5 Preaching Another Gospel The second reason Evangelicals attempt to label Mormonism a cult is that they differ with LDS teachings about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Viewing themselves as the modern heirs of historic Christianity, Evangelicals believe they are the ones who teach the original Gospel of Jesus Christ. They condemn Mormons for preaching a different Gospel from the one they teach, as if that were the same as teaching a different Gospel from the one taught by the early Apostles. In fact, however, it is Evangelicals who teach a gospel that only became popular during the Protestant Reformation and is indistinguishable from antinomianism (the heresy that behavior is unrelated to faith) ~a On many crucial points, in fact, the Evangelical gospel is still being debated among their own theologians today! Paul warned the early Galatians (Gal. 1:6-9): 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 unto you 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 unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The revealed nature of Mormonism is often criticized by Evangelicals because of this passage, but Galatians 1:8 does not condemn receipt of the Gospel from angels, the means by which it was taught to Joseph Smith. The language of that verse is meant to emphasize Paul’s point. Like Joseph Smith, Paul personally received the Gospel from heaven, not from his fellow mortals (Gal. 1:12). It is inconceivable that he believed an angel from heaven would actually preach a gospel different from the one he had received from the same source. What this passage requires is that teachers of the Gospel determine with certainty that they are teaching the same Gospel Paul taught. The teachings of the Apostles set the standard, not the teachings of the Protestant Reformation nor of modern theologians. This chapter will explore the basic difference between the Evangelical and the LDS Gospel, and demonstrate that it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that embraces the Gospel taught in the Bible. What Is The Gospel? Evangelicals teach that the Gospel consists entirely of the good news that Christ died, was buried, and has been resurrected.b The passage they cite in support of this position is 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (NASB): Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Verse 1 of this passage indicates that Paul had previously preached the Gospel to his Corinthian audience. They had received it, and were “standtingl” in it at the time this epistle was written. Verse 2, suggests that the good news Paul previously preached was the means by which the Corinthians were saved (if they remembered what he taught, and had not believed “in vain.”c) In verse 3, Paul says that what he delivered to them was “of first importance,” and what follows in verses 3 through 5 is certainly the first and most important aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These verses express two essential truths about Christ’s atonement: first, Christ died for Man’s sins, and second, He rose from the dead on the third day. Christ’s death for sins made possible salvation from spiritual death, while His resurrection provided salvation from physical death. (The mention of Christ’s burial and His appearances after the resurrection simply confirms the certainty of His death and gives percipient evidence that He arose.) Mormons also teach that Christ’s death and resurrection are the core of the Gospel. Joseph Smith said: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven: and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”d However, if the death and resurrection of Christ are the good news of first importance, there must also be good news of second importance. All of the gospel Paul taught was necessary for salvation, otherwise he would not have told the Corinthians to “keep in memory what I preached unto you” (I Cor. 15:2). It is not enough simply to comprehend the core of the Gospel. One must know how Men can be saved as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection. Otherwise, it does little good to know that those momentous events occurred. That the death and resurrection of Christ does not constitute the entirety of the Gospel message is confirmed by Christ’s own preaching in Mark 1:14-15 (NASB, emphasis added). Before He ever taught that He would die or rise from the dead, His message was recorded as follows: And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” The metaphor given by Christ in Matthew 12:40 appears to be the first time He referred to His pending death, burial, arid resurrection. The events described in Mark I occurred well before those described in Matthew 12. What then was “the gospel of God” which Christ asked the people to believe? The answer is in verse 15 (“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand”). It was the news that Messiah had come in fulfillment of the law and the prophets. This too was part of the momentous news from God that comprises the entire Gospel message to Man. Laws Or Ordinances In The Evangelical Gospel The entirety of the Gospel message is strictly curtailed in Evangelical theology by their belief that the Gospel contains no laws nor ordinanceS requiring human obedience. One expression of the Evangelical position is the following: The Third Article of Faith [of the LDS Churchl states: We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. There are, however, no laws and ordinances in the true gospel. Christ’s death for our sins, His burial and resurrection have nothing to do with man’s obedience.e Evangelicals cite a number of passages in support of this position, but none actually sustain their premise. They point to Ephesians 3:1-6, but that passage only says that the Gentiles participate in “his promise in Christ by the gospel .“ Galatians 5:1-6, in which Paul instructed the Galatians to “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” rather than practice circum-cision, is also cited, along with Romans 1:16, Paul’s declaration that the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation.” However, none of these passages gives any suggestion that the Gospel is without laws or ordinances. Evangelicals also claim that “if we add law again after being justified by Christ, then we are transgressing against God.”t This claim is a corollary to their basic premise stated above. Both misunderstandings stem from a failure to distinguish between law, in general, and the an’, meaning the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled and abrogated by Christ’s atonement (Heb. 7: 18-19; Acts 15:5-29). Consider Paul’s warning in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 (emphasis added): And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey’ not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: If “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” had no laws and ordinances, there would be nothing to “obey,” as required by Peter in this passage. Clearly, there are laws and ordinances in the Gospel, or there would be no reason to identify the punishment that awaits those who “obey not the gospel .“r The writer of Hebrews explains that a new and greater covenant was intended to replace the Law of Moses. The term covenant is an ancient legal concept. It is ~an agreement or promise to do or not to do a particular thing.”h To covenant means “to enter into a formal agreement; to bind oneself in contract.”’ The nature of a covenant is such that the promises of one party are conditioned upon performance by the other party of the obligations they have promised.i The use of this term in the Old and New Testaments confirms that God’s promise of salvation is conditioned upon Man’s obedience to the Gospel. The new covenant that the Lord promised in the Old Testament is the Gospel of the New Testament (Heb. 9:1145). Referring to that new covenant, Hebrews 8:10 (quoting Jer. 31:33, some emphasis added) promises: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: This passage speaks specifically of “laws.” If there were no laws in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there would be nothing to write into the minds and hearts of God’s people. In truth, there are mutual promises stated in this passage. Men must have God’s laws in their minds (an intellectual under-standing of His Gospel) and in their hearts (signifying a love for, and devotion to, Him and His gospel), if they expect to be His people and receive the benefits of having Him as their God. The fact that salvation is by grace (Eph. 2:8-9) does not negate the existence of laws and ordinances in the Gospel. Paul notes the relationship between the gift of God’s grace and the efficacy of law in Romans 3:31 (NASB): “Do we then nullify the Law [or, law] through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” It is certain that the Apostles never established the Law of Moses, so what Law is Paul referring to, if not the Law of the Gospel? If there were no laws in the Gospel, there would be no sin (Rom. 5:13). Sin is defined as the transgression of law (1 John 3:4). If there were no sin, there would be no necessity to warn Men against it. Christ and His Apostles wouldn’t have bothered to preach against sin, since there would be no such thing, and Satan’s temptations would be superfluous. It would be a waste of time to tempt believers into committing acts that are not sin (because they violate no laws). But this is not biblical reality. That the greatest call of the Bible is to repent proves unequivocally that the Gospel contains laws.k The Fulfillment And Abrogation Of The Law Of Moses Many passages cited by Evangelicals in their attempt to prove that there are no laws in the Gospel actually relate to the changes in God’s law that occurred when the Law of Moses was fulfilled by Christ’s great and last sacrifice. The Law of Moses was filled with symbolism intended to lead Israel to Christ, whose sacrifice would provide the means for their justification. When Christ came, the preparatory law, the Law of Moses, was replaced with the higher law of Faith (see Gal. 3:23-25). For many Jews, this was not an easy transition. Paul preached in Galatia against false teachings about the continued efficacy of the Law of Moses, specifically its requirement of circumcision (Gal. 2:1-14). The Galatians were then being confronted by false teachers who claimed that, to be saved, the Gentiles had to obey certain Mosaic requirements, especially circumcision (see Gal. 5:1-3). Paul taught against this misconception, explaining that salvation does not come by the “works of the law [of Moses]” (Gal. 2:16, brackets added); otherwise, God would have had Men obtain salvation through obedience to some law (e.g., the Law of Moses) instead of requiring the sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son (Gal. 2:21; 3:21). But Men are unable to live any law without making some mistakes. They have all sinned, and hence require a Savior (Gal. 3:22). Paul also explained that Abraham received the promise of salvation through faith in Christ (Gal. 3:7-9), quoting Habakkuk 2:4 (“the just shall live by his faith”) to prove that faith was the basis for salvation even in the Old Testament (Gal. 3:11). He noted that the Law of Moses was given 430 years after Abraham and was not intended to change the promise of salvation given to that great patriarch (Gal. 3:16-18). Instead, the Law of Moses was given “because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19). It established a strict standard and was intended to school Men in obedience so that they would be better prepared to live the law of faith in Christ (Gal. 3:24-26). Nothing in any of Paul’s teachings supports the Evangelical doctrine of salvation without obedience to law. The fact that no law is sufficient by itself to redeem Men does not mean that they will be saved without law, and the fact that the Law of Moses was fulfilled and abrogated does not mean that the Gospel has no laws. As stated in Romans 3:31, Paul established law. In fact he explained to the Galatians exactly what law he established in Galatians 5:19-25. That passage reiterates all the teachings of Christ, both sins of commission (Gal. 5:19-21), and sins of omission (Gal. 5:22-25). Clearly, when the schoolmaster (the Law of Moses) was done away (Gal. 3:24-25), God intended that Men should school themselves, not play hooky for the rest of eternity! No inspired writer has ever suggested that fulfillment of the Law of Moses left no laws in the Gospel. Though Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and freed Men from its burdensome requirements, He taught that true liberty is exercised through law, not without it (John 8:31-32). Likewise, though America is considered a free country, its freedom comes through law, not in its absence. Living under the Law of the Gospel, rather than the Law of Moses, may be compared to matriculation at a university. Early schooling (comparable to the Law of Moses) subjects the student to strict and often burdensome rules, the purpose of which is to instill good work habits. Upon reaching the university level (comparable to the law of faith), the student is largely freed from petty requirements. However, he is never freed from the necessity of passing tests and meeting the requirements for graduation. If Men do not impose good work habits on themselves (by putting them “into their mind, and [writing] them in their hearts”), they will fail the test of life, and miss the goal of salvation because they misunderstood and misused their liberty. Differentiating Mormonism From The Evangelical Gospel To pinpoint just where LDS teachings about the Gospel diverge from Evangelical soteriology (the branch of theology dealing with doctrines of salvation) is a difficult task. To clarify the issue, Evangelical and Mormon answers to a series of questions about salvation are given below. Question 1: “Did Christ die for the sins of all Men?” Evangelical Answer: “Yes.” Mormon Answer: “Yes.” It is without contest that Christ, through His atoning sacrifice, paid the penalty for all the sins of all Men who have or ever will live upon this earth (John 1:29; Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2). Most Evan-gelicals do not understand that Mormons agree with them on this point. Some have claimed that “[t]he LDS Church teaches that Christ died for Adam’s transgression, not for ours.”1 Such statements evidence a complete misun-derstanding of the Mormon faith. While Mormons do believe that Christ died for Adam’s transgression, they unequivocally assert that He also died for all the sins of humanity (see Book of Mormon, Alma 34:8-14). Question 2: “Then, are all Men saved?” Evangelical Answer: “No.” Mormon Answer: “No.” Although Christ died for the sins of all Men, it is clear that not all will be saved (Heb. 9:28; Rom. 5:15). Salvation is conditional (see, e.g., 1 John 1:7 (emphasis added): “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, . . . the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin”).m Mormons and Evangelicals may not agree on what the conditions are, but both acknowledge that a response by Man to Christ is necessary (with the exception of those Evangelicals who believe in pure Calvinism). Question 3: “What must Men do to be saved?” Evangelical Answer: “Have faith in Christ.” Mormon Answer: “Have faith in Christ.” Many Evangelicals will be surprised to learn that their understanding of the Bible’s answer to this question is the same as Mormon doctrine. Some will argue that Mormons do not really teach this truth, but the fact is that Mormon theology is in agreement with Evangelical teaching up to this point. The New Testament makes it clear that Men are saved “through faith” (Eph. 2:8). However, that is not the end of the inquiry. Question 4: “What is faith?” Evangelical Answer: “The essence of faith consists in believing and receiving what God has revealed, and may be defined as that trust in the God of the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ whom He has sent, which receives Him as Lord and Savior and impels to loving obedience and good works.”~ Mormon Answer: “Faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principal of action in all intelligent beings. If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; “0 These two answers have at least one similarity. Each recognizes that faith plays a significant role in human behavior. But the real distinction between Mormonism and the Evangelical gospel is revealed by the last question in this series: Question 5: “To be saved, do Men have to obey the commandments of the God in whom they have faith?” Evangelical Answer: “No!” Mormon Answer: “Yes!” Mormons teach that salvation comes when Man’s faith results in his obedience to God (Heb. 5:9: “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”). EvangelicalS teach that pernwfleflt salvation comes before Man’s faith is demonstrated by any form of obedience whatsoever.~ In the Evangelical economy, Man is eternally saved first, after which obedience will (or may) follow. While the intent-obeying God-may be the same, the practical differences between these two positionS are enormouS. The Evangelical answer amounts to putting the cart before the horse in a spiritually disastrous misinterpretation of the Gospel message. Mormons reject the Evangelical position as unbibljcal, and believe instead that Men must learn to live like God before they will be privileged to live with Him. Mormon doctrine on this point should not be misconstrued, however. The difference between MormofliSm and the Evangelical gospel is more subtle than many imagine. Mormons do not teach that Men must obey a difficult and complex set of rules for a defined period of time in order to merit salvation. Instead they teach that, to be saved, a person who believes in Christ need merely confess openly that they are willing to obey His commandmentS (Rom. 10:9). This is done through ordinances that God has established as symbols of commitment to Him, declaratory acts that are performed in front of witnesses. God has made salvation surprisingly easy to obtain. All that is required to step into the light of His Spirit and taste the joy of communion with Him through the Holy Ghost is faith manifested by a willingness to obey Him, confirmed through an open commitment to do so. From then on, Men remain saved as long as they continue to obey God. If they falter from that course, they need to recommit themselves to a life of obedience (1 John 2:1). Though they require self-discipline, God’s laws are fundamentally simple and easy to obey. Of course, it takes many years to learn perfect obedience, but God extends to each person the time he needs to repent (e.g., Rev. 2:20-23). Thus, a man can and must strive always not to “live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God” (1 Pet. 4:1-2). If they do that, Men can be assured that God’s grace is sufficient to save them, though their sins have been as scarlet (Isa. 1:18). The Lordship Salvation Controversy In the American Evangelical movement a major controversy has flared that relates directly to the issue of obedience and who may be the beneficiaries of permanent salvation. Those who espouse what has reluctantly been dubbed Lordship Salvation rebel at the apparent insincerity of many who claim salvation by grace without obedience. They assert that real faith inevitably produces a changed 1ife.~ According to this school of thought, genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they are dedicated to following Christ and will persevere in that effort. r Hence, they conclude that those who later turn away from Christ, or show no change in their lifestyle as a result of their confession of faith, were never actually saved. In its practical application, this position can be extremely confusing. If it can later be proven that a convert was never really saved when, at the moment of his conversion, he truly thought he believed in Christ enough to receive the permanent salvation promised by Evangelicals, the issues of salvation are thrown into a state of chaos. If one does not have saving faith without demonstrating obedience, and saving faith is necessary for permanent salvation, it follows that a demonstration of obedience also is necessary. But that is the very result Evangelicals vehemently deny! Those who reject Lordship Salvation (the No-lordship camp), note that pistis (translated “faith” in the New Testament) means “to trust,” and they claim that trusting Christ means to accept and rely on what He did for Men. They teach that, to be saved, Men need merely trust that Christ has done all their obedience for them. At the moment they adopt this view (an act the No-lordship camp regards as so epiphenomenal that it couldn’t possibly be classified as a meritorious work), they are instantly and permanently saved. An example of this teaching comes from former radio evangelist and pastor of the Church of the Open Door, Dr. G. Michael Cocoris. He explains that to be saved Men need only believe (that is, “trust”) in Christ, and nothing else. “[Trust] in Christ, plus nothing else, for salvation,” is his message.t “Depend on Him for the forgiveness of sin. Rely on Him, plus nothing else, to get you to heaven.”u In the face of such a call to Christ, one cannot help but feel he has been invited to a feast without directions to its location. If a man is not saved and wants to be, and he is told that he must do nothing except “depend” and “rely” on Christ, he will naturally think: “If I do absolutely nothing, how will my condition change? I wasn’t saved the last time I did nothing! How do I depend and rely on Christ without doing anything?” Dr. Cocoris gives no clear answer to these questions. He only explains what a new believer should do after he is saved.” How one depends and relies on Christ in order to obtain salvation is not explained by him, nor by any other No-lordship advocate.w Indeed, the idea itself is anathema to those who call on Men to do nothing in order to be saved. The noted Evangelical scholar C. I. Scofield tried to shed some light on this issue in a footnote to Romans 3:31, as follows: The sinner upholds the law in its right use and honor by confessing his guilt and just condemnation. Christ, on the sinner’s behalf, upholds the law by obediently keeping its precepts [citations], and by enduring its penalty, death. Does this mean Men need merely confess that they are sinners and worthy of condemnation in order to be saved? What of commitment? What of obedience? Can a complete abandonment of self-control be equated with depending and relying on Christ? Can Men really leave the helm of the Soul to the winds of fate and expect it to arrive at the port of Salvation?! Unfortunately, some who espouse No-lordship teachings do so precisely because it justifies continuing in sin.Y The benefits of a plan of salvation that does not require the obedience of its recipients as a condition to permanently conferring on them its greatest blessing, are immediately obvious to those who love sin more than God. No-lordship advocates may not intend to establish such a system, but the gospel they preach clearly invites what some Evan-gelicals have labeled easy believism-condofling, or at least countenancing (though not advocating), lasciviousness in the name of grace. For biblical condemnation of that approach, none is more to the point than Jude 4, which warns of “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.