If I understood correctly, the heart of your argument was that since God foreknows who is justified/glorified, that means it is a finished act and nothing we do can take away our salvation. I am a little confused because I don’t see how the conclusion follows your premise.

God, who is outside of time, clearly see’s all moments now. That is why his name is “I AM.” So just because he forsee’s who is going to be saved doesn’t mean he is seeing those who are saved at age 20. It would be more appropriate to say that he is seeing the outcome of a man who put his faith in Christ at age 20. He may be foreseeing those who “endured till the end” not necessarily those who started the race. For example, let’s say there is a person in the present named Calvin who is faithful to Jesus. To us, it may seem like Calvin will be saved. After all, he placed his faith in Christ when he was 20. But God ultimately knows how his life will turn out 40 years from now. So even though it seems to us that Calvin is saved, 40 years down the line, he actually falls away. But of course, God knew that he would turn away. Not because Calvin had no free will or God destined him to turn away, but because God saw the outcome of his initial faith and Calvin had a free will. So God saw that he would turn way since God see’s the future as the present day. I hope my example makes sense.

Like I said in my last post, the question of Faith Alone has to be dealt with in conjunction with the question of once saved always saved. Based on your last post, it sounds like your making a once saved always saved argument.

Here are some more reasons why I have difficulty with that. In your last post, you talked about how even though you believe in Predestination… free will is not out of the equation. I agree with you here. I believe we are predestined AND we have a free will. However, after affirming that we have a free will to “COME TO JESUS” it seemed like you took free will out of the equation or completely ignored it. Where is free will AFTER we have accepted Jesus? Surely, our ability to choose will be united with the will of God in heaven. But for now it isn’t. And this is very easy to prove since you and I continue to sin despite our faith in Christ.

I can give you a handful of passages that talk about people using their free will to loose their salvation AFTER accepting Jesus. I will mention two quick ones: #1 “No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, so that I myself will not be disqualified for the prize; 1 Cor 9:27.” Why would Paul worry about being disqualified and not “winning” if he had already been saved? Also, “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved; Matt 10:22.” Again, why did Jesus ask us to endure (across time) if all we had to do was make a one time act of faith?

Of course, many would point out Romans 8:1 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” But again, this passage applies to those who remain in Christ. No force can tear me away from Christ. Unless, of course, I myself choose to leave him. That doesn’t mean that God wasn’t strong enough to keep me despite myself, it means that God wants me to Love him and CHOOSE to remain in him everyday of my life not just at one moment when I confessed Jesus is Lord.

You quoted Romans chapter 8 but it is important to remember that in Romans 8:28, we read…”in everything God works for good with [sunergei eis agathon] those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. Sunergei eis agathon is a verse that speaks of us cooperating with God’s grace (Sunergei = synergism). But keep in mind that even our act of cooperation is only possible by God’s grace. C.S. Lewis gives the analogy of a child who asks his dad for some money to buy him a birthday present. The child does a good deed but it is only because of the grace of his Father.

That is why, when people ask me, “will you be saved?” I respond, “I have placed my faith in Jesus Christ, by his blood, I know that I HAVE BEEN SAVED (Rom 8:24; Eph2:5-7; 2Tim1:9), I AM BEING SAVED (Phil 2:12; 1Pet1:19) and I WILL BE SAVED (Matt10:22;Matt24:13;MK8:35) if I remain in him and die daily.

I am about to submit an article to UBFriends titled, “Can Salt Loose it’s Saltiness.” I would greatly enjoy if we could continue this charitable conversation there.
God Bless

The question is, what happens after justification? Is sanctification accomplished by faith and works, or do works follow faith (as I argued in my earlier post)? In Romans 8 (verses 29ff) Paul addresses this question quite nicely:

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”

The most important thing to notice first in this passage is that all the verbs are in the past tense. “Foreknew”, “predestined”, “called”, “justified” and “glorified.” So you see, Gerardo, salvation – in this context justification, sanctification and glorification – _starts_ with God’s foreknowledge of who will be saved. From God’s perspective our eternal status is already known – we have already been “glorified” (past tense), the final stage of our salvation. This is why it is correct to believe that salvation *in its entirety* is by faith alone – because we come to understand that in God’s eyes, we are already glorified.

Now the related question has to do with predestination. You might ask “If we are predestined and already glorified in God’s eyes, where does our free will enter into the equation?” The best answer I have ever heard to this question is from a message I heard by Pastor Alistair Begg (Parkside Church in Cleveland) teaching on John 6. In verse 37 Jesus says “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” This one verse elegantly captures the essence of the predestination vs. free-will issue: in this one single verse both are captured. “All that the Father gives me will come to me” speaks to the foreknowledge of God in justifying, sanctifying and glorifying us. “…and whoever comes to me” speaks to our free will; i.e., the exercise of our free will to _choose_ to love God. Jesus reiterates these two points in the following verses as well where He says “39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Verse 39 speaks to those “he has given me”, again predestination, and verse 40 to “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him”, our choice.

The question that remains is “how can both be true – both predestination and free will?” And the answer was given by CS Lewis when speaking about the Eucharist – Jesus commanded us to “take, and eat” not “take, and understand.” These spiritual truths must be revealed by God to each individual person and accepted by faith – they cannot be understood by human logic.

Anyway, I think that provides a good model. From age 7-12, teach kids biblical truths and the fundamental truth that Jesus died for the salvation of the world. Then, from age 14 -21 teach kids doctrine grounded in scripture. Just my two cents.

I found your post very personally insightful but I also felt confused by your distinction of the two kinds of faith. They both sounded very similar.

