no longer any further “good works”
that are required in order to be justified. His sanctification, we would say, is being
empowered by the Gospel of glory and grace; of what God has done on his behalf and
the joy found in pleasing God.
The question then becomes, what must a Christian do in order to please God? Answer:
Find joy in Holiness. How is holiness defined? God’s word, as it becomes a reflection
of who and what God is. It is for holiness’ sake that we have been set free from our sin,
why we were justified, why we are sanctified and why, ultimately, God will glorify his
people. God has an undeniable prefixation with our being conformed into the image of
Christ, who is perfectly holy, something we have been destined to reflect for the rest of
eternity, beginning as soon as we have been justified sola fide.
That last answer covers some serious territory. Will resume with some questions tomorrow.
paul
Posted on My Facebook Wall by New Day Christian Ministries
Paul Dohse on New Calvinism. Paul is the Sheppard dog.
Interpretive Questions From a Visitor on Justification: Part 2
Dear visitor,
Your follow-up “questions” are copied below but I have decided to cut to the quick on this one. Along with another event that has transpired while working on the upcoming book, your correspondence has incited me to go ahead and address an issue regarding New Calvinism that I was going to address in the next volume.
Not only is New Calvinism the doctrine of the Australian Forum (COG), but Brinsmead’s doctrine was Reformed theology mixed with SDA theology; primarily, the Investigative Judgment. This taught that Justification had to be ongoing or God’s declaration that we are just is mere legal fiction. For years, SDA followers were in bondage to a system that required them to be fit for an upcoming judgment and found just according to the standard of the law.
After being influenced by an Anglican named Geoffrey Paxton, Brinsmead started the “Awakening” movement which taught that we stand in the judgment clothed with the righteousness of Christ and not our own. This was truly good news to the SDA folks. Only problem is, Christians don’t look toward a judgment, we have already been declared righteous; we look for glorification. However, your same concern with an ongoing justification can be seen clearly in your questions. The Forum’s COG (centrality of the objective gospel), like SDA theology, taught that sanctification was an ongoing higher state of justification, a progressive justification—just as New Calvinism teaches.
Therefore, I reject the premise of your questions and the either/or hermeneutic that is a necessity to employ because of your aforementioned views. This can be seen in the following statement:
“You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?”
Note that you consider our work in sanctification/regeneration as a justification issue. But according to orthodox Christianity, our work in sanctification has nothing to do with obtaining justification—that’s a once and for all-time done deal. Therefore, SDA influence can be clearly seen in COG theology and New Calvinism as well.
Furthermore, like the Forum, New Calvinism has a problem with infused righteousness/grace because that is seen as saying God enables us to participate in being justified. Again, a false concept of progressive justification and the synthesis of justification and sanctification is in view here. But clearly, based on 1John 3:9, there is an infusion of righteousness:
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.”
God’s righteous seed is not only in us, but it results in a new birth. Why this does not result in a perfect righteousness in the here and now can be ascertained by examining 1John as a whole and John 13.
Moreover, your condescending and subtle form of abuse can be seen in your correspondence as well, and is a primary reason that I am devoted to “The Truth About New Calvinism.” New Calvinist elders perpetrate this type of abuse (and worse) on parishioners daily. News of it is reported to this ministry often.
paul
Thank you for your answers to these questions, I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few more questions prompted by your answers. On question #1, you are correct. This is directly related to limited atonement thought I would prefer to refer to this doctrine as definite atonement or particular redemption. I am not sure why you don’t know know how to answer the question. It seems to me, Jesus either accomplished redemption, justification, propitiation, and reconciliation for his elect people or he didn’t. My question to you is whether there is an objective accomplishment of those works or not? Perhaps a better way to ask the question is do the Scriptures refer to that work as an accomplishment or a mere provision for anyone who might take advantage of it by faith but that didn’t accomplish these blessings for anyone in particular?
I agree that the Father and the Spirit cannot be excluded when we talk about the work of redemption but Jesus is the redeemer in terms of his sacrifice. Given that no sinner will be justified apart from faith, my question is whether that faith, even faith given by God, forms any part of the basis of the sinner’s justification.
You speak of God granting us faith but what relation does that gift have to the work of regeneration?
You seem to say that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is difficult to find in Scripture. Is that really what you intended to say?
You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?
I hope you understand what I am asking. Thank you again for your answers.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
10 comments