~~z Both Lordship and No-lordship Evangelicals try to distinguish their gospel from such unadulterated license, but the more they require evidence of true faith in the form of obedience, the closer they come to the truth which they both adamantly reject. There is a glaring and unresolved inconsistency between their position that Men need not obey God in order to be saved and their effort to encourage obedience among believers. Witness, for example, the following attempt to explain Evangelical soteriology The Bible does not teach “believe in God, do what you want, and you’re saved 7 Having faith in Christ does not mean having an intellectual belief in the facts. Even the demons believe and they tremble (James 2:19)! The Bible urges us to “believe” in Christ for salvation. The Greek word for “believe” (pisteuo) means to “place trust in.” True faith is trusting in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation. The response to true faith will be a desire to obey Him-commit yourself to a lifetime relationship of obedience to Christ (Eph. 2:10, Rom. 6:17-18). It is important to understand that it is not this commitment that earns you eternal life. Our good works cannot earn acceptance before God because we are imperfect and therefore do not live up to His standard of perfection (Isa. 64:6). True faith is simply the hand that receives God’s free gift of eternal life. Nevertheless, salvation is far from “easy believism”!aa There is not the slightest indication in this rhetoric of whether or not Men must actually change their behavior (in response to their desire to obey God) in order to receive the benefits of salvation. Nor is there any hint of what would happen if they made no change in response to their professed belief or ceased to obey once they entered upon a course of obedience. Isn’t this the very “easy believism” decried in the last sentence quoted above? The truth is that placing trust in Christ means relying on what He has told Men to do. In other words, relying and depending on Christ means simply obeying Him. Some No-lordship teachers accept their gospel as a form of easy believism, and claim that God will eventually bring the saved sinner around to obe-dience.bb This view is at least consistent with the general Evangelical posi-tion that obedience is not necessary for salvation. However, the expectations of these teachers are certain to be frustrated. Their hopes will always be short- circuited because any failure to recognize that Men must obey God in order to be saved will undercut the attempt. The only exception is when a No-lordship believer finally awakens to the realization that a continuing life of sin is not going to result in his salvation, and decides to change his behavior! To make matters worse, many Lordship as well as No-lordship teachers claim that Men, being imperfect, cannot live up to God’s standard of perfection.cc The necessity of learning obedience, which Mormons espouse, is viewed as “Mission Impossible” by these teachers.dd This position is clearly contrary to the Bible (1 Cor. 10:13), and provides yet another disincentive to obedience. If Men are told they do not have to obey Christ in order to be saved, most will lack the motivation to bring their behavior in line with His. It is even easier to be overcome by evil if Men are told that obedience to God is impossible. Why should anyone try to live the command-ments, if to do so is both unnecessary and impossible?! The result of this theology is best exemplified by the alleged salvation of Larry Flint, who continues to publish Hustler magazine while claiming to be born again. Obviously, the gospel Larry Flint accepted is one taught by No-lordship advocates. This form of the gospel was condemned by the Lord as far back as the prophet Jeremiah, who said of certain false prophets, “they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you” (Jer. 23:l6~22ee see, also, Psalms 119:155). The Book of Mormon also prophesied of radical No-lordship teachers in the latter days (2 Nephi 28:8): And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God-he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God win beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. While those in the No-lordship camp would not admit to speaking these exact words, Nephi’s description is an honest summary and an indictment of the No-lordship gospel.” In the early church, such false teaching arose as a form of liberty in Christ, and was soundly condemned by the Apostles (see 2 Peter 2, especially verses 18-19; Gal. 6:7-8; James 2:14-26; 1 John 3:7-10; and Jude 4). Paul prophesied that teachers having “a form of godliness” but who practiced sin and denied “the power” of godliness, would reappear in the last days (2 Tim. 3:1-7). The term godliness literally means “God-like-ness,” that is, being or behaving like God. The power of godliness is denied by No-lordship teachers who claim that obedience to the laws of God is unnecessary for salvation. What they are saying is that being or behaving like God (God-like-ness) has no power to save Men. In the No-lordship system the concept of trust in Jesus Christ has been transformed into the passive acceptance of that glorious gift which unrepentant Men suppose they can snatch from the bleeding hands of the Savior. The faith of those who have such expectations is indistinguishable from the belief of demons. ~~You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19, NASB). Why doesn’t the demons’ belief in God give them “the hand that receives God’s free gift of eternal 1ife?”~ What is the difference between the belief that saves and the sincere belief expres sed by demons (Matt. 8:29)? The answer is obvious (see Matt. 7:21; Prov. 20:11; Rom. 2:13; and James 1:22). It is deeds that make the difference (Ps. 28:4; Isa. 59:18; Jer. 25:14; Luke 23:41; Rom. 2:5-8). The reason demons are not saved as a result of their belief in Christ is that they do not obey His commandments! Men can expect no different treatment if they merely acknowledge God without obeying Him. Those who believe in Lordship Salvation, on the other hand, have an excellent understanding of what faith really is,hh but they make the same mistake all Evangelicals do. They believe in salvation without obedience. If it is not necessary to obey God’s commandments, why is any obedience of God necessary? If obedience is necessary to some extent, how will a little obedience meet the demands ofajust and perfect God (see, e.g., James 2:10-11). There are only two tenable positions in the debate over obedience as a requirement for salvation. Either Men must obey God in order to be saved, or they may be saved without obeying Him at all. No middle ground exists. If God will countenance any sin, He must countenance all sin. If He will countenance no sin, any sin will keep a man out of His Kingdom. Those who espouse Lordship Salvation recognize the evil in saying that God will countenance all sin, but they refuse to accept the Bible’s affirmation that He won’tcountenanceanysin (Deut. 23:14; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; Matt. 5:48). The real flaw that leads Evangelicals into the Lordship debate is the idea that salvation is permanent once it is obtained. That notion is based on the idea that Christ’s blood cleanses believers of all the sins they have committed, all they are committing, and all they will yet commit, at the moment faith is first generated in them! What follows inevitably from this conclusion is that believers are free from then onto commit any sin they choose. Lordship teachers accept that premise, but deny its inevitable conclusion. Thus, they are drawn into a theological dilemma. David Hocking, in Grace and Good Works: A Study of Titus 2:11-15 (La Mirada: Biola Hour Ministries, 1989), 5-6, identifies this dilemma in the following words: If one is yielded to Christ, there should be evidence-dare we say “good works”? Some Bible teachers believe that if there is no evidence of such yieldedness in an individual’s life, that person is not truly a Christian. On the other hand, most evangelical scholars would also agree that an individual fully yielded to the Lordship of Christ would show virtually perfect behavior. Is there a Christian dead or alive who has ever demonstrated such perfection? The controversy over this issue, then, often centers on what is good works and how much good works “proves” an individual to be a Christian. The inevitable result of such an argument is a return to the old “formula” approach to pleasing God: If Ijust do this or that, then Jam pleasing God. Frankly, I don’t think theologians will ever resolve this problem. Those who espouse Lordship Salvation recognize this quandary, but offer no solution for it. In Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 31, John F. MacArthur, Jr., the principle advocate of Lordship Salvation today, states: Of course Christians sin. They disobey. They fail. We all fall far short of perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12-5 [sic]). “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). Even the most mature and godly Christians “see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12). Our minds need constant renewing (Rom. 12:2). But that doesn’t invalidate the truth that salvation in some real sense makes us practically righteous. The same epistle that describes the Christian’s hatred of and battle with sin (Rom. 7:8-24) first says that believers are free from sin and slaves of righteousness (6:18). The same apostle who wrote, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves” (1 John 1:8) later wrote, “No one who abides in Him sins” (3:6). In one place he says, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1:10), and in another, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in Him” (3:9). There’s a true paradox-not an inconsistency-in those truths. . Thus, Evangelicals are led once more by Greek notions of theology. Instead of rejecting false doctrine because it has led loan unresolvable inconsistency, they wrap it in mystery and label it a “paradox.” The truth is that there are no paradoxes in the Bible or in the universe God has created. Those who refuse to let go of false doctrines in the face of its inconsistencies simply resort to Hellenistic rationalization rather than change their personal theology. Of course Christians sin. But the belief that they will remain saved when they do so lies at the heart of Evangelical misunderstanding about the Gospel. The idea that believers can sin and still be considered righteous in God’s eyes because they have received the benefits of a once-and-for-all justification, is tantamount to the heresy of antinomianism (the belief that behavior is unrelated to faith). It is theologically impossible to reject antinomianism, as Lordship believers profess to do,” and still teach that Men are saved by grace without the necessity of obedience to God. Rather than admit that believers can only be saved as they stand in obedience, Lordship teachers look for some special quality in the nature of a “true” believer’s faith (“saving faith”).iJ Unfortunately, the Bible does not teach that there is any magical intensity of faith which, if experienced at a single moment in time, will result in permanent salvation apart from obeying God. There is nothing about the faith of one convert that results in permanent salvation, despite his disobedience, while another, who experiences the same conviction, must be told that he was never saved because his disobedience seems more significant or enduring. If anyone will obey God, he can obtain salvation. If anyone disobeys Him, he cannot be saved, unless he repents and learns to obey Him. That is justice, and God is always just, as well as being “the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). John expressed this truth as follows: (2 John 9, NASB): “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9, NASB, emphasis .‘~ Christ gave the same message in the Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:4-15). According to that Parable, believers who fall away are allowing Satan, the cares of the world, or their own weakness in the face of tribulation, to destroy the faith they once had. The difference is not found in any quality intrinsic to the seed of faith scattered by the Sower. It is found in the response of the soil in which the seed is planted (see, e.g.. Matt. 13:5-8). Preaching Another Gospel Neither Lordship nor No-lordship teaching successfully deals with the basic flaw in the Evangelical gospel, the failure to acknowledge that Men must obey God in order to be saved. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), and it operates on the lives of Men through laws which Men must obey in order to avoid God’s vengeance or just punishment (2 Thess. 1:7-8). The notion that the Gospel demands nothing more of unrepentant sinners than the acceptance of a free gift may sound good to Evangelicals, but it is not supported by the Bible, and will not result in their salvation. The Mormon gospel teaches that Men must strive to obey God’s command-ments in order to be and remain saved. No one wants to hear that they must overcome their carnal nature and obey the commandments of God in order to obtain salvation. Even with John’s reassurance that His commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3), and Christ’s promise that His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matt. 11:30), it is difficult for Men to take up their cross, and follow Him (Matt. 10:38). The Evangelical gospel teaches that permanent salvation occurs before any obedience on the part of the believer, and is independent of such obedience. True faith, they say, will, or may (depending on whether one adopts the Lordship or the No-lordship gospel), impel the new believer to obedience, but Men do not have to obey God in order to be saved. In fact, they are usually told it is impossible to do so (though Lordship teachers at least say they should persist in the effort). The difference between these two messages is vital. It has been summarized from the Evangelical viewpoint, with a kind of ironic accuracy, as follows: “The Mormon gospel is centered on man trying to obtain salvation through obedience. The [Evangelicall gospel is centered on what Jesus Christ has done for our salvation.”” Unfortunately, this couplet misses the point that “what Jesus Christ has done for our salvation” is to make it available through obedience to Him! In what direction is the Evangelical gospel really taking Men? Which of the great forces that influence Men has always taught that they do not need to obey God in order to get what they really want? Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden that she would not die if she partook of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:1-6), but Adam and Eve experienced an inescapable death by following Satan’s advice instead of obeying God (Gen. 5:5). The same advice will condemn all who seek salvation through a gospel that requires no obedience to the One who issued the first command to Adam and Eve. John admonished the early church (1 John 3:7-8, emphasis added): “Little Children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous. even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil Sinneth from the beginning.” Thus, it has always been and will ever be Satan who is the promoter of any plan that offers the fruits of salvation while disclaiming the necessity of obeying God. Satan preached that gospel to Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-7), it was condemned by Paul in Galatians 1:8-9, and it must be rejected by Evangelicals today if they are to find true salvation, and stop preaching "another gospel". 6 The Gospel Of Faith After an exposition on obedience as a requirement for salvation, Evangel-icals might feel vindicated in their claim that Mormon soteriology is a system of works righteousness like the Pharisees had in Christ’s day. That would be a grave misunderstanding on their part, but it would not be their first. Most Evangelical criticism of Mormon theology is based on misinformation and misunderstanding.a For example, Peter taught concerning Jesus Christ: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Most Evangelicals do not realize that Mormons emphatically teach the same doctrine (see, e.g., Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:17; 5:8), which clearly negates any idea that Men can get to Heaven on their own. This chapter will attempt to dispel some of the misunderstandings that lie at the heart of Evangelical criticism of Mormon soteriology. In so doing, it will provide an explanation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that places obedience in its appropriate biblical perspective as an element of the Law of Faith by which Men are saved. Before examining the Gospel of Jesus Christ, however, it is helpful to identify its goal. If the goal is not clearly in view, passages that relate to its attainment will inevitably be misinterpreted. From What Are Men Saved? In the Bible, to be saved means to be spared from the ultimate consequences of spiritual mistakes. “And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His peoplefrom their sins” (Matt. 1:21, NASH, emphasis added; see, also, Eph. 1:7: Col. 1:13-14; and I Thess. 1:10). Since the “wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), the ultimate goal of the Gospel is to save Man from death. Death is simply a form of separation (Isa. 59:2), and two types are identified In scripture. Each is a consequence of sin. Physical Death is the separation of Man’s spirit from his physical body (James 2:26). It resulted from Adam’s transgression, which caused the Fall. Spiritual Death is the separation of Man from God (Isa. 59:2; Ps. 51:10-12; Rom. 8:5-10), also a consequence of the Fall, but one that is directly connected to Man’s own transgressions. The Greek word translated gospel in the New Testament means “good news,” or “good news from God.” The Gospel is the good news that God has provided a way tor Men to be saved from these two forms of death or separation. Salvation From Physical Death. 1 Corinthians 15 focuses on Christ’s triumph over Physical Death through His resurrection, and makes the following promise to all Men (1 Cor. 15:20-22, NASB): But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man caine death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. No Man can escape the result of Adam’s transgression, and there is nothing Men can do to overcome Physical Death. The good news is that Christ rose from the dead and brought to pass a physical resurrection whereby the bodies of all Men will be made “alive” (that is, physically immortal), thus defeating the bonds of Physical Death for all Men. Physical Death was not part of God’s original creation. God made Men physically immortal in the Garden of Eden. Physical Death entered the world because of the sin of Adam. Christ’s atonement overcame physical death making it possible for all Men to return to the original condition of their creation-immortality. All Men, even unbelievers, will receive Christ’s free gift of salvation from Physical Death (Acts 24:15), for Christ is “the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10, NASB, emphasis added). Salvation From Spiritual Death. While salvation from Physical Death is a ~~free gift” (Rom. 5:12-15), salvation from Spiritual Death, though a gift. is not free in the sense of being unconditional. Unlike Physical Death, Man’s own transgressions are a factor in Spiritual Death. Justice demands, and the Bible clearly teaches, that there are conditions Men must meet in order to overcome the separation from God caused by their sins (Rom. 6:23). Indeed, if salvation from Spiritual Death were not conditional, it would be impossible to distinguish Heaven from Hell. Salvation from Spiritual Death is frequently referred to in the Bible as eternal or everlasting life (see, e.g., Matt. 19:16; 25:46; Mark 10:17, 30; Luke 18:18; John3:15;4:36;5:39:6:54,68; 12:25: 17:2-3;Rom.2:7;5:2l;6:23; lTim. 6:1.2, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Jude 21). “Everlasting life” and “eternal life” are identical. The Greek word in each instance is aionios, which is literally translated, “age-lasting.” When the Bible uses the word “life” (with or without the preceding adjective), it is usually speaking of salvation from Spiritual Death (see, e.g., Ezek. 33:11-19; 1 John 1:2; 5:11). There are a variety of rewards that await those who do good (Matt. 10:42; John 14:2; Rev. 22:12), but the greatest of the gifts of God is eternal life (Mark 10:29-30). Eternal life is to know God (John 17:3), and ultimately to live with Him (Rev. 21:1-22:6). To know God, the separation between God and Man, known as Spiritual Death must be overcome. This is possible to a limited degree in this life when Men know God (1 John 4:7) and have His Spirit with them (1 John 3:24), but eternal life in the sense of living with God in heaven represents Man’s ultimate salvation, and will not be experienced until after the resurrection. The scriptures also describe salvation from Spiritual Death as “inheriting the kingdom of God,” and similar promises of residence in the realm where God dwells. Some Evangelicals teach that there is a difference between “in-heriting the kingdom of God” and “inheriting eternal life,” but Matthew 25:31-46 (NASB) dispels that misconception. It indicates that the Lord will judge all nations, including the righteous and the wicked, and states: “Then the King will say to those on His right [the righteous], ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ “(verse 34, emphasis added). However, verse 46 (emphasis added) contrasts the fate of the righteous and the wicked, saying: “these [the wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Thus, the reward of the righteous is described in one verse as going “into eternal life,” and in the other as inheriting “the kingdom.” Clearly, these two rewards are equivalent (see, also, Col. 3:23-24). The essence of Spiritual Death is separation from God, and Men are not separated from God when they are living with Him in His kingdom. Evangelicals speak of the “tenses of salvation,” claiming they have been saved from the guilt and penalty of sin, are being saved from the habit or pollution of sin, and will be saved from the result or presence of sin.b This theological rhetoric, however nicely phrased, can be misleading. Men always frel guilty when they commit sin, unless their conscience has been completely desensitized (“seared’!~1 Tim. 4:2). Guilt is God’s early warning system to help Men repent and live righteously (Rom. 2:14-15). One should not ignore its presence on the claim that they were saved at some time in the past. When guilt is present, sin is usually the cause, and there is no salvation in sin. Sin has serious earthly consequences as well-physical, emotional, and even legal. God wants Men to be happy, and the reason He has forbidden sin is that it has the opposite effect-here and hereafter. Guilt and earthly penalties for sin may seem harsh, but they are intended to benefit Man. They encourage repentance and allow Men to exercise and develop their moral agency. Salvation involves something much more serious than the earthly penalties for sin. It involves relief from God’s ultimate punishment for sin (Matt. 1:21; Rom. 6:22-23). The big stakes are not the earthly concerns, but Man’s ability to live the rest of eternity with God. To achieve that end, Men must be clean, for no unclean thing can enter God’s presence (Deut. 23:14; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5), and nothing that would defile His Kingdom or detract from its perfection will be allowed to enter (Rev. 21:27). Therefore, Men must learn to live in sinless perfection (Matt. 5:48), and they must be cleansed from the mistakes they make before and during the learning process (Job 25:4). Adefinitive statement of the plan God has provided to accomplish that end (“the Plan of Salvation”) is contained in Ephesians 2:8-9, an extremely popular passage among Evangelicals: “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.” Mormons believe this statement as strongly as do Evangelicals. However, they disagree with the interpretation offered by Evangelicals. Because these verses contain a summary of God’s all-important Plan for the Salvation of Men, it is essential to have an accurate exposition of their meaning. “By Grace Are Ye Saved. . . And That Not Of Yourselves” The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is frequently referred to in the Bible as the “grace” (Ps. 84:11; Prov. 3:34; Acts 15:11; Rom. 3:24), or “gift” (Rom. 5:17-19; 2 Cor. 9:15; Heb. 6:4; 1 Pet. 4:10) of God. Mormons believe Christ, the Son of God, infinite and eternal (Book ofMormon, Alma 34:9-14), suffered the penalty of sin for all Men, to make His grace available as an unmerited gift offered to all. That Mormons believe in salvation by grace will come as a shock to those who know no more about Mormonism than is revealed in Dr. Walter Martin’s grossly slanted critique, The Maze of Mormonism (Ventura: Regal Books, 1978). The real differences between Mormonism and Evangelical teachings are far more subtle than is revealed in that misguided tome. The place to start is with an accurate knowledge of the Gospel taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Past, Present and Future Sin. To understand how the Gospel provides salvation for all, it is necessary to view sinful behavior as a function of time. As Men travel through time, they experience a cyclical chronology of sin. They contemplate committing sin in the future, they commit it in the present, and it then becomes part of their past, a growing store of previous sins that, in turn, affect their future behavior. Left to their own devices, Men quickly become enslaved to sinful habits (John 8:34; Rom. 6:16; 2 Pet. 2:19) through this pattern. The Gospel was intended to break the chain, and free Men from the bondage of sin (Rom. 6:18-19; 1 John 1:7). Men can improve their present behavior if they will turn from sin. This can be done through repentance (Acts 26:20; 1 John 1:9; Luke 3:7-9; Rev. 2:5). Men can also refrain from contemplating sin in thefiuture. This is part of what the scriptures call enduring to the end, a determined perseverance by which a believer strives throughout life to overcome sin (Mark 13:13; Heb. 12:1; and 1 Pet. 4:2), and looks forward with a sense of commitment to a sin-free life, spiritually at home with God. If this were all that was necessary for Men to enter God’s presence and enjoy eternal life, everyone could be saved by the program Evangelicals condemn-a system of righteous works, attaining salvation through obedience to the laws of God. But the biggest problem in the enslaving cycle of sin is not even touched by Man’s best efforts to do good and turn from evil. All Men have committed at least some sin in theirpast (Rom. 3:23, 1 John 1:10)! As guilty sinners, they have already earned condemnation to an eternity of separation from God (Rom. 5:12). As to sins that are in their past (i.e., the sins Men have committed up to the present moment of their existence), they can do nothing! They are as powerless to affect their past actions as they are to raise themselves from the dead (Job 24:22; cf., John 10:18). Thus, Men cannot save themselves from Spiritual Death any more than they can save themselves from Physical Death. Men would like to think that their past sins will be forgotten, or that their good deeds will erase their bad ones. But this is not how orderly and civilized SOcieties function. Perfect justice requires that all violators of law receive the same punishment for the same acts or omissions under the same Circumstances. Discrimination is not a trait of God (Acts 10:34), nor is disorder. A law that provides no punishment for its disobedience may be broken with impunity by all. Thus, God cannot maintain law and, at the same time, overlook any man’s past indiscretions (Rom. 3:25-26). In His perfect system ofjustice, all who “have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) have earned the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23)-death! No present or future action by Man can change this result. Time travel is not a reality in anyone’s future, and repentance is intrinsically ineffectual. If reality were otherwise, one might expect that a man who has foolishly jumped off a high building could prevent his destruction on the sidewalk below by merely promising (on the way down) that he will never jump off the building again. Without some external assistance, Man’s cries of repentande must go unheeded by a God who carries out perfect justice in the same way He maintains the law of gravity. Sadly, the realization of this, Man’s just condemnation for the sins of his past, robs Him of the motivation necessary to break the bonds of sin. Why cease from sin, if, having made one mistake, Man is condemned to an eternity of separation from a perfect God? The sense of hopelessness that inevitably arises from contemplation of past imperfections only encourages continued sin. Past sins, therefore, are the crucial links in the chain of sin. To overcome that damning link, Men need an Intercessor who can do for them what they cannot do for themselves. That Intercessor must be One who is entitled to Salvation, and thus possesses the safety net needed to stop Man’s spiritual plummet into the depths of Hell. With such an Intercessor, Men can lift their heads, knowing that their efforts to overcome sin and learn obedience to God need not be frustrated by condemnation for the errors they will inevitably make in their learning process. Justification. The precept which operates to save Men from their past sins is called justification. Paul revealed the principles ofjustification in great detail in his epistle to the Romans, beginning with Romans 3:21-26, which reads in the NASB as follows (some emphasis and brackets added): But now apart from the Law [of Moses] the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law [of Moses] and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction Iibetween Jew and Gentile]; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in [or by] His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. The Pharisees, a Jewish sect to which Paul had belonged, believed that salvation came through obedience to the Law of Moses. To contradict that missunderstanding, he explains in verse 21 that the righteousness of God exists apart from the Law of Moses, but is demonstrated in that Law and the teachings of the prophets. Then, in verse 22, he tells the gentile Romans that the righteousness of God is attained through faith in Christ, and that both Jew and Gentile have the same access to it. Verse 23 explains why Man needs a Savior to attain the righteousness of God. Though all have sinned and thus fallen short of His righteousness, they can be “justified” as a gift which can be given because of the grace of Christ (verse 24). Verse 25 says that redemption comes through Christ because His suffering and death constituted a publicly visible payment or “propitiation” for the sins that Men “previously committed” (KJV: “sins that are past”).c Thus, it is as to past sins, from which Men are powerless to save themselves, that the atonement applies! As Men deal with the present necessity of learning obedience to God, the distinction between their past sins and the sins they are now committing, or will commit in the future, is strategic. Present and future sins can and must be dealt with by Men, who cannot be allowed to think that they are given a free ride into Heaven by God’s grace. Hence, Paul specifically notes that the atonement applies to this category of sins. In verse 26 Paul explains that, without the atonement, it would be unjust favoritism, and a violation of God’s holy and perfect character to forebear from punishing some, while others must receive full punishment. Were it not that Christ voluntarily undertook to suffer the punishment earned by those who have faith in Him, justice would not allow God to pass over any of Man’s transgressions. Through the atonement, God can be both “just and the justifier” of those who have faith in Christ.d Men cannot justify themselves (Job 9:20; Luke 10:29, 16:15). Justification is a judicial act performed by the Judge of all the earth, and literally means “to declare right or righteous?’ C. I. Scofield correctly explained the nature of justification in these words (emphasis in original): Justification . . . may be defined as the judicial act of God whereby He justly declares and treats as righteous the one who believes in Jesus Christ. The justified believer has been declared by the Judge Himself (Rom. 3:31) to have nothing laid to his charge (Rom. 8:1, 31~34).e Paul rejoiced in this great boon as he continued his exposition in Romans 3 (verses 27-28): Where is 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 lof Moses]. This passage confirms the reality that Men are not justified by the rituals of the Law of Moses or anything else they can do. No matter what the Lord asks of them, no matter how perfect their obedience may be throughout the rest of eternity, all Men would have to be condemned for their past sins if Christ had not paid the price for them. If there had been no atonement, all Men would have to serve the eternal sentence they deserve for the crimes they previously committed. Justification is, in essence, the decree of God that a Man’s past sins are forgiven (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:23-26; 4:7-8). In fact, the word “justify” or “justification” is often used in lieu of “forgiveness of sins” (see, e.g., Luke 18:14; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 2:17). This great boon, according to Paul, may be obtained only “by the law of faith” (verse 27; see, also, Isa. 53:11; Acts 5:31; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Sanctification. When a Man has been justified, all his past sins are blotted out (Acts 3:19). As long as he doesn’t commit any new sins, he is clean in the eyes of God and entitled to receive His Spirit-he is saved in the sense that he is ready to commune with God, to know Him, and have His Spirit with him. The challenge, however, is to maintain that state. Evangelicals assume, without biblical support of any kind, that justification occurs but once in a person’s lifetime.~ But justification occurs while Men are still subject to temptation. So afterjustification has cleansed a new believer of his or her past sins, most will commit additional sin. This new sin will adversely affect their relationship with the Lord. They no longer stand spotless or blameless before Him, and hence, are no longer in a state that will allow them to know God (1 John 2:34). It is always a man’s present status that is the focus of God’s examination (2 Cor. 13:5, Ps. 26:2). Therefore, the question must always be: “Is there any sin in the believer now?” God is patient with repentant believers who are sincerely striving to obey His commandments (Rom. 2:4, 9:22; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:1), but, like any other past sin, new sins must be forsaken and remitted, or justified. Thus, although Christ’s act of atonement was accomplished once for all Men (Heb. 9:25-28; 1 Pet. 3:18), each Man’s need for justification recurs throughout his lifetime (see, e.g., 1 John 1:9). The process in which Men are repeatedly justified as they repent of new sins until they learn perfect obedience to God is called sanctification, meaning to consecrate or make holy-to dedicate to the Lord (see, e.g., Gen. 2:3; Exod. 13:2; Lev. 20:26; 27:14-15). While the Bible speaks of sanctification being by the Lord (Jer. 1:5; Ezek. 20:12, 37:28; John 10:36; 1 Thess. 5:23; Jude 1), it also indicates that Men have a part in it as they exercise their will and moral agency in an effort to maintain a state of holiness (Exod. 19:10; Lev. 19:2; Deut. 32:51; and Isa. 29:23). Although the Lord provides the means for sanctification, He expects all Men to sanctify themselves to Him (Exod. 19:10; Lev. 11:~; Num. 20:12; Deut. 32:51; Ezek. 20:41; 36:23; 1 Pet 1:16). Paul explained the elements and process of sanctification in Titus 2:11-14 as follows: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. The grace of God brings salvation to Men through justification for their past sins. This principle teaches Men that they must live righteously, repenting and receiving justification anew each time they fall and commit new sin. Men should look forward to salvation as God purifies and redeems them “from all iniquity:’ until they become “a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” The dual role of God and Man in the sanctification process is illustrated in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (NASB) as follows: For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you. This passage clearly places upon Men the responsibility of maintaining the state of moral holiness that comes through justification. That is why Men are commanded throughout the Bible to repent and endure to the end, even after they have been justified. They are saved while in obedience to God, a state of holiness which they will learn to maintain for longer and longer periods at a time, until they are ready for eternal obedience in the Kingdom of God. Paul illustrates the relationship between salvation and the sanctification process in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as follows: But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God bath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Ultimate salvation is obtained only through the process of sanctification. By this process Men are prepared to live with God in His Kingdom eternally. The scriptures clearly teach this principle: “Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 2:14, NASB). The expression “see the Lord” refers to the time when Men will be ready to enter the actual presence of God. Paul taught the same truths to King Agrippa in Acts 26:18. There he announced that Christ had sent him to the Gentiles: To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Peter teaches the same principle in 1 Peter 1:2. There, addressing believers throughout the world, he describes them as: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. This means that Men are saved by faith in Christ and numbered among the “elect” (a term that relates to salvation) through sanctification. These passages also demonstrate that the purpose of sanctification is to learn obedience. To be fi4lly sanctified is to arrive at a state of consistent obedience that, in conjunction with justification for past sins, will allow Men to live in perfection with God. Men who have achieved this goal during their life on earth were referred to as “perfect” in the Bible (Gen. 6:9; 1 Kings 15:14; 2 Cbron. 15:17; 2 Kings 20:3; Job 1:1; 2:3; Ps. 37:37; 1 Cor. 2:6; Phil. 3:15; 2 Tim. 3:17). Even though they were not perfect from birth, as Christ was, they learned obedience through the process of sanctification and were justified with respect to their past sins through the grace of Christ. The scriptures say that Men are sanctified by God’s truth (John 17:17), through Christ (1 Cor. 1:2; Heb. 10:10; 13:12), by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 6:11), through the influence of others (1 Cor. 7:14), by obedience to the ordinances of the Gospel, notably baptism (Eph. 5:25-26), and by the word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:5). It is clear, therefore, that a mutual effort is necessary to bring Men into a state of holiness that will allow them to enter God’s presence. The Power of the Gospel. The Law of Faith is the means by which Men are cleansed from all their sins. They are cleansed from their past sins through justification, from their present sins through repentance, and from theirfi~ture sins through endurance to the end. This Law of Faith, also referred to as the Gospel, gives Men the power to obtain real and everlasting salvation (Rom. 1:16). Of course, Man’s cooperation in the sanctification process does not merit his salvation. The grace of God is essential to the process and is “not of yourselves” (Eph. 2:9). The scriptures are clear that Men must repent before they can be prepared by justification and sanctification to enter His Kingdom. (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22-note that the command to re pent precedes the promise in each of these passages). God will not justify the wicked (Exod. 23:7), but only the righteous (Deut. 25:1), that is, those who, through repentance, have turned to God and are willing and ready to become righteous. God is just and holy, and those who come to Him must do so in holiness (1 Nt. 1:14-16; Lev. 19:2). God understands that Menencountergreat difficulty in attaining holiness, for He is “longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any shouldperish, butthat all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). But God’s longsuffering is waiting for Men to repent, not just to believe in Him. If Men do not “come to repentance,” they cannot take advantage of God’s patience, and the grace of Christ will not save them. “You Have Been Saved” Some Evangelical misconceptions about the Gospel are due to their misunderstanding of the statement in Ephesians 2:8 that seems to address the timing of salvation. The phrase is “ye are saved,” or, as it is more accurately translated from the Greek, “you have been saved” (Eph. 2:8, NASB). Unfortunately, this assurance is immediately appropriated by Evangelicals as a promise to them personally, without consideration of the context, or how they compare to the ancient Ephesians to whom Paul was speaking. Evangelicals believe that salvation occurs at the moment true faith is first experienced by the new convert.5 That moment is often called “the moment of faith,”h and it supposedly occurs entirely independent of any effort or intent to be obedient to God’s commandments.~ It happens before any trial of the new convert’s faith, and is not in any way a work.i While some speak of submitting their will to Christ as a result of their faith in Him, all Evangelicals claim that personal obedience has nothing to do with receiving salvation. At most, they believe only that obedience is a characteristic of the redeemed, but not a condition for redemption.k The distinction between this teaching and the truths taught in the Bible (and in Mormonism) is very subtle, but extremely important. It is found in the Evangelical belief that the saved state of a believer persists irrespective of his or her continuing obedience. The words, “you have been saved,” do not invite that conclusion, and a thorough review of relevant biblical passages will make that clear. By far the majority of references to salvation in the New Testament are in the future tense. Many say that Men shall be saved (e.g., John 10:9, Acts 2:21; 16:31; Rom. 5:9-10; and 10:8-9, 13). Others haveacontingent wording, promising that Men may be saved (John 6:40; 1 Cor. 5:5). Some speak of thehopeof salvation (e.g., Rom. 5:1-2; 10:1; Heb. 6:11-12; 1 Thess. 5:8; and Titus 1:1-2), while others treat salvation as a process or “way:’ saying that Men are “being saved” (e.g., Acts 16:17; Rom. 1:16; 13:11; 2 Cor. 3:18; and Acts 2:4647; 1 Cor. 1:18; and 2 Cor. 2:15, in the NASB). In fact, there is only one instance in the Bible where a specific individual is said to have been saved at a specific moment in time (Luke 7:36-50, esp. 48-50). In that case, a devoted and abjectly penitent woman was forgiven of her sins by Christ when she annointed His feet with oil. After He forgave her, Christ said, “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” The woman’s sins having been forgiven by God Himself, she was, at that moment, in a state of perfect holiness before Him and thus “saved.” But the Bible does not say she remained in that state. Besides Ephesians 2:8, there are a few passages in the writings of John that use the present perfect tense to describe the enjoyment of eternal life by those who believe (e.g., John 3:15, 36; 6:47; and 1 John 5:13). These passages require an understanding of what John meant when he used the term “believe:’ and will be discussed later in this chapter. No biblical reference speaks of personal salvation in the past tense alone (e.g., “I was saved in Jerusalem at the Feast of Pentecost”). Therefore, before assuming that all Men remain permanently saved because Ephesians 2:8 says “you have been saved:’ as Evangelicals suppose, it would be well to exegete Ephesians 2:8 further. Ephesians 2:1-7 places Ephesians 2:8 in context, and reads in the NASB as follows (some emphasis added): And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in the kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. This passage indicates that the Ephesians had learned not to walk in sin by the time Paul said they were saved. They had turned from their evil ways, and were living in obedience to God’s commandments, or at least that was the assumption on which Paul’s comment about their salvation was based. Furthermore, there is no promise in the passage that any of the Ephesians so addressed would remain saved should they turn back to evil. In fact, the Book of Revelations, written some 30-50 years after the Epistle to the Ephesians, compliments the Ephesians on many points, but calls them to repentance, and threatens to “remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Rev. 2:1-6). Even though Paul told the Ephesians “you have been saved” in 60 A.D., their ultimate salvation was by no means assured when the Book of Revelations was written several decades later. There is another sense in which the phrase “you have been saved” was used by Paul. In Ephesians 2:6, Paul speaks of events that are clearly in the future as though they were in the past. This is a writing technique Paul uses to make promised future blessings more immediate and vital. Paul’s statement, “you have been saved” in Ephesians 2:8, is a similar literary technique, referring to the future blessing of ultimate salvation as though it were a present reality. The statement, “you have been saved,” cannot be taken as a generalized assurance of permanent salvation, as Evangelicals imagine it to be. Christ has made His atoning sacrifice, and hence, in one sense all Men “have been saved.” This does not mean that any single individual is guaranteed of that condition irrespective of his or her state of current repentance. “Through Faith” Paul’s statement in Romans 3:27-28 that Men are justified by “the law of faith” is the same principle he expressed in the phrase “through faith” in Ephesians 2:8. If salvation were automatic in any sense, Paul could have left that phrase out of his formula, but Men must choose salvation “through faith” in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because of its importance as Paul’s summary of the means by which Men receive the benefits of the atonement, it is critical to understand exactly what he meant by “faith.” If obedience is the means to salvation, as Mormons teach, why did Paul use the wordpistis (Gr., “faithfulness” or “steadfastness”) instead of hupake~ (Gr., “obedience”) in his formula? Pistis is clearly more inclusive. It not only conveys the necessity of obedience, it designates He in whom the be-liever should trust as the source of those precepts to be obeyed. It also im-plies the attitude believers should have toward their Exemplar. Trust is more than mere obedience. It includes k~ralty and confidence in the person whose advice is to be followed. Faith is the foundation of all action.1 Thus, only to the extent Men obey Christ and emulate His example can it be said that they have faith in Him. If there is faith, there is obedience to that in which the believer has placed his faith. If there is no obedience, is is because there is insufficient faith in the principle which the believer is not obeying. Only those who obey Christ havecomplete faith in Him (seee.g.,John 8:31; 13:35; 15:8; Matt. 19:25-29; Rev. 2:23). However, most believers’ faith in Christ is not black or white-there is some obedience, demonstrating some faith, and some disobedience, demonstrating a need for faith to grow. The greater the faith, the greater the obedience, and the greater the obedience, the closer Men come to perfect obedience and their ultimate salvation (Rom. 13:11). Paul’s emphasis on faith rather than obedience alone, also shows that a call to faith is easier to accept than a command to obey. Paul was always concerned about expressing himself in a way that would be persuasive to his audience (1 Cor. 9:20-22). Faith involvesfollowing righteous leadership, and it is always easier to follow than to be pushed. Agood attorney will ask his client to trust him, as opposed to saying, “Obey me.” Of course, the attorney wants the client to follow his instructions, otherwise, the client will not prevail, but the client must have complete confidence in the attorney. During a course of business, the client cannot do whatever he wants and expect to avoid legal problems. That is not possible in any system that involves justice. His legal salvation, so to speak, depends on whether or not he trusts his attorney enough to follow his advice. Spiritual salvation is much the same. Men must have enough confidence in their Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1) to follow His advice. Paul’s choice of the word “through” is also significant. If a man were told that he could obtain a position of great importance “through education,” would it be reasonable for him to think that stepping into a classroom for an instant would qualify him for the promised station? Certainly not! Most people understand that the phrase “through education” implies years of effort and training. Only if a person persists in learning will the promises of a good education be his. “Through faith” communicates the same concept. The phrase was meant to summarize the process of sanctification, by which Men grow and learn to Obey the commandments of God, exercising their faith in Him and following the advice and instructions of He in whom they place their trust. Thus, obedience is so intrinsic to the principle of faith that a call to trust in Christ is nothing less than a call to obey Him! God’s Standard In requiring obedience for salvation, the Bible is clear in setting a single standard. Christ commanded: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). That is God’s standard, and it has never been changed or repealed (Gen. 17:1; Deut. 18:13; 1 Kings 8:61; 1 Chron. 28:9; 2 Cor. 13:11; Col. 1:28,4:12; Heb. 12:23, 13:21; James 1:4). Evangelicals try to soften this commandment by pointing out that the word “perfect” in the New Testament is translated from the Greek teleioo or teleios~"having attained the end or purpose” (sometimes rendered “fully developed in a moral sense”).m They contend that perfection, God’s goal for Man, is not an attainable reality.” Such rationalization is completely without scriptural support. Teleioo is a word that accurately describes the sanctification process, the goal, “end,” or “purpose” of which is present tense perfection. “Perfect” is the ideal translation, and was retained in Matthew 5:48 by the translators of the NASB. Indeed, the same word (teleioo) is used in that verse to describe “your Father which is in heaven.” There can be no argument that He is not perfect in every sense of the word! Christ was actually commanding Men to become like God (See, also, Luke 6:36). As difficult as that may seem, it has been achieved in this life by many individuals named in the Bible. It is not impossible, and all Men can achieve that goal if they will patiently strive to learn obedience until they can adhere to the spirit and letter of God’s laws. God’s commandments are not “grievous” (1 John 5:3), and He has promised to help (cf., Phil. 2:13). “Not of Works” Because Mormons accept God’s standard and strive (with typical human frailty) to reach the goal He set, the Evangelical cry against them is that “Satan is deceiving [them] to believe that works must be added to God’s grace” in order to obtain salvation.0 Such rhetoric has no basis in reason or reality. Mormons add nothing to the Bible’s requirements for salvation. They merely acknowledge what God has commanded them to do. They look with gratitude to the grace of Christ for the crucial remission of their past sins, while still recognizing their need to repent. Still, Evangelicals warn: “Consider carefully what we’re implying if we believe we must add works to God’s grace. We’re implying that Christ’s work on the cross was not adequate and that we must help Him out.”~ If that logic is correct, Evangelicals must be equally guilty of trying to “help Him out.” They believe Men must trust in Christ to be saved. That would also imply “Christ’s work on the cross was not adequate and that we must help Him out’L~by trusting Him! But Mormons do not add works to God’s grace any more than Evangelicals add their version of trust to His grace. Nor do Mormons deny the necessity of God’s grace for their salvation. They do not teach that the works of the Law of Moses are necessary for Men to be saved; and they do not teach that Men can obtain salvation by present or future compliance with any law or ritual. Mormons teach that obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel is of no efficacy whatsoever apart from the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:6-8; 11:6; Mosiah 13:28; 15:18-19; Alma 34:9-14). Such protestations, however, are generally made to no avail in discussions with Evangelical theologians, who have gone to Pharisaical extremes in their interpretation of the phrase, “not of works.” They cannot accept the fact that Men, of necessity, have something to do with their own salvation, for fear that it will detract in some way from the work of ~hrjst.~ So extreme is this view that any form of obedience to God’s commandments is seen as a meritorious work which cannot save.r This notion is definitely not biblical, and leads to serious contradictions. Paul was trained as a Pharisee to believe in the importance of an outward show of obedience to the letter of the Law of Moses. Yet, though he preached against Pharisaical thinking, there is no passage in his writings that suggests obedience to God’s commandments should be considered a “meritorious work.” In &ct, the latter phrase appears nowhere in the Bible. Generally, when Paul used the word works, he was referring to the works or “deeds” (Rom. 3:20,28, KJV) of the Law of Moses. This is apparent from Paul’s statement to the Galatians in Galatians 2:16 (emphasis added): 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.” (C.I. Scofield footnotes every use of the word “law” in Galatians 2 with the indication that it refers to “the Law of Moses.”s) The apostle James, on the other hand, uses the word “works” differently. He does not limit that term in his epistle by the use of any prepositional phrase, as Paul does in Romans 3:28 (NASH), “works of the Law” James uses the word “only” to modify the word “faith” (James 2:24). This distinction indicates that James’ use of the words “works” and “faith,” unlike Paul’s usage of those words, was intended to separate the concept of intellectual assent from the behavioral response of Men to their beliefs. To James, the word “faith” refers only to thought processes, the intellectual acceptance of fficts, ideas and opinions, while the word “works” identifies Man’s behavior based on those thought processes. Paul never used words of limitation, like “only,” in connection with the word faith. His approach is from an entirely different direction. To Paul, faith is much more than mere Pharisaical adherence to the outward requirements of the Law. He sees “faith” and “belief’ as inclusive of obedience. To Paul, faith is a state of the heart that includes both mental assent and a devotion reflected by heart-felt obedience. His use of the term faith is closer to the true meaning of the Greek word pistis, which encompasses three aspects, identified by theologians as noticia (a knowledge of truth), assensus (intellectual acceptance of truth), and fiducia (trust and confidence manifested by obedience to truth) •t This understanding will allow resolution of an otherwise glaring contradiction between Paul’s statement in Romans 3:28 (“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," NASB; cf., Eph. 2:9), and the statement of James in James 2:24 (“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only”). The latter passage either contradicts Paul, or, as suggested above, is based on different terminology. If it is understood that Paul used the word “works” to refer to the dead works of the Law of Moses, and James used the word “faith” to mean mental assent, then the method by which Men are saved, according to each author, can be harmonized. Some who reject this conclusion dismiss the writings of James altogether, claiming they were not an inspired addition to the canon of the Bible.u Fortunately, most Evangelical scholars now reject that position, but, in accepting James’ writings, they must confront a significant doctrinal contradiction. Surprisingly, they resolve that conflict in much the same way Mormons do.” James is saying that mere intellectual assent to facts, ideas, and opinions (noticia and assensus), without obedience (fiducia). does not constitute the faith Paul said would save Men. To illustrate, Romans 4:1-5 reads as follows: What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for 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. By way of contrast, James notes Abraham’s famous act of obedience, and says (James 2:21-23, emphasis added): Was not Abraham our father just ifled by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:” and he was called the Friend of God. In Romans 4:1-2 Paul asks what Abraham, the father of the Jews, understood about salvation, and notes that, if Abraham were justified by “works,” he would have had reason to boast, but such boasting would not have been “before God” (verse two). That is, God would not have been the source of Abraham’s salvation if he had been obedient all his life, as Christ was. Abraham would have earned salvation as a debt owed to him, the same as Christ did, if he bad been able to accomplish that feat. Does this contradict James teaching that, in fact, Abraham was justified by works? Certainly not! Paul is saying that Abraham was not justified by perfect obedience to the Law of Moses. In fact, the Law of Moses had not even been given when Abraham lived (though animal sacrifice, looking fbrward to the last and great sacrifice of Jesus Christ, was required in his day-Gen. 22:1-14). Abraham was saved through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the same Gospel Paul was asking the Gentiles to receive (cf., Eph. 2:11-17; Gal. 3:26-29). In Romans 4:5 Paul notes that the principle of justification is available to all that “worketh not:’ What did he mean by that? Does the word “worketh” in this phrase refer to obedience? Was Paul contradicting James, saying that justification is available to those who do not obey the commandments of God? If so, righteous Abraham was a very poor example. He obeyed God, and, according to James, was justified by his works. To James, the word, “works,” included Abraham’s obedience in general. To Paul the word, “worketh” meant to perform the works of the Law of Moses. While they both used the same word, each had a different meaning in mind. To best understand Paul’s statement, “him that worketh not,” it must be contrasted with the phrase “him that worketh” in Romans 4:4. That verse promises to “him that worketh” the “reward” as an obligation of the Father earned by perfect obedience to the Law. The only person who ever earned salvation in this manner is Jesus Christ. Thus, He is the only person referred to in verse 4. By contrast, the rest of humanity is referred to inverse S as “him that worketh not.” Even those who have tried to do the works of the Law are included in this phrase because, unlike Christ, they failed to live the Law perfectly. Thus, “him that worketh not,” refers to all Men, who, being unable to live God’s laws perfectly from their birth, need the Savior’s atonement to justify their past sins. Paul’s point is that Abraham learned obedience. Thus, he needed the Savior’s atonement as much as the Gentiles do to justify the sins all Men commit in the learning process. James’ point is that Abraham succeeded in learning to obey God, and hence was saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ for his past sins. Thus, the comparison of Paul and James demonstrates the point that both the atonement of Christ and the obedience Men are necessary for salvation. Aserious theological problem arises from the overbroad interpretation of the term works adopted by Evangelicals. It is the question of whether or not faith itself is a work. Evangelicals admit that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, yet it is a commandment of God to have faith in Christ (Matt. 23:23; Mark 11:22; 1 Tim. 1:5; 6:11-12). Hence, if Men believe in Christ, they are obeying a commandment of God. Given Evangelical theology on this point, such obedience would have to be classified as a meritorious work, which cannot save according to the Evangelical position, thus overturning the entire Law of Faith! To a~vid this result, Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, claim that “faith is a gift of God, not a work of man.,’Y For this proposition Pastor MacArthur cites Ephesians 2:1-5 and 8. However, those verses contain nothing that supports his thesis. Ephesians 2:1-5 does not even address the issue. Verse S (“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” NASB) does not mean that “the gift of God” is “faith,” as Pastor MacArthur assumes. The better interpretation of the Greek is that “the gift of God” is “grace,” for that is the subject of Paul’s sentence. The Bible is clear that faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God comes to Men through revelation from the Father (Matt. 16:15-17). However, it is equally clear that a man must exercise his free will to accept that revelation.z As Paul, himself, explained in Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Men must hear the “word” given to them by God before they can have faith. Hearing, used in this sense, is an act of will that involves acceptance of God’s message. It cannot be theologically distinguished from any other act of human obedience. Faith must be voluntary, for God desires all Men to accept Him of their own free will and choice. “But without faith it is impossible to please him: frr he that cometh to God must believe that he is, . . .“ (Heb. 11:6). If faith was bestowed on Men without an act of will from them, its absence would be God’s fault, and hence the forgoing verse would be a sham. God calls all Men to Him (John 12:32), and only because of that call do Men come to Him (John 6:44, 65), but they must come of their own free will. God is not responsible for Man’s positive response to His call, otherwise, God would be responsible for Man’s evil choices as well. It would be unjust for God, if He were solely responsible for Man’s faith in Him, to condemn Men because of their faithlessness (John 5:24). Thus, faith is clearly a “work” of Man, at least in part. Paul did not intend the term “work” to be used as broadly as Evangelicals do (see Phil. 2:12). Their definition is more consistent with James’ use of that term. Note, however, that when James uses that term so broadly, he declares that Men are justified by their “works.” Thus, James recognized, as Evangelicals should, that the efforts of Men are not only efficacious, but essential to their salvation. In so saying, it is important not to lose sight of the point made by each of these great apostles. Men cannot redeem themselves from their past sins by any purely human effort. James does not say Men can work their way to heaven, merely that their works, with their faith, are necessary for their salvation. The “Faith” Of Other Inspired Writers Other inspired writers also used the word “faith” in a way that means they intended it to be taken as inclusive of devoted obedience to God’s laws. In chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews, the author of that volume defines faith in a way that includes specific reference to the behavior of each person whose faith is used as an example there. James reviews Hebrews 11 in James 2, making specific note of the behavioral element in each example. A comparison of these two approaches further demonstrates the truth about works noted above. To illustrate, Hebrews 11:31 (emphasis added) says of Rahab the harlot: “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.” James 2:25 (some emphasis added) reads: “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” Thus, Hebrews 11:31 says Rahab was saved “by faith” when she received Israel’s spies, while James 2:25 says Rahab was saved “by works,” for that act. There is but one way by which Men are saved. Hence, the reference to justification “by works” in James 2:25, must be equivalent to the statement in Hebrews 11:31 that Rahab’s justification was “by faith.” The writer of Hebrews must have used the word “faith” as though it included the behavior James identified as “works.” Thus, when the Book of Hebrews says Men are saved by “faith,” it means they are saved by their acceptance of Christ’s atonement, and their actions based on that acceptance. An analysis of the apostle John’s writings leads to the same conclusion. He used the word “believe,” which is translated from the same root word as faith, to include obedience. For example, John 6:47 (some emphasis added) states, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me bath everlasting life,” while 1 John 2:17 reads (emphasis added), “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” The terms “everlasting life” in John 6:47 and “abideth for ever” in 1 John 2:17 are essentially identical in the Greek. The only difference between these verses is the means by which John says eternal life is obtained. In the first passage he says belief is the way, while in the second he says “he that doeth the will of God” will attain the goal. John is not contradicting himself. Rather, it is clear he intended the word “believeth” in John 6:47 to mean the same 8sdoing the will of God (1 John 2:17). Thus, John, like Paul, used the word, “believeth,” to include fiducia based on noticia, and assensus. Asimilar example is found in John 17:3, where John taught that it is “life eternal” to “know” God. In 1 John 2:3-4, he makes it clear that, if Men do not keep God’s commandments, they do not know God. Thus, John teaches that Men can only “know” God, (i.e., have “life eternal”), if they keep God’s commandments. John also uses other phrases involving obedience to Christ’s teachings as though they were equivalent to a belief in Him. In 1 John 4:16, he says (emphasis added): “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love;aa and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” The phrase, “dwelleth in God,” refers to Man’s salvation. Thus, he who dwells in love is saved, according to John. John also quotes the Savior in John 15:10: “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide Ii.e., dwell] in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” Thus, Christ taught that the way to “abide in love” is to keep God’s commandments. Indeed, all the commandments of the Lord can be summarized in the single word, Lrve (Man. 22:3740; Luke 10:25-28). If he who dwells in love is saved (1 John 4:16), and dwelling in love means keeping God’s commandments (John 15:10), it follows that Men must obey God’s commandments in order to be saved and dwell with Him. John even defined “the love of God” as obeying God’s commandments. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3). For other examples of this point see 1 John 2:5-6, 17, 29; 3:6, 9; and 5:18. John 15:10 is also helpful in correcting the most significant misunderstanding in the Evangelical gospel. In that passage, the promise clearly follows the condition. Christ said, “zfye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love,” not the other way around. The Evangelical gospel would render this passage “when ye abide in my love, ye shall keep my commandments.” That is not the gospel Jesus (or John) taught. John’s terminology must be kept in mind when reading his announcement of the Gospel, a favorite passage of Evangelicals (John 3:15-16): That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. From the exegesis above it is clear that John used the phrase “whosoever believeth” in this passage to refer to those who keep God’s commandments. To “believe” is to obey, as far as John is concerned. Those who do not obey, do not believe. Hence, John is really saying “whosoever [obeys God’s commandments] should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Christ Himself equated belief with works, not the works of the Law of Moses, butHis own works. InJohn 14:12, He said: “Verily, verily, Isay unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” And, at the conclusion of His Sermon on the Mount, He warned (Matt. 7:21, emphasis added), “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”bb The latter passage makes it clear that only those who do the will of God (i.e., Christ’s works-John 14:12) will ultimately be saved. The requirement for entry into the kingdom of heaven is doing, not saying. While good works do follow the inception of true belief, salvation is only possible when Men are standing in obedience to God’s word and thus engaged in good works. Some Evangelicals are confused by the fact that John, who said “No one who abides in Him sins” (1 John 3:6, NASB), also said “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves” (1 John 1:8, NASB) .~ There is no conflict in these passages at all. While John acknowledges that all believers have sinned (Rom. 3:23), he unequivocally declares what Mormons have always preached, that no one can be saved if they are not currently abiding in a sinless state before God (“no one who abides in Him sins”). There is some sin in the past of every Man. That sin was atoned for by Christ. But, if Men wish to abide in Him, they must learn to sin no more.dd Christ confronted the Jews on a similar belief they had in His day-that they would be saved simply because they were the sons of Abraham (cf., Luke 3:8). That belief, like the Evangelical gospel, includes no requirement of obedience. Christ said that the Jews would not be saved, because their works were not the works of Abraham (see John 8:37-44). Evangelicals may expect no less if their works are not the works of Christ. Thus, no matter how the writer expresses it, the message is always the same. The New Testament clearly teaches that Men must obey God in order to be saved. Paul’s phrase, “not of works,” means that obedience, though necessary, is not sufficient to save Men. But, however insufficient, obedience remains a work that is necessary for salvation (Phil. 2:12). “Lest Any Man Should Boast” Though works are necessary (but not sufficient) to save Man, the strength Men need to do His will comes from God (Phil. 2:13). Thus, no right-thinking believer could ever imagine that obedience is something in which he or she should boast. Men can just as easily boast of their faith in Christ, and not a few are guilty of that sin. Contrary to Evangelical criticism, the Mormon belief that Men must obey Christ and do His works in order to be saved does not imply that Men can work their way to heaven, and no believer should hold that thought. Meeting the conditions set by Christ to receive His grace is not the same as doing works that merit salvation. Despite all Man’s works, salvation remains very much a gift from God. When Paul says, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), he is expressing the Gospel message taught above without suggesting that Men can, by their works, obtain salvation. He is simply reminding Men that they must do their part, and seek the righteousness that comes “through the faith of Christ” (Phil. 3:9). Such faith grows in the believer (2 Cor. 10:15; Rom. 13:11), and as it does, Men close the gap between themselves and God until they attain that state of perfection to which Christ called them (Matt. 5:48; Phil. 3:8-17). But this is never done in a vacuum. It is only the gifts and grace of God that make it possible. These truths were expressed in the Book of Mormon by the prophet-king Benjamin, who genuinely understood the efficacy of good works in the Plan of Salvation. Inspired writing contains no more eloquent explanation of the attitude Men should have toward the value of their works than the following Scripture from the Book of Mormon, the words of King Benjamin, found in Mosiah 2:20-24: I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another- I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another-I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you. And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him. And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast? The answer of Paul, with King Benjamin, to the last question above, is unequivocally “Nothing!” That should always be the answer of even the most righteous believer. Conclusion Through faith, and because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, His suffering, death, and resurrection, all Mankind can be saved by obedience to the Gospel, the Law of Faith. The basic precept of that Law is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ is that degree of confidence and trust in Him that is reflected by obedience to His commandments. Men are merely giving lip service to Christ if they claim faith, but do not obey Him (Matt. 7:21; 15:8). Therefore, with faith comes repentance and an open commitment to Him through obedience to the ordinances of the Gospel which will be discussed next. The fulfillment of the saving process is receipt of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, which establishes a relationship between God and Man that is perfected through the sanctification process that follows in Man’s inevitable struggle to gain control of his flesh. This is the original Gospel of Jesus Christ as delivered to the ancient saints by the Apostles of old. All who abide in it will be saved in the Kingdom of God. Those who reject it, will be the recipients of His just condemnation. Those who criticize it are the ones who preach another gospel. 7 Making The Commitment: The Necessity Of Gospel Ordinances The auditorium was as hot with emotion as with the breath and sweat of six thousand devotees who had shouted and sung and praised through the night at every call from the temporary pulpit on stage. The evangelist had reached the climax of his final exultation from the Word. In tones the more electric for their hushed energy, he calls for all who will accept Christ to come forward. Those who respond are assisted by an aide who leads them in a short written prayer. They are given information on how they can grow in Christ and a list of local churches where they can be discipled. Those who say the prayer sincerely are assured that they have received Christ and have been saved. The joy of the moment is one the penitent will cherish for years to come. Though never identified as such, the paragraph above describes a ritual or ordinance. A ritual is a “prescribed form or order of conducting a religious or solemn ceremony." The word ordinance has the same meaning and comes from the Latin ordinare, meaning to put in order. The New Testament uses three different Greek words for “ordinance”:paradosis (1 Cor. 11:2), which may also be translated “tradition”; dogma (Eph. 2:15), which is sometimes rendered “decree”; and dikaicima (Heb. 9), a “righteous ceremony7 which is used in discussing the rituals of the new, as well as the old law. Although Christ kept the Law of Moses perfectly, His death was the fulfillment of that Law. Its ordinances are no longer required of those who ibliow Him (Heb. 9). Based on a misunderstanding of passages in Hebrews 7-9, many Evangelicals think ordinances were eliminated entirely from the Church at the time of Christ. Paul’s praise for the Corinthians, however, shows the error of that notion and the continued importance of ordinances in the early Church (1 Cor. 11:2): “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. Men have always needed public ceremonies, or ordinances, to mark significant commitments. The marriage ceremony is a perfect example. It is a civil covenant made before witnesses in the hope that it will make a solemn and lasting impression. Evangelicals who deny the necessity of Gospel ordinances have simply invented their own to take the place of those God established, an example being the one described above-the traditional call to the pulpit at the close of a spiritual rally. Always the perfect example, Christ personally demonstrated each commitment He requires of Men by submitting to the ordinances of His own Gospel. Those who trust Him will follow His example and make an open commitment to Him by submitting to the ordinances He established, sometimes called sacraments. Because they represent a public confession of Christ (Rom. 10:9), these ordinances are a crucial part of the Plan of Salvation. What Shall We Do To Be Saved? After the Holy Ghost was poured out at Pentecost, Peter initiated the first public sermon given by the Apostles following the Savior’s departure. Each of the Jews who had assembled for the Feast heard the words of the Apostles in their own native tongue, and many believed. Those whose faith in Christ had thus been engendered asked Peter, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). His answer stands as the quintessential instruction for the salvation of all new believers (Acts 2:37-38, NASB, some emphasis added): Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The fact that the Jews asked Peter what they should do reflects their understanding that to trust in Christ meant to do something. Peter’s answer reaffirms that assumption, showing that faith is not a passive requirement of mere intellectual dimension. Notably, Peter did not tell the Jews to “do nothing but trust in Christ,” and he did not ask them to come forward and say a prayer! Instead, he gave them an answer that mentions specific ordinances as the means whereby individuals may obtain salvation. Peter’s answer should be carefully examined and understood by all believers as the definitive statement of those acts and ordinances that signify Man’s commitment to Christ. Repentance. The first requirement mentioned by Peter is the first message preached by Christ in Matthew 4:17-~’Repent!” (see, also, Mark 1:14-15). Derived from two Greek words which literally mean “to have another mind,” the call to repentance is a call for Men to change their minds about the direction of their lives, turning from the world to the strait gate (Matt. 7:14). No-lordship Evangelicals claim that repentance means only to change one’s mind about Christ, not “to be sorry for sin or even resolve to turn from sin.~~b These teachers claim that an actual change of behavior is not required for salvation, because the word “repent” implies only a change of mental attitude.c They teach that “repentance is the root and change in the conduct is the fruit.”d Used in this sense, repentance becomes indistinguishable from the Evangelical definition of faith. Thus, they make the same error with respect to repentance as they do on the subject of faith. They believe that one can repent, in the sense of repentance being a mental act that qualifies the believer for salvation, without any change of behavior. This theology misses the point of the root words entirely. A change of behavior may be a temporary act, purely superficial, wrongly motivated, even hypocritical. For example, one might obey some of Christ’s precepts, as the great Indian leader Gandhi did, simply because they are wise counsel, without recognizing Jesus as the Christ. But the change of mind called for m repentance requires much more than a mere change in behavior. When a believer has faith in Christ he accepts Him as the Messiah. The change of mind that necessarily accompanies such faith involves a fundamental redirection of the will. It signifies agreement with Christ and acceptance of His leadership. When a Man thus changes his mind about Christ, he comes around to His way of thinking. Such a change affects every aspect of the penitent believer’s lifestyle. It represents an inward commitment to follow Him. All that is necessary then is to express that commitment openly. Lordship Evangelicals also err in their teachings about repentance. Intent upon avoiding the idea that Men’s works might have even a minuscule impact on their own salvation, John MacArthur claims “[rjepentance is no more a meritorious work than its counterpart, faith.”e Noting that repentance is an inward change of attitude, MacArthur glosses over the will that Men must exercise in order to make even that change, let alone the outward confession that must follow. Oddly, he does recognize a volitional element in repentance (citing Louis Berkhofs Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, p. 486), but neither he nor Berkhof seem to recognize the significance of that element, which establishes that repentance is a “work.” If faith and repentance did not involve effort, Man’s struggle to have and exercise faith would not have been described by Paul as a “fight” (1 Tim. 6:12). That term aptly describes the challenges Men face as they seek to change their carnal nature to spirituality. Even when the Spirit of the Lord makes it abhorrent to Men, the flesh often clings to sin. Thus, Men must “fight” to change old habits. That fight is the essence of real repentance. When Men see their sins in the light God does, being in agreement with Christ, they hate sin (Ps. 45:7; Heb. 1:9) and desire to cease. Thus, true repentance creates a desire for change in behavior. The demand for a change of behavior, which springs from the hearts of those who truly feel the conviction of sin, is the principle associated with repentance throughout the scriptures. Thus, the call to repentance is a call to turn from sin in the present tense (Mall. 3:2, 4:17; Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30; Rev. 2:16; cf. Luke 17:3-4). What God requires, is that Men bring this inward conviction into fruition through an open commitment. The concept is taught in Romans 10:9 (NASB): “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.” “Confess” is an ancient and somewhat misleading translation of the Greek word homologeo, which literally means “to speak the same thing.” The idea is to publicly express one’s inward agreement with Christ. A thought-for-thought translation of this verse would read: “If you publicly declare that you agree with Christ, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.” The public declaration is accomplished through an ordinance witnessed by others. That ordinance is called baptism (Matt. 3:5-6; Mark 1:5). Baptism. The next step outlined by Peter in Acts 2:38 is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism appears throughout the New Testament as the first act required of new believers after their repentance and acceptance of Christ (Acts 2:41; 8:12-13, 36-38; 9:18; 10:4748; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:3-5; 22:16; see also, John 4:1; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 10:1-2; 12:13; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12). Though baptism is the first ordinance mentioned in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is of ancient origin, having been practiced by the Jews even before Christ’s ministry began, as witnessed by the activities of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1-6). In the centuries prior to John, the Jews had come to require baptism only of proselytes.~ John’s baptism was new only in the sense that he preached the necessity of that ancient ordinance for all Jews. That salvation is the object and effect of baptism is clear from Peter’s statement that it is “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Forgiveness of past sins is the essence ofjustification (cf., Col. 1:13-14). As an individual commitment or open confession of Christ, baptism is intended to bring into actual realization the inward desire for obedience that the new convert feels when he first obtains faith in Christ. The event also marks God’s justification or forgiveness of the new convert’s past sins. Thus, it leaves the believer with a clean slate, standing in perfect holiness before God. Baptism is performed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). There is some confusion on this point among non-LDS Bible scholars, because some passages refer to baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5), while others refer to “the baptism of John” (Matt. 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 7:29; 20:4; Acts 1:22; Acts 18:25). The baptism of John simply refers to the rite as performed under the authority of the Levitical Priesthood which John held at that time. John knew that Christ’s authority exceeded his own, and willingly transferred the reigns of leadership to Christ (John 3:23-35; Acts 19:4). Thereafter, baptisms were performed by openly citing the authority of Christ (cf., John 4:1). But it was always the same ordinance, performed in the same manner-by immersion, and in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. John’s baptism was perfectly valid, as witnessed by the fact that Christ, Himself, submitted to it. When the scribes and elders asked Jesus by what authority he acted, in Mark 11, He immediately brought up the baptism of John and asked them whether or not it was authorized by heavenly authority (Mark 11:27-33). They were afraid and declined to answer. They knew that, if they said it was of heaven, as all the people believed, Christ would close the trap on them by noting that His authority was acknowledged by John to be from the same source. Contradicting these biblical truths, Evangelicals unitedly reject the doctrine of baptism by water for the remission of sins as an ordinance necessary for salvation. Some teach that baptism is necessary to be a disciple, but claim it is not necessary to be a disciple in order to be ~ The Evangelical position is asserted on the basis of erroneous inferences drawn from the story of the thief on the cross and the conversion of Cornelius described in Acts 10. The motivation for these arguments, however, lies in the uncertainty of the Protestant claim to authority for performance of the Gospel ordinances, a subject which must await a book of its own. One Evangelical argument against the necessity of baptism attempts to explain Peter’s instructions as follows: Reading this, we see the meaning of baptismfor the purpose of the remission of our sins. However, this is another instance where examining the translation is necessary for interpretation. The word translated “for” is the Greek preposition eis, which in this verse means “because of’. We are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ “because of’ the remission of our sins)’ The translation suggested here is neither accurate nor helpful to the Evangelical argument. Greek scholars do not believe that “because of’ is the appropriate translation for the word eis in this context. It is not so translated in any respected modem version. “Into” is closest to the correct translation of this word.’ However, both the King James Version and the NASH translate the word “for.” To be baptized “because of the remission of sins” would not be consistent with other teachings about baptism (see, e.g., Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). It is particularly incongruous when examined in connection with Ananias’ command to Paul, following the latter’s conversion. He said, “And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16, NASB). This statement clearly indicates that the remission, or washing away, of Paul’s sins wouldfollow his baptism. Ananias never said Paul could be baptized if he felt like it because his sins had already been washed away. The Bible teaches that the removal of sins is the object of baptism. Of course, the remission of sins is neither caused, nor made possible, by baptism. Rather, baptism is the ordinance by which the individual makes the public commitment memorializing his covenant with God, who then declares the believer righteous through the power of Christ’s atonement. From Peter’s words and historical evidence in the New Testament, it is clear that Men do not obtain the promised “gift of the Holy Spirit,” which constitutes an initial state of salvation, until after water baptism (see e.g., Acts 8:14-17). (On this distinction, see also Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; and Luke 3:16.) Thus, in a sense, it is water baptism that saves Men (1 Pet. 3:21). The translation of eis suggested by Evangelicals is inconsistent with the symbolic character of the baptismal ordinance. Baptism is symbolic of accepting Christ (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27; Ccl. 2:12), and hence is actually a corollary to the principle of faith. Men must have faith, i.e., accept Christ, before they obtain gifts consistent with salvation. The promise comes from Men first, a commitment to Christ, and from God second, that Men will receive remission of sins. To give the promise before the performance on wbich it is predicated would leave Man’s performance unenforceable and meaningless, and that is just the status of water baptism among Evangelicals today-it is thought to be unnecessary (and hence, is unenforceable), and it has thereby been stripped of meaning or significance. Even if Men were baptized because of the remission of their sins, Peter commanded his listeners to be baptized. If it be to have their sins remitted or because their sins have already been remitted, that commandment remains the same. Though the Evangelical interpretation largely vitiates the ordinance, it does not change the fact that the Bible requires Christians to be baptized.i j Salvation comes only by obedience to God’s commandments, which cannot be viewed as optional. Thus, the translation propounded by Evangeicals would not justify their position against the necessity of baptism, even if it were accurate. The mention of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” in juxtaposition to “baptism” in Acts 2:38 indicates that “baptism” is a different ordinance than that by which the gift of the Holy Spirit is conferred despite the fact that the latter ordinance can be referred to as baptism “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf., Mark 1:8; John 1:33; Acts 1:5, and 11:16). Some Evangelicals teach that when the scriptures speak of baptism being necessary for salvation the reference is not to water baptism but to baptism with the Holy Ghost.k But baptism for remission of sins was always performedby immersion in water (see, e.g., Matt. 3:5-6, 13-16; Mark 1:4-5, 9-10; John 3:23; Acts 8:38). Baptism with the Holy Ghost, on the other hand, was often accompanied by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but involved no immersion in water (Acts 2:1-4; 10:4446). The Bible does not confuse the two ordinances. Neither should theologians. Some Evangelicals point to the fact that Paul had a different calling than to baptize as evidence that baptism is not necessary for salvation (1 Cor. 1:17)) The Apostles generally had other callings than to perform baptisms (see, Acts 8:5-25). The function of officers within the organization of Christ’s church has nothing to do with the necessity of baptism. Paul, in fact, did perform baptisms (e.g., Acts 19:1-6), and, though Christ did not Himself baptize (John 4:2), He commanded His Apostles to baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19), and His disciples baptized more new converts than John (John 4:1). Still, some scholars erroneously claim that 1 Corinthians 1:17 demonstrates baptism is not part of the Gospel. That verse states in part (NASH), “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” The argument is that this phrase contrasts baptism with the gospel, showing that the two are separate. That is obviously incorrect. What is being contrasted in this phrase is baptizing and preaching, two separate ministries within the Gospel. Paul’s assignment required him to do the latter and leave the former for other Church officers. In fact, when the grammar is correctly analyzed, the clear implication is that baptism was part of the Gospel Paul was sent to preach! One of the two most significant proof-texts cited by Evangelicals for the proposition that baptism is not necessary for salvation is the conversion of Cornelius and his household described in Acts 10. Cornelius was a gentile who believed in God, gave alms, and prayed to God continually (Acts 10:2). Because of his righteousness, he and his household were chosen to demonstrate a dramatic new direction for the Church, one which had historic significance as the inauguration of the Age of the Gentiles. An angel appeared to Cornelius and told him to seek out Peter (Acts 10:3-6), which he did immediately (Acts 10:7-8). At the same time, the Lord gave Peter a vision intended to change his attitude about taking the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-16). As Peter was contemplating the meaning of that vision, Cornelius’ messengers arrived, and the Spirit told Peter to go with them (Acts 10:17-23). When they arrived at Cornelius’ house, Peter found he had assembled a large group of friends and relatives to hear God’s message (Acts 10:24-27). Peter then realized the meaning of his vision and asked why they had sent for him (Acts 10:28-29). Cornelius related the vision he had received and asked Peter to explain “all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (Acts 10:30-33, NASB). Peter then preached the first Gospel sermon to the Gentiles, bearing witness to the resurrection of Christ and asserting that through Him all who believe may receive forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:3443). The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his entire household (Acts 10:44), as evidenced by their receipt of the gift of tongues and their exultation of God. This manifestation was similar to that which was experienced by the Apostles with the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and it demonstrated to Jewish believers that the Gospel was also to be taken to the Gentiles (Acts 10:4547). Evangelicals incorrectly assume that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on this unique and momentous occasion was the same as salvation for those present. Thus, they conclude that Cornelius and his family were saved before they were baptized and without the laying on of hands by which the gift of the Holy Ghost was always conferred (see, e.g., Acts 8:14-19). But Peter’s next words belie that assumption (Acts 10:4748, NASH, some emphasis added): “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. When Peter said that Cornelius had “received the Holy Spirit just as we did,” he was referring to the unique outpouring of the Holy Ghost that was experienced by the Jews at Pentecost. Peter was pointing to the symmetry between this event and that at Pentecost. The Jews who were converted at the Pentecostal outpouring were not instantly saved without baptism. Peter had told them to be baptized for the remission of sins, and that afterwards they would receive the “gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2: 37-38). In the same manner, Peter ordered these Gentiles to be baptized in verse 48. m Thus, the requirement of baptism was not abridged in this instance at all! Nor is there any instance in the Bible where new converts were not baptized, or told that they must immediately be baptized, after they t~ceived a conviction that Jesus is the Christ. What about the thief on the cross? In Luke 23:3943, one of the malefactors crucified with Christ acknowledged Him as the sinless Lord and asked to be remembered “when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Whether he actually understood Christ’s kingdom or not, he received a very special promise: “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Evangelicals assume this was a promise of salvation without baptism for the thief. However, that is not what the passage says. The terms of Christ’s promise to the thief were quite specific. On that day, the thief would be with Christ in “paradise.” To understand this promise it is necessary to determine where paradise is, and what Christ did there (as a newly disembodied spirit) on the day of His crucifixion. The word paradise is used only three times in the Bible (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; and Rev. 2:7), and, though these references imply that paradise is a good place, they do not indicate that it is heaven. A close look at the scriptures, in fact, shows that paradise is definitely not a place reserved exclusively for saved individuals. First Peter 3:18-20, reveals that immediately after His death, Christ went to preach the Gospel to those who lived in the days of Noah before the flood. His purpose was to open the work of ministry to the dead (1 Pet. 4:5-6; John 5:25-discussed in Chapter 9.) These souls had been grossly wicked (Gen. 6:5-7, 11-13), and were certainly not in Heaven. If Christ went to paradise the day He died, as his comment to the thief implies, and that place was not Heaven, as 1 Peter 3:18-20 indicates (see, also, Eph. 4:8-10), then Christ’s promise to the thief (to be with Him in “paradise” on that day), was definitely not one of instant salvation. A more detailed examination of this issue is contained in Chapter 9 of this book. The very character of God contradicts the Evangelical position regarding water baptism. Hebrews 13:8 says that God is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” He has not changed the requirements for making an open commitment to Him during Man’s entire existence on this earth! He changed the Law of Moses, but that Law did not bring salvation (Gal. 3:21). It was a “schoolmaster” to bring Israel to Christ (Gal. 3:24), and reached its appropriate end upon its fulfillment in His atoning sacrifice. Baptism was practiced by the Jews, as indicated above, and Christ was baptized “to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:13-17). All who believed at the preaching of the Apostles were commanded to be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20). Thus, the continuity of this requirement spans both the Old and New Testaments. There remains to this day the requirement that all Men publicly demonstrate that they agree with Christ through the ritual of baptism. The remission of sins, which comes by reason of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, is only applied to wash away Man’s sins through obedience to that ordinance. This is the sense in which baptism is a saving ordinance. Peter clearly stated that fact in 1 Peter 3:21 (some emphasis added). After noting that eight persons were saved from the Flood (Noah and his three Sons and each of their wives), Peter said that the number eight (8) is: The like figure~ whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: The parenthetical phrase in this verse has presented significant problems for Evangelical exegetes. They erroneously claim that the statement, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” means that Man is not saved by water baptism. They arrive at this conclusion by assuming that “the filth of the flesh” refers to fleshly sins and “the putting away” refers to water baptism. Thus, Evangelicals would render the passage: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not water baptism, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) . This interpretation is profoundly flawed. It incorrectly assumes the very concept Peter intended to prove-that water baptism washes away sins-in order to arrive at its conclusion! To assert that “the putting away of the filth of the flesh” means water baptism, one must accept the idea that water baptism does, in fact, “[put] away” fleshly sins. To do that, and at the same time disclaim the efficacy of water baptism for that very purpose, is a feat of logic that would only be comfortable for a Hellenist. If one recognizes that water baptism is the washing away (“the putting away”) of sins (“the filth of the flesh”), one must also acknowledge that it is the saving ordinance Peter is referring to in this verse. Actually, the phrase “putting away of the filth of the flesh” in this context is not a reference to water baptism, but is to be taken literally as washing dirt from the body. The phrase, “the answer of a good conscience toward God,” is Peter’s allusion to water baptism. What the parenthetical phrase means is that baptism is not merely taking a bath, it is the answer of the new convert to God’s call for Men to commit to Him and obtain a good, or clean, conscience. Evangelicals say that “the answer of a good conscience toward God” means the baptism of fire, or the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:38 make it clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost is an answer from God to the baptized believer. That is, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is God’s answer, or reward, to Men who have sought a good conscience, one which has been cleansed by baptism for the remission of sins. It is not Man’s answer “toward” God. The NASB translation of 1 Peter 3:21 makes this point perfectly clear: And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The ordinance of water baptism is an appeal by Men to God for a good (or clean) conscience, washed free of sin and prepared to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, the baptism of fire. Peter states that this ordinace “now saves you. . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (emphasis added). The word “baptism” here is baptisma, meaning to wash or immerse. It is the classical Greek word for bathing, and Peter’s effort to clarify his use of that word as a reference to the sacred ordinance is understandable in light of the Old Testament’s treatment of baptism. The Greek word baptisma, of course, does not appear in the Old Testament, but its Hebrew equivalent, the verb “to wash,” unfortunately had several meanings depending on the context. The writers (and translators) of the Old Testament did not use a different word when the context suggested that the ordinance was immersion in water for the remission of sins, as opposed to some other ceremonial washing, or the secular act of bathing. Thus, it is often hard to tell when an Old Testament text is referring to baptism. From the context, it appears that baptism is being referred to in the following passages where the verb “to wash” has been used in the Old Testament: Psalms 51:2, 7; Proverbs 30:12; Isaiah 1:16; 4:4; Jeremiah 4:14; and Ezekiel 16:9. The same might possibly be true of Exodus 29:4 and Leviticus 8:6, though the washings mentioned in those passages probably refer to a ceremonial washing by the priests before they put on their temple garments (Lev. 16:23-24). The New Testament is much clearer in its use of baptisma as a reference to water baptism. On those few occasions when the scriptures refer to receipt of the Holy Ghost as baptism, the reference always includes a prepositional phrase, e.g., “baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 1:5; and 11:16). Whenever the term “baptism” is used alone, as it is in 1 Peter 3:21, it refers to baptism by immersion in water for the remission of sins, as Peter carefully noted in his parenthetical phrase. Christ clearly taught the efficacy of baptism for salvation in Mark 16:15-16 (NASH): And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” This passage states two requirements mutually necessary for salvation (note the use of “and” in the phrase “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved”). The language is clear and unequivocal. How, then, do Evangelicals deal with this passage? Some reject these verses entirely, claim-ing they were not part of the original gospel written by Mark. That position was discussed and refuted in Chapter 1. Others note that, although the passage states “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved,” it goes on to say, “but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (KJV: “he that believeth not shall be damned”). But die passage does not say “he who has disbelieved and has not been baptized shall be condemned.” From the absence of any reference to baptism in the second clause of the sentenCe, EvangeliCalS argue that even though believers should be baptized, they will not be condemned for failing to perform that ordinance.0 This is, at best, a dangerous way to interpret scripture. Verse 16 may not state specificallY what happens to those who believe but are not baptized, but it also does not promise they will be saved. Men might avoid condemnation by believing but not being baptized, but there is certainly no assurance from this passage that they will be saved by following that course of action. Actually, the Lord, in these closing remarks to His Apostles, is saying that the Gospel includes both laws and the ordinances which must be followed in order to be saved. If a man believes Christ, he will follow Christ’s instructions for salvation and be baptized. Hence, the phrase “he who has disbelieved” includes those who merely claim to believe but refuse baptism. “He who has believed” in Christ will always be baptized. If a person wants to be saved, and is not simply trying to see how close he can come to condemnation without being caught in its chains, he will follow Christ’s instructions and (1) believe, i.e. accept Christ, His laws, and His ordinances, and (2) be baptized. Christ taught NicodemuS this principle at the beginning of His ministry, as recorded in John 3:1-5. He told NicodemUS he had to be “born again” to see the kingdom of God.~ Nicodemus did not understand, and complained that a man cannot enter again into his mother’s womb (John 3:3-4). Christ did not contradict him on this point. Instead, He indicated to NicodemUs that His words were figurative. In order to be saved, a man who has faith in Him must submit to two ordinances which Christ compared to birth: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). “Born of water” refers to water baptism, and “born . . . of the Spirit” means to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. No other exegesis of these terms is consistent with hermeneutiC principles. These ordinances constitute birth into the kingdom of God, and no one can enter His kingdom without making the commitment they entail. It was precisely from such a lack of commitment that Nicodemus suffered. He believed Christ, but as a member of the Sanhedrm he would not commit to Him openly. Hence Christ’s confrontation on this subject. Rather than accept this important message, some EvangeliCalS argue that the water birth spoken of here is Man’s natural birth in the watery womb.~ If that were true, Christ would have either been ratifying the misunderstanding Nicodemus expressed in John 3:4, or establishing mammalian birth as a condition for salvation. Neither of these options makes any sense. Christ was teaching the requirements for entry into His kingdom, not the kingdom of this earth. Other Evangelical teachers claim that the term “water” used in John 3:5 should be translated “spirit.”r This suggestion is not true to the text. The word translated “water” here is hudor, a Greek noun meaning nothing more than “water.” In any case, such a translation would result in redundancy. It would render the passage: “Except a man be born of the spirit and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This is obviously poor hermeneutics, and so is every other interpretation of the passage except the one that acknowledges Christ’s point in confronting Nicodemus-that Men must make a commitment to Him through baptism and the laying on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost! The birth to which water baptism is compared in John 3:5 is also viewed as a “death” in the Scriptures. When Men are born into the kingdom of God, they simultaneously die to this worldly kingdom. Paul compares water baptism to the symbolic death of the old man and the birth of the new man in Christ (Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:12). Thus, total immersion in water, as in a watery grave, is the only appropriate means for performing this ordinance. Paul also taught that baptism constitutes entry into the body of Christ. In Galatians 3:27, he said, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The significance of this statement should be immediately apparent to Evangelical theologians, who believe that the phrase “into Christ” refers to their position of permanent salvation following their conversion to Christ (see Chapter 8). This passage demonstrates that any such position can be obtained only through baptism. The symbolism in the ritual of baptism has a powerful impact upon converts. Believers are immersed in the water that will be a grave for their old nature, then lifted out with their sins entirely washed away, reborn into new life as a member of the body of Christ. It is sad that Men have tampered with this powerful ordinance, replacing it with such acts as walking to the front of the congregation in response to an evangelist’s call, or saying a prayer prescribed by some modern theologian. God cannot be expected to recognize or accept such substitutes for His prescribed sacraments, any more than He can accept the authority of unauthorized volunteers in performing baptisms or other acts in His name (Matt. 7:22-23). Because they lack any biblical authority for performing the ordinance of baptism, the Evangelical attitude toward that ordinance has come to be typified by the sentiments expressed in the following statement: The true biblical gospel tells us that Christ died for “our sins.” 1 John 1:7 says, “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” If all my sins are cleansed by His precious blood, if they were borne “in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24), then how many are left to be cleansed by baptism?s This confused declaration insults (1) Christ, who commanded baptism and was Himself baptized as an example to all Men, (2) Peter, who commanded baptism of the Jews at Pentecost and of the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, and (3) Paul, who said that baptism is the way Men put on Christ. The answer of all these Authorities to the rhetorical question posed in this statement would be an emphatic, “All of them!” The blood of Jesus Christ is the power that cleanses sin, but baptism is the switch by which Men turn that power on in their lives. More serious than the misunderstanding expressed in the quotation above is the deception practiced in its second sentence. John did not say “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” He said, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, . . the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, John’s promise was conditional upon obedience to the very ordinances Evangelicals decry, including the ordinance of baptism, to which Christ, the Exemplar, Himself, submitted. There is no promise that the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse Men from sin, unless they “walk in the light, as he [Christl is in the light.” Christ was baptized “to fulfil all righteousness” (Man. 3:15), that is, to show Men how to “walk in the light.” If a man is not baptized, he is not walking in the light as Christ did. Such a man will not have fellowship with Christ, and will not be cleansed from any sins! Paul taught that Man is saved by baptism through the atonement of Jesus Christ in Titus 3:5: Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; The first half of this passage is often quoted by Evangelicals to support their misunderstanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.t But they stop short of acknowledging Paul’s mention of baptism in the same verse. According to Paul, there are two ordinances “by” which Men are saved “according to his mercy”: “the washing of regeneration” and “renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The term “washing” is translated from the Greek word loutron, which refers to a layer, bath, or washing vessel (see also, Eph. 5:26). Baptism by immersion in water was often performed in such a convenience, which Mormons now call a “baptismal font.” Since the word “baptism” means “to wash,” and the term “regeneration” means re-creation, or new birth, Paul’s metaphoric language, “the washing of regeneration,” obviously refers to water baptism. It would be easy to assume that the phrase “renewing of the Holy Ghost” refers to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism. However, the term “renewing” is not consistent with that interpretation. It suggests something that refreshes or renews the original gift. There is no indication in the Bible that baptism is performed more than once in the life of the believer (except when it was first performed by false teachers, as in Acts 19:1-8). Likewise, the gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred only once, following baptism (cf., Acts 8:14-17; 19:2-6). What then is the second ordinance referred to by Paul in Titus 3:5? That question will be examined after a closer look at the gift of the Holy Ghost itself. The Gift Of The Holy Ghost The “gift of the Holy Ghost [or Holy Spirit]” is not mentioned as a requirement in Acts 2:38, but rather as a promise to the faithful who repent and are baptized. The spiritual gifts that come through the Holy Ghost are many (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 12:8-11), but the promise that a baptized believer will “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38 emphasis added) is not the same as a spiritual gift from the Holy Ghost. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a restoration of the believer, who has been saved by repentance and water baptism, to fellowship with a member of the Godhead. Spiritual Death is separation from God. Being granted the right to commune with the Holy Ghost a member of the Godhead, is a partial reprieve from that separation, and the beginning of salvation in the presence of God. This privilege was conferred through the laying on of hands, as indicated in Acts 8:14-17, which tells of the Samaritan saints that were converted by Philip: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Note that verse 14 says they “had received the word of God,” while as yet had only been baptized (verse 16). This indicates that baptism was part of receiving the word of God.) Christ conferred the gift of the Holy Ghost on his disciples after His resurrection, saying to them “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:22). However, the Holy Ghost did not actually come upon them until the day of Pentecost, after Christ’s ascension (John 7:38-39, Acts 1:8). As He indicated to His disciples, He had to go so the Holy Ghost could come (John 14:26; 15:26; and 16:7). After Christ’s departure, the Holy Ghost was sent to the Jewish disciples in the dramatic Pentecostal outpouring witnessed by multitudes and described in Acts 2:1-13. The promise that the Gentiles could receive the gift of the Holy Ghost was demonstrated by the similar miraculous manifestation at the house of Cornelius (and see, e.g., Acts 19:5-6). The ordinances of baptism by water and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost were identified as fundamental principles of the doctrine of Christ in Hebrews 6:1-2 (emphasis added): Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptismS~ and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. This passage identifies the “doctrine of baptisms” as part of the “foundation” of the “doctrine of Christ]’ The word translated “baptisms” here is baptismos, however, not the usual baptisma. Baptismos is translated “divers washings” in Hebrews 9:10, and “washing” in Mark 7:4, referring in each case to Jewish ordinances.u While these translations would be improper in this context, it is clear that the term “baptisms” used here does not refer to water baptism and baptism with fire and the Holy Ghost. The “laying on of hands” is mentioned in the next phrase, and refers to the latter ordinance, since it was performed by the laying on of hands.” Of course, laying on of hands was employed in many ordinances mentioned in the Bible: giving blessings (Gen. 48:17-20), conferring authority for a particular calling (Num. 27:23), healing (Matt. 9:18, Mark 6:5, Acts 28:8), appointing officers in the Church (Acts 6:5-6), and giving special gifts (1 Tim. 4:14). It appears that the author of Hebrews was identifying all these ordinances, along with conferring the Holy Ghost, as fundamental doctrines of Christ by using a reference to the means by which they were all perfonned- the “laying on of hands.” Though water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost are frequently mentioned together (John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 19:1-7), the term “baptisms” in Hebrews 6:2, sometimes translated ~~ablutions,”w refers to water baptism and similar ordinances like that described in Titus 3:5 as “the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” What is that ordinance and its significance in connection with Man’s salvation? To answer that question, it is necessary first to understand the principal of endurance to the end. Endurance To The End The requirement that believers “endure to the end” has always been associated with adversity (Matt. 10:22; Mark 13:13). This principal reflects the believer’s long-term commitment to Christ in the face of trials and persecution. The permanence and reality of commitment becomes evident only as Men continue in their new life-direction to the end of their days. Man’s mind, reflected in his attitudes and beliefs, tends to be unstable and changeable. Varying behavior, sometimes obedient and sometimes not, reflects that changeability. God requires that Men learn to continue in obedience, enduring the trials and temptations of life that affect their attitudes and behavior, until they can be trusted to be obedient in the future as well as the present. The Savior taught his disciples the necessity of endurance to the end, and He did not simply tell them that if they endured persecution until it stopped (that is, endured to the end of persecution) they would receive a reward. He said, “he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13, emphasis added; see, also, 10:22; and Mark 13:13). C. I. Scofield claims that this passage does not refer to “salvation of the soul of the believer who endures persecution, but to his deliverance by the Lord’s return” at the end of “the tribulation.~~x Thus, Scofield claims that the endurance required in this passage is only that necessary to outlast the persecution to be experienced by believers who will be living on the earth just before the Second Coming, during the seven-year period Evangelicals call the Great Tribulation. There are many problems with this interpretation besides the fact that there is nothing in the context of the passage that supports it. One problem is the current trend in Evangelical eschatology (the study of ultimate or last things, such as events in the last days). The popular view among Evangelicals today is called “pre-millenialisflt” In that view, all true Christians will be taken up into heaven in the Rapture, before the Great Tribulation. If that view is correct, only those converted during the Great Tribulation will be on earth to endure persecution. That means Christ’s message on endurance was of no interest to the believers of His day, and of little significance to believers now! None of them will have to endure as Christ admonished. The truth about endurance in the Gospel is demonstrated in the Parable of the Sower, explained by Christ as follows (Mark 4:14-20, NASB): “The sower sows the word. “And these are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. “And in a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. “And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. “And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it, and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and ahundredfold.” Each group mentioned by the Savior here represents different “ones on whom seed was sown.” The soils represent the character of the individuals who receive the seed. The importance of enduring to the end is emphasized through Christ’s comments on the failure of the second group, who received the word with joy (that is, they became true believers), but failed to endure “affliction or persecution . . . because of the word.” In varying degrees all believers experience some problem with such failure. Christ’s message on endurance was directed to all believers to encourage them in the face of tribulation. The ancient saints faced physical persecution as a major deterrent to their faith, but the need to endure tests of faith in order to be saved is no less essential for today’s Christians. Once Men have faith and that faith causes them to agree with Christ and view their sins with abhorrence so that they turn from them, they are ready to receive baptism (Acts 8:34-38; 22:16).Y When they are baptized, they are clean before God and upon receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost are saved (at least to a limited degree). However, as soon as they commit sin, they are no longer worthy of God’s presence and they lose that degree of salvation they have achieved. If they are to endure to the end, there must be a way to restOre Men to their association with the Holy Ghost, to renew that gift and their state of salvation. The Sacrament Of The Lord’s Supper There are numerous references in the Bible to Man being cleansed through the flesh and blood of Christ. In Romans 5:9, Paul states (NASB, some emphasis added): “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Likewise, Paul taught the Ephesians about Christ (Eph. 1:7, emphasis added): “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness ofsins, according to the riches of his grace;” The author of Hebrews referred to the same concept in Hebrews 13:12 (NASB, emphasis added) as follows: “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.” Earlier, the same writer states (Heb. 10:19-22, NASB, some emphasis added): Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. All these passages emphasize that “by His blood” Men are justified, redeemed, sanctified, andprepared to enter “the holy place.” These references identify every stage of salvation, and show that the blood of Christ is involved in Man’s salvation throughout the sanctification process, not just at baptism. In the last verse quoted above, t~v separate acts are mentioned, one involving the heart and the other, the body. The language is figurative, so the reference to a symbolic washing of the body “with pure water” should be taken as a reference to water baptism. (The waters of baptism are not “pure” because they have been filtered or distilled, but because they purify Men through the forgiveness of their sins.) In 1 Peter 3:21 (NASB) water baptism is described as “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” The reference in Hebrews 10:22 to having “our hearts sprinlded clean from an evil conscience” is very similar. Both describe a process by which Men can lose their “evil conscience” and obtain a “good conscience~’ but, as this verse indicates, the heart is “sprinkled,” while the body is “washed.” This passage suggests that sprinkling and washing refer to two different ordinances, each of which comprises an important part of the sanctification process. Men are saved by baptism, a washing, that involves the entire body, but they can fall from that state by committing sin after baptism. That Men’s hearts can be “sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” suggests there is a saving ordinance that involves a smaller amount of liquid than that required for the total immersion of water baptism, but which has the same effect on the soul as water baptism. Peter also speaks of being “sprinkled” in a passage that deals with sanctification (1 Peter 1:1-2, NASB, emphasis added): Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. What is the meaning of these references to being “sprinkled”? Do they relate to the traditional Catholic method of baptism? Are Men to be baptized repeatedly by sprinking? Revelations 7:13-15 provides further insight as it describes the reward of those who make their robes white in His blood (emphasis added): And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. The reference to washing (“have washed their robes”) is obviously an allusion to baptism, but what is the significance of the additional phrase, “and made them white in the blood of the Lamb”? Is there additional meaning in that phrase, or does it merely explain the result of washing their robes? Part of the key to all these passages is found in the Savior’s words in John 6:48-58 (NASB, some emphasis added): “I am the bread of life. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.~~ Here the Savior refers not only to His blood, but to His flesh, requiring that, in order to have eternal life, Men must “eat” His flesh and “drink” His blood. The Jews were strictly forbidden from drinking blood under the Law of Moses (Lev. 17:10-14). Hence, even Christ’s own disciples were taken aback at this saying (John 6:60). Of course, Christ was not promoting cannibalism. The context does not suggest a literal interpretation of this passage at all. Even the Catholic position on these verses is too literal for the language employed here (see John 6:63). However, Christ was definitely stating a requirement for salvation, as indicated by His reference to “life” in verse 53, meaning “eternal life,” as indicated in the next verse. Christ did not clarify this figurative language until the night before His crucifixion, when He established a ritual that has become known as The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It is described in Matthew 26:26-2 8 (NASH, some emphasis and brackets added) as follows: And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body” [Luke adds: “do this in remembrance of Me.”] And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” See also Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:19-20. (Hebrews 13:20 is obviously referring to this ordinance when it mentions “the blood of the everlasting covenant.”) This passage provides the figurative meaning for the references to Christ’s “body” (or “flesh”) and His “blood” in the scriptures cited above. In the ordinance Christ here established, the bread Christ blessed at the Last Supper was eaten in remembrance of “His body”, and the cup sipped in remembrance of “His blood.”z The symbolism of these acts is confirmed by Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 10:16 (NASH): “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” That the early Church understood this meaning and the importance of this ordinance appears from the fact that the ceremony Christ instituted at the Last Supper was a regular part of their weeldy worship services in the early Church (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; 20:7). It became known as the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or simpiy the Sacrament, and was treated with great respect in the early Church (see 1 Cor. 11:23-34). That the Sacrament is related to salvation is evident from the reference to forgiveness of sins in Matthew 26:28 (and the promise of eternal life in John 6:54). Thus, if Men sin after baptism and have need of renewed repentance and justification, they can partake of the Sacrament rather than being rebaptized. By this means truly penitent believers can be restored to the state of salvation from which their recent sin(s) dislodged them. The Sacrament refreshes the believer’s remembrance of his or her commitment to Christ made at baptism, and thus reestablishes the gift of the Holy Ghost. It follows that Paul’s reference to “renewing of the Holy Ghost” in Titus 3:5 is an allusion to the Sacrament. Baptism, an immersion in liquid, washes away Men’s sins after belief in Christ and repentance. Partaking of the Sacrament renews the memory of that event through a sip of liquid taken on a weekly basis in remembrance” of His blood. It is tantamount to being “sprinkled with His blood” (1 Pet. 1:2), and represents the means by which believers are “sprinlded clean” (Heb. 10:22, NASB), making their robes “white in the blood of the Lamb” after they have once “washed their robes” in His blood (Rev. 7:14) through baptism. Conclusion Baptism is the biblical rite by which repentant believers demonstrate a commitment to Christ and receive justification, that is, forgiveness of their sins.’ When a man comes out of the waters of baptism, he is washed clean, and, at that moment, is ready to enter the Kingdom of God. Being fit to receive the gift of communion with the Holy Ghost, he is “saved,” as Peter used that term in 1 Peter 3:21. However, the Lord knew that Men would make mistakes after baptism, so He commanded them to endure in the process of sanctification to the end. Given the tendency of the flesh to sin (see Romans 7), all Men are likely to experience some degree of failure while learning perfect obedience to God. To provide a means for renewing that commitment to Him and receiving justification for their recent sins, without the necessity of regular rebaptism, Christ instituted the Sacrament. As baptism is a wholesale washing of all the sins from the believer’s past life, the Sacrament, if partaken regularly, is a “sprinkling” of His blood to cleanse the sins of the recent past and to renew the believer’s fellowship with the Holy Ghost. Together, these ordinances provide a divinely instituted plan whereby believers seeking to learn perfect obedience to God through the sanctification process may wash their robes clean in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14). By making a real commitment to follow the Savior’s example, and renewing that commitment weekly, believers can overcome the grasp of bad habits and get ready for full-time residence in God’s eternal presence. Of course, this boon cannot be used for license. It is not available to justify the same unrelinquished sin week after week. Partaking of the Sacrament under such circumstances will result in condemnation, as Paul made clear in the following warning to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:27-30, NASB): Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. Verse 29 indicates that if Men do not “judge the body rightly” they eat and drink condemnation to themselves in partaking of the Sacrament. The original Greek indicates that Men must judge themselves thoroughly in partaking of the Sacrament, or they will be judged by the Lord. What they must decide, and evidence by openly (i.e., publicly) partaking of the Sacrament, is whether or not they are truly willing to obey Him. If they are, the atoning grace of Christ is available to restore them to a state of perfection before God. They will then remain in that state as long as they continue to obey Him. In time, the duration of their obedience will become greater and greater until it is perfected in permanent obedience, and with that, permanent salvation in the Kingdom of God. This is the way the Lord has established, using symbolic rituals to aid Men in their struggle along the way to perfection and eternal life. Rather than rejecting these ordinances as unnecessary, simplistic, or too ritualistic, all Men should receive them from His authorized servants, and use them in the manner the Lord intended, openly committing and recommitting themselves to Christ and thereby enjoying continued communion with the Holy Ghost and eventually with God and Christ. 8 THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION Those who enter the straita gate through faith, repentance and baptism, and embark on the narrow way of sanctification through communion with the Holy Ghost, will face a battle which Paul described as follows (Rom. 7:24-25, 15Th): “And now I see another law, even the commandment of Christ, and it is imprinted in my mind. But my members are warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” God knows that Men face an intense struggle between that which they know in their minds to be good and the habits of their flesh. At first that struggle may seem an impossible battle, but those who persist will find the “fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12) gets easier as Men become accustomed to the conflict and learn the taste of victory (2 Tim. 4:7). Still, as Men grow closer to God, they become more perceptive of their sinful nature and more sensitive to what once seemed minor infractions.c As a result, the pressures on a believer can, attimes, becomedepressing (see, e.g.,Ps. 22:1-6; Jer. 15:10; 20:14-18). Therefore, the Lord has given much encouragement and assurance to Men, indicating that, despite the temptations, trials and tribulations they face, those who persist in the struggle will eventually prevail and enter His kingdom (John 10:27-29; Rom. 8:28, 38-39; 1 Cor. 1:7-9; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; Heb. 13:5; 1 Pet. 1:3-10; 2 Pet. 3:9). Most reassuring of all is the biblical teaching that the Savior is anxiously involved in intercessory efforts on behalf of those who are intent on following Him (John 17:8-26; Heb. 7:25). Modern Evangelical scholars, however, have taken these encouragements for more assurance than they were intended to convey. Current Evangelical teaching asserts that salvation, once received, ispermanent.d Of course, those who teach Lordship Salvation claim that Men can only be sure they are saved if they have the necessary quality of faith, that is, if they “truly” believe, as demonstrated by their obedience.e But the end result is the same: The assurance of salvation is claimed with no regard to the necessity of obedience! John wrote an entire epistle to dispel this notion (1 John). At the end of that epistle, he said (1 John 5:13, NASH): “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.” The “things” John had written show unequivocally that when John said “you who believe in the name of the Son of God” he was referring only to those who obey His commandments (I John 2:3, 3:6). “And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us” (1 John 3:24, NASH, some emphasis added; see also, 1 John 4:13). If Men obey God’s commandments-have faith in him, repent, and are baptized-they will receive the gift spoken of in this verse, “the Spirit whom He has given us,” which is “the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). All who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost know when “He abides in [them].” They also know that when they sin, and thereby “grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30-5:5, NASH), the Holy Spirit leaves! This too is obvious to those who have had the Holy Spirit abiding in them. When the Holy Ghost “abides in [a man] ,“ he is saved (at least in a limited sense). If the Holy Ghost departs, that man needs “renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5), which comes through repentance and worthy partaking of the Sacrament. God has given passages of encouragement so that Men can have hope when they fall, and will be assured that they can repent and truly forsake their sins, so they will return to Him and endure forever (1 John 1:9). God has also reminded Men of the seriousness of their sins, so they will be encouraged to persevere in obedience when they are on the strait and narrow way. At the close of his great epistle on salvation, Paul noted these two aspects of God’s admonitions, saying (Romans 15:4, NASH, emphasis added): “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Not only did God give Men a hope of salvation, He provided a way for them to have absolute assurance about the status of their salvation at all times. If Men have the Holy Ghost with them, they have the beginning of salvation from Spiritual Death. If they do not, they need to seek salvation as John encouraged the early Church to do (1 John 2:1). Assurance is not found where Lordship teachers claim, in a list of qualities of the “true believer” against which Men must measure their faith-only to be found wanting.~ Nor can they assume, as No-lordship teachers do, that though they continue in sin they are saved because of their intellectual assent to the fact that Jesus is the ~hris~.~ The assurance God promised is found in each individual’s personal relationship with God beginning with the gift of the Holy Ghost. To maintain that relationship, they must repent every time they lull, until they find in their faith the strengths and qualities John attributed to true believers. Pbsitionalism Rather than accept the challenges presented by God’s way of salvation, even with His reassurance that the way is not grievous, Evangelicals search diligently for some other way to reassure themselves that they are saved despite their disobedience. Those who espouse Lordship Salvation look for something special about the quality of their faith. Those who reject Lordship Salvation claim an assurance of salvation based on their intellectual recognition of Christ as the Messiah. Neither group recognizes that the Bible does not assure salvation to the disobedient, notwithstanding any encouragement God has given to struggling believers. Those who defend Evangelical claims of security in salvation cite the term “in Christ,” used frequently by Paul, to show that once they have had their “moment of faith’’ and are thereby saved (supposedly without obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel), they have a permanent place reserved in heaven, a position “in Christ” out of which they cannot be moved. The term Positionalism has been coined to identify this concept of security in salvation. The appeal of Positionalism is strong. All who have been asked whether or not they have been saved realize how jealously Evangelicals guard their claim to security in the Lord and look with disdain on those who do not profess a certainty about their place in heaven.h Gone is the humble attitude Paul expressed in Philippians 3:12-14 (NASH) as follows: Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing Jdo: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, Ipress on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. What then is the effect of disobedience or “backsliding” in Evangelical theology-assuming that the backslider is not one whom Lordship teachers would accuse of never having been saved in the first place? The ultimate Evangelical response to questions about the effects of backsliding by saved believers is that they will suffer the consequences of sin in this life, but will not lose their position in the next. That is, they will lose some lesser reward, but not their ultimate reward, eternal salvation.’ The response of human nature to this doctrine is predictable. “If I’m going to be saved anyway, I don’t much mind losing a few lesser rewards!” What inconvenience, what consequence of sin in this life, can compare with salvation? If Men are certain they will be saved, what care they if God should beat them with “a few stripes” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 28:8)? What is the motivation for claiming that Salvation is permanent despite disobedience, if it is not to rationalize the commission of sin?! Still, among Evangelicals many well-meaning and intelligent Bible scholars espouse this doctrine, interpreting those passages in which God has provided encouragement to His people (and some that don’t even go that far-e.g., 1 Tim. 2:4) as if they were unconditional promises of salvation for all who claim to believe in Him (or for all who are “true believers”). Do any of these passages afford the security Positionalists claim? Is It Biblical? One of the passages frequently cited in support of Positionalism is John 10:27-29 (NASB): “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” This is certainly a comforting reassurance-to His “sheep”! But the passage promises nothing to those who cannot be so described. Evangelicals claim that “sheep” include all (true?) believers, but, in fact, “sheep” do much more than simply believe in the Shepherd, they hear His voice and follow Him! This passage promises nothing to those who merely claim to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, without following He who is their Shepherd. Without seriously questioning whether or not they qualify as “sheep,” itionalists take great comfort in God’s omnipotent power to hold His sheep safe. They claim that when the passage says “no one” can snatch them from His hand, it includes even the sheep themselves! To them, the Savior’s grasp so firm, it will even retain the sheep against their will! Mormons will gecogniZe this doctrine as a tenet of Lucifer in the pre-eXisteflCe (Moses 4:14). This definitely is not God’s way, and never was. Though His sheep are safe from others, they may always rebel and leave the fold. They may even choose no longer to be His “sheep.” A just God will not hold Men against their will, nor does this passage contain any suggestion that either Christ or the Father are so inclined. PositiOnaliStS also note that God’s hand encompasses the universe, and ask, “Even if the sheep tried to leave His hand, where could they go that He would not be able to save them?”’ To this reasoning Mormons respond by noting that the universe also encompaSSeS the devil and his angels (who know for certain that Jesus is the Christ!), but the Father’s hand does not embrace them with such salvation. Neither does His hand clutch believers so tightly that they will be saved even if they refuse to follow Him. The promise of salvation to those who believe is expressed in John 11:25-26 in a manner which also fuels Positionalist fervor as follows (NASB): Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, “and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” Obviously, this passage does not refer to Physical Death. Even the saved must die physically, though all will be physically resurrected. Hence, it is clear that Christ’s promise is of eternal life, i.e., salvation from Spiritual Death. But the promise expressed here is limited to “he who believes in Me” (verse 25) or “everyone who lives and believes in Me” (verse 26). In analyzing any passage written by John, it must be remembered that he defined a “believer” as one who obeys God. That is why the phrases “he who believes in Me” and ‘everyOne who lives and believes in Me” are used synonymously in these two verses. To live and believe in Him means to live in accordance with a true belief in Him. Yet the same promises are made to he who “believes” (verse 25) as are made to he who “lives and believes” (verse 26). John intended the two phrases to be viewed as equivalent. He often used this writing technique as here, to make his point clear. Note also that the term “believes” and the phrase “lives and believes” are both in the present tense. The promise is not to all who “have believed in Me”, or those who “will some day believe in Me.” It is only to those who currently believe in Christ. Men cannot claim the benefits of a promise unless they fit the description of its promisee. Hence, those who once believed, but have ceased to obey God, do not fit John’s description of believers, and are not the recipients of God’s promise for a secure salvation. Another passage frequently cited in support of Positionalism is the statement of Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; (NASB): For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire. Positionalists feel the phrase “each man’s work” in this passage refers to their actions, whether good or bad. They claim this teaches that such actions only affect what rewards Men will receive, and even if all their works are evil and are burned in the fire of judgment, yet they will be saved. The problem with that interpretation is it does not adequately explain the language. The last phrase, “yet so as through fire,” is inseparably connected to the phrase “but he himself shall be saved.” This suggests that there is yet a condition to the salvation of such a person. Hence, the word “shall” in the latter phrase does not really express a certainty, but more of a probability or conditional assurance. (The translation in the JST is “may.”) The context of the passage is also too narrow for the Positional interpretation. It speaks of those who axe building a ~vrk “upon the foundation.” The foundation, of course, is Christ. Therefore, the men referred to in the passage are those who have already accepted Christ and are doing works based on their testimonies of Him. Some of the works that flow from their faith are of great value (likened to gold, silver and precious stones), while others are of little or no value (wood, hay and straw). They are not identified as good or bad actions. Instead, the passage explains that “the day” (judgment day) will reveal the nature of these works. All Men, even the righteous, must give an accounting of their works in this life. Though a righteous man’s works might be burned because they are of little or no value in eternity, he will be saved because he has endured the trials and tribulations of life, which God compares to the fire used to test precious metals~~~±’yet so as through fire” (see, also, Zech. ~‘ 13:9; 1 Pet. 1:7). He may receive a lesser or greater reward in connection ~. with his entry into eternal life, but the passage does not even address the ~ issue of security in salvation. Another passage used by Positionalists is 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. That passage ~ appears as follows in the NASB: It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and im-morality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, Ihave decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This passage deals with the disciplining of a Corinthian believer who had committed heinous sin. The CorinthianS had erred in not properly subjecting this individual to Church discipline. Positionalists claim that verse 5 means Paul “deliver[ed] such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh,” but that even this heinous sinner will “be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” This interpretation ignores the plain language of that verse. All that can be said from this passage is that Paul hoped for such a response to proper Church discipline, but the word used in verse S is “may~’ which clearly indicates an uncertainty that this person will be saved at all. Another passage relied upon by those who would preach Positional ism is Romans 8:28 (NASB): “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” All too often, this passage is quoted only in part by those who would use it for the Positionalist theme. John MacArthur relies on it to argue that if all things work together for Man’s good, how can anything work to undo his salvation?~’ The problem with that reasoning is it fails to take into account the rest of the phrase, which clearly limits its application to “those who love God.” Those who love God are those who keep His commandments (John 14:15; 15:10)! This passage does not apply to those who do not love God enough to get back up after they fall. To assure salvation Men must always repent and take up their way again on the narrow path of obedience. It is unthinkable that continuing in sin will “work together for good.” The vicissitudes of life work together for the good of those who obey the Lord, but sin is never efficacious. Instead, if Men do not turn from sin, it will certainly remove them from the category of those to whom this promise of security was made, i.e., “those who love God.” Sealing. Another approach to Positionalism is made through passages that refer to believers being “sealed” or “sealed up,” or having their “calling and election [made] sure.” Many of these passages are found in the book of Ephesians. For example, Ephesians 1:13-14 (emphasis added) reads as follows in the NASB: In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemp-tion of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. The assumption among Positionalists is that the term “sealed” means a finished transaction which cannot be opened. The Greek word used here, however, is sphragizo, which refers to being impressed with a seal, and implies identification. Thus, the Holy Spirit acts as a witness of the “promise” in this passage. In promises like this, called covenants (e.g., the “everlasting covenant,” Heb. 13:20), the obligation is always conditioned upon performance by the promisee. The “seal” only assures that the believer is entitled to the Lord’s promise, if the believer is faithful to his or her commitments. The words “given as a pledge” in verse 14 are consistent with this understanding. The Greek word arrhabë~’i, translated “pledge” here (KJV: “earnest”) could also be translated “down payment.”’ The “down payment” is given with a “view” to Man’s redemption. This wording implies a covenant dependant on performance by the obligee, namely sincere and persistent effort throughout this life to live the laws of God. The same word, translated “sealed,” also appears in EphesianS 4:30 (NASB) as follows: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Again, “sealed” refers to identification of the new convert as a promiSee of redemption subject to what lawyers call a “condition subsequent.” This is not a guarantee that Men will be redeemed no matter what they do for the rest of their lives. It remains certain only because of the continuing performance of the promisee. positionalistS claim, based on this passage, that if a man sins after he has been “saved:’ it will merely “grieve the Holy Spirit of God.” What they fail to appreciate is the sense in which the Holy Spirit is thus grieved! Thinking His sorrow has nothing to do with the loss of their salvation, they suppose believers will remain “sealed for the day of redemption” in spite of the sins they commit after they have received God’s covenant. In fact, the Spirit’s grief is expressed by His departure! Election. Positionalists seek support for their view in the doctrine of “election:’ which means, simply, to be chosen by God. They argue that since God has chosen the “elect” for salvation, Lie won’t change His mind. Their idea that salvation is assured once a man is thus chosen is greatly undermined by the following statement in 2 Peter 1:10 (emphasis added): “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.”m According to this passage, even the elect must seek to make their election “sure.” In 2 Peter 1:5-9, Peter lists the “things” Men must do to accomplish that goal. What he describes is the same as all the other Apostles have taught- Men must obey the commandments of God. Clearly, Man’s “calling and election” is not assured even when he has once been saved, otherwise Peter would not have expressed concern that the elect might “fall.” Election to salvation is the beginning of sanctification; making one’s “calling and election sure” is the object of that process; and ultimate salvation is the end result. Though Christ earnestly prayed for those whom He started on the narrow path to be “kept” on the way of sanctification until they could be one with God (John 17:11-13, 17-21), the very fact that lie was concerned enough to make the request is evidence that there is always a danger they could fail. Losing Salvation Or Finding True Security? In any discussion with Evangelicals on this subject, the greatest resistanCe is encountered over the idea that Men can lose their salvation. Lordship and No-lordship teachers may differ on whether or not a person is really saved in the first place, but they are equally hard to convince on the issue of “once saved, always saved.”~ Their concern over this specific issue represents a basic misunderstanding about salvation and the Lord’s promises to believers. Ultimate salvation from sin is reserved until after Man’s sojourn on the earth. This life is a probationary period (1 Pet. 1:15-17), and the jury is out until the time for judgment has arrived. Men are given sufficient time in this life to gain and regain their salvation (e.g., Rev. 2:21), and the sanctifi-cation process assumes that salvation will be lost and regained frequently as Men gmw in spirituality and prepare for life in the Kingdom of God. Christ’s institution of the Sacrament as a weekly observance shows that He knew just how often Men would need to renew the Holy Ghost in their lives. The Bible is replete with passages that indicate Man’s progress in the way of salvation can be rocky and uncertain. Peter warned the early saints about this very prospect in 1 Peter 4:17-19 (NASH) as follows: For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? Therefore, let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. This passage militates strongly against the concept of permanent salvation, even for the “household of God.” Peter understood the difficulties Men face in the process of sanctification. Enduring in righteousness throughout this life is never easy. One must turn again to repentance often in order to stay on the straight and narrow path, and there is always the danger that the righteous will fall into self-righteousness when they become adept at obeying some of God’s commandments. John, too, implies that Men can lose their position in Christ through a lack of enduring obedience, as witnessed by this warning from 2 John 8-9 (NASH): Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. Positionalists think verse 8 proves that disobedience after salvation only brings about a difference in rewards without affecting their ultimate salvation, bit that verse cautions that Men may lose their “fidl reward.” An understanding of what is meant by that phrase is given in verse 9. If Men go too far and do not maintain their efforts to live Christ’s teachings, they may not “have God.” “[Having] God” can only mean living with Him, having regular access > to His presence. This is simply another way of describing eternal life. That is Man’s “full reward.” Paul was also concerned that Men not fail in their efforts to work out their own salvation. He frequently spoke of their faith and his efforts for their salvation being “in vain” if believers did not hold fast to the words he preached (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1-2; Phil. 2:12-16; Gal. 4:11; and 1 Thess. 3:5). In 2 Corinthians 13:5 (NASH), he cautioned: Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-unless indeed you fail the test? If Men can fail this test, and not be found “in the faith,” what does that mean about their position “in Christ?” Some Evangelicals claim that this passage refers to a test for the determination of whether or not a person is “really saved.” They claim only nonbelievers can fail. If this were so, would Paul, an apostle of the Lord, need to test himself and his associates? Certainly not! But in the next verse (NASH), he testifies: “But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test.” This statement is in the present tense, signil~ring that Paul, himself, regularly takes this test and is currently approved by it. He goes on, however, to warn the Corinthians that they should “do no wrong” even if it appears he is not passing the test. Paul wanted them to be strong (i.e., remain on the path of obedience), even if he proved to be weak. So strong should they be, he says, that they will eventually be made perfect (2 Cor. 13:9 and 11). John MacArthur tries to give Paul’s test mystical significance, suggesting that, “This is the test Paul laid before the Corinthians: Can you see Christ’s ‘glory’ reflected in you-even dimly?”0 How do Men do this? How do they know if they are seeing Christ’s “glory” reflected in themselves, dimly or otherwise? MacArthur does not answer this question. Instead, he says “it is that dim reflection of His glory-not anything inherent in us-that is the subjective basis for our assurance.”P It is good to recognize that the believer’s works are “God’s work in us, not our own accomplishments,”~ but that is no reason to deny that Man’s behavior is the crux of Paul’s test. r Perfect obedience is the goal of sanctifi-cation, and, hence, its measuring rod. To look for Christ’s reflection in a man is to see how well he emulates Christ’s example! That is the point of Paul’s language, and the simple nature of the test he advises. Honestly and humbly, Men must look at whether or not they are obeying Christ. If they are, they will see His glory reflected in themselves. They will also recognize their failures and need for improvement. In 2 Peter 2, Peter warns of false teachers who will arise promising “freedom” (verse 19) while they themselves are the slaves of sin. Modern Evangelical failures like Jim Bakker seem to fit the description in these verses perfectly. The same is true of some early leaders in the Mormon Church who fell into rebellion and became bitter enemies of the Church. (However, verses 2 and 3 find specific fulfillment in conduct like that exemplifed by Bakker’s outrageous conduct with Jessica Hahn and the debacle of his fraudulent conduct regarding Heritage, U.S.A.) Peter’s condemnation of false teachers addresses the issue under discussion in verses 20-22 (NASH): For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy com-mandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” Verse 14 describes these teachers as “accursed children,” and verse 1 indicates that they will deny the Master “who bought them.” These references indicate that the passage is directed to persons who were once believers. Indeed, history demonstrates that it is from the community of believers that the greatest traitors and false teachers arise (e.g., Judas Iscariot). Evangelicals do not want this passage to apply to believers, since that would contradict their theology on the permanency of salvation. Hence, they try various ways to escape its plain meaning. But the phrase “they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus “clearly indicates that these false teachers once had a saving knowledge of Christ and obtained a remission of their sins. The phrase “to have known way of righteousness” (verse 21) also implies an intimate knowledge ot,tained by experience. The condemnation Peter describes for such false teachers only falls on those who “are again entangled” in “the defilemeflts of the world” and “are overcome.” It will not fall on those who become entangled in worldly sin but struggle back to Him, ultimately overcoming the influence of the evil one in their lives. Still, Men must overcome the snares of worldly sin, or they will be worse off than the heathen who never knew Christ. Those who turn from the path of salvation once they have entered the sanctification process depart from God with what lawyers call “informed consent.” This makes theirs a far more serious rebellion than the disobedience of those who never knew God. The author of Hebrews twice issues the same warning, and in even stronger terms. Hebrews 6:4-8 (NASH) states: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. Positionalists claim that this passage is likewise without application to believers. They say that those who are described in these verses are investigators who look at the Gospel, but never accept the Savior. While such a person might fit the description given in these verses, it fits believers who have turned from the gospel path especially well.s In the Bible, if the shoe fits, it must be worn. Believers “have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (if they were baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost). If they then fall away, they are among those whose fate is described in this passage. Note again that the condemnation of these verses applies only to those who have fallen away so as to be completely overcome by the world. Their departure from the way of salvation is so distinct that they “again crucify to themselves the Son of God.” This does not describe a man who slips from the strait and narrow path temporarily. Those spoken of here have rebelled so that they no longer wish to return. Rather than being compared to useful vegetation, in their fully ripened state they are compared to thorns and thistles worthy only to be burned. (Being “burned” is a metaphor referring to destruction in the lake of fire, the ultimate end of the damned.) Hebrews 10:23-31 (NASB) issues the same warning: Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. This passage teaches that, for those who “go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth,” the sacrifice of Christ is not available to wash away their sins. This description fits those who know the truth but continue in sin thinking they do not have to obey God in order to be saved! This comes very close to the position of No-lordship advocates, and should be a cause of serious concern for all who think to rely on false assurances of salvation without obedience. Of course, if they repent they can avoid destruction. Otherwise, for them “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sills That this passage applies to believers is evident from verse 29. The promise of a “severer punishment” lies in store for he who “has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, . . . “(emphasis added). The persons described in these verses had definitely accepted Christ at one time, and entered upon the path of sanctification (cf., Acts 26:18). Paul taught the Galatians the effect of returning to sin after believing and entering the pathway to salvation in Galatians 2:17-18 (NASB), as follows: “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.” Rebuilding what was once destroyed means a return to the slavery of sin from which Men are saved through faith, repentance and baptism. If Men do that, they are “found sinners.” But what does Paul mean when he says that, by doing this, a person proves himself “a transgressor?” To be a trans-gressor is to be in a state of sin (see James 2:8-11). If Men sin after they have once been redeemed, they prove themselves to be in the same position as any other transgressor: they need to be saved from the punishment that is associated with transgression of the law, through justification. Christ taught against the theology of Postitionalism in the Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-23; Mark 4:2-20; Luke 8:4-15) quoted in the previous chapter in connection with the principle of endurance. Those who have no endurance Christ likened to shallow soil. They hear the word and accept (i.e., “receive”) it with joy, but “in time of temptation,” they “fall away (Luke 8:13). Such individuals clearly believed, but their salvation was not permanent. As the passage says, they “fall.” Positionalists argue that these people never “really believed,” in the first place, and hence they did not experience salvation.t But the passage does not suggest that those who are compared to “shallow soil” failed to believe in Christ when they accepted the “seed.” It focuses on their subsequent behavior, which resulted in their “fall .“ The Lord’s promises of salvation and of damnation are always conditional! If a man is on his way to Hell, and God says “You will be damned,” the promised condemnation can be averted if the man repents and turns from his evil ways (cf., Jonah 3:3-10). Both nations and individuals can lose promised blessings or avoid prophecies of doom, if they cease from righ-teousness or vice versa (see Jer. 18:7-10). This point was made with unmistakable clarity by the prophet Ezekiel, who gives the most complete and unequivocal statement on this sub ect contained anywhere in the Bible. It is as true for Christian believers today as it was for Jewish believers in the day God revealed it, and it is consistent with every passage in the New Testament on this subject. Ezekiel 33:11-20 (NASH) reads as follows (the words “life” and “death” in this passage are references to Eternal Life and Spiritual Death, respectively): “Say to them, As I live! declares the Lord GOD, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, 0 house of Israel?’ “And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, ‘The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.’ “When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he conixnits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. “But when I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he shall not die. “None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he will surely live. “Yet your fellow citizens say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right,’ when it is their own way that is not right. “When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. “But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ 0 house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.” The Evangelical concept of Positionalism is that of the righteous man who learns that “he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity” (verse 13). When that happens, as God has witnessed here, “none of his righteous deeds will be remembered.” Instead, “he will die.” Of course, like any other sinner, if he repents, he can still obtain eternal life. What ultimately matters is that Men learn to walk “by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity” (verse 15)! This is the final word on the question of assurance in salvation. The Jews of Ezekiel’s day rejected this doctrine just as Positionalists do today, and for essentially the same reason. They believed they would be saved as children of Abraham, and they did not wish to do his works in order to obtain God’s promises. But the Lord will judge “each of you according to his ways” (verse 20, emphasis added). This word is translated from the Hebrew derek, meaning “trodden path.” It denotes Man’s daily habits of behavior. Thus, the test is a man’s regular pattern of obedience. If those “ways” change from good to evil, it will not matter that the man once “accepted Christ,” just as it will not matter that disobedient Jews are physical descendants of Abraham (John 8:37). Positionalism, or any other teaching about assurance in salvation which fails to recognize that Men must remain on the strait and narrow path in order to arrive in the kingdom of God, must be rejected. Though Men may stumble and occasionally fall off the path in their effort to learn obedience, God is patient and extremely helpful, so that the journey is not an impossible one, nor in any way “grievous.” Men must choose to do something in this life. They can choose to do good as easily as they can choose to do evil. God has provided a way for Men to repent, endure, learn obedience and cleanse their robes in His blood. If they choose humbly to obey His commandments and follow Him, then (and only then) will they have the assurance of the Holy Ghost. With that assurance, they may know that they have been saved and will yet obtain their “full reward.” Conclusion Part III Mormon Escliatology