James 2 is indeed a difficult concept for a “Faith Alone” man to deal with. I have previously heard the argument that James and Paul are talking about two different kinds of Faith. Some will say that James was using Faith to mean “intellectual assent” or a bad faith, or some kind of weak faith and not faith in the traditional “trust and believe” sense.
But I find a couple of problems with this argument. #1 If James was referring to some kind of dead faith to begin with, then he would be making the redundant statement that dead faith without works is dead (v 17, 26) and offering to prove that dead faith is barren (v. 20). He would be trying to show people his dead faith by his works (v. 18) and commending people (“you do well”) for having dead faith (v. 19). #2 He would be telling us that Abraham’s dead faith was active with his works (v. 22) and that Abraham believed God with dead faith and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (v. 23). If James meant mere intellectual faith then he would be saying Abraham’s mere intellectual faith was reckoned to him as righteousness which would contradict verse 23. #3 Lastly, James seems to be talking about a real faith because he uses the metaphor of a REAL body + REAL spirit necessary for life (v26). So if we carry that over, we can see that James was not talking about a “rotten faith” since he was not talking about a “rotten body.”

I think Saint Paul also corroborates this line of reasoning in 1 Corinthians 13:2 where he refers to being nothing EVEN IF he had a faith to move mountains. A faith to move mountains must be real faith if it is that powerful. I can also give a handful of passages where Jesus seems to also corroborate this line of reasoning.

In terms of Ephesians 2:8-9, I (as a Faith+ works guy) have no problem with that when we consider that Saint Paul was referring to works of the law. Throughout the context, we see Saint Paul referring to circumcision and membership in Christ (Eph2:11-19). So Saint Paul is probably using “works” and “boasting” here as he does in Romans, i.e., of Jews boasting before Gentiles of having privilege with God due to their keeping the Mosaic Law. In fact, if we look at the context in most passages used to support Faith alone, we will quickly see that in most cases he is referring to works of the law. If not, then he contradicts himself in 1 Corinthians.

However, even IF Saint Paul was referring to “good works” and not “works of the law” in Ephesians, that still presents no problem for a Faith + Works position because he is speaking of salvation in the past tense-“you have been saved.” We know from other parts of the bible that he also refers to salvation as a future tense (running and winning a race). Hence, I would argue that we are indeed initially saved by Faith and not by good works. I have no problem with that. However, I would argue that without good works to complete our Faith, we can loose our salvation, whereas others would argue that we cannot. So here is where another major doctrinal issue raises it’s head. The question of once saved always saved. That is why I personally feel that the question of Faith Alone has to be dealt with in conjunction with the question of once saved always saved. These two doctrines are intricately linked.

But anyway, it is an interesting (AND VITAL) question that merits further discussion.

I don’t know if this is helpful to you, but it is where I stand. Hopefully it sheds some light on the question of ‘faith vs. works.’

God bless you! :)

I liked how you clarified what you meant by catholic hehe

UBF does what it does very well. I am just saying maybe it is time to doctrinally expand.

Personally, I know that I am only saved by faith, and not by my works, but according to her, our ubf Bible study taught salvation by works. Though I could “blame” her for her accusations, I’m beginning to realize that we, in our emphasis during Bible study, tend to teach mission more than we teach sound biblical doctrine, such as the way of salvation by faith through Christ alone, propitiation, penal vicarious substitutionary atonement, the Trinity, the work of the Holy Spirit, eshcatology, ecclesiology, the various creeds, etc. As a result, we inadvertently “assume” the mystery of the gospel, and predominantly teach what Christians should do and how Christians should live—which is works. Has this been anyone else’s experience?

It seems to me that this is a great idea…to help Christians in basic doctrinal issues like the Trinity, salvation, etc. Just wanted to share….

In my experience, a lot of heat can be dispelled up front if we first engage in factual, non-judgmental discussions of the historical positions that Christians of different stripes have taken down through the ages. That exercise alone is truly eye-opening. And factual discussions of UBF tradition are also enlightening. On quite a few occasions, I have heard people say “here in UBF, we believe such-and-such” and then state a position that is quite different from what I have heard directly from the founders of UBF.

At present, I do not hold any firm doctrinal positions on the exact meaning of the Lord’s Supper or Communion, because I know that I have a great deal to learn in this regard, and because I have not yet been convinced that I need to take a strong stance. But I do believe that the practice is important, because Jesus himself commanded it. And I believe that Christians should not divide themselves on this issue, because by its very nature, the Lord’s supper is supposed to express our communion and fellowship with one another in the Lord. Given that, I think that we can engage in a mature, public discussion about any and all aspects of it without being dismissive, disrespectful or mocking of anyone’s position. The goal of such a discussion should be mutual learning, rather than trying to convince anyone to agree with me.

Or did you mean that we should start a discussion of what are people’s various beliefs about communion?

In my experience, the Lord’s supper is such a difficult issue to discuss because of the grave consequences associated with believing. For example, a Catholic might get offended because a evangelical protestant calls the consecrated host a “catholic cookie.” Whereas, a evangelical protestant might get shocked and appalled because a Catholic professes to worship the consecrated Host.

It is also a difficult issue to discuss because some people will get incredibly defensive of their view. For a Catholic, loosing their belief in the consecrated Host mean’s that they are have been engaging in idolatry this whole time. For an evangelical protestant, loosing their belief in the symbolic nature of communion means that they HAVE to attend Catholic church and spend time with the real presence of Jesus (after all… Jesus is really there!). Either way, people have MUCH at stake in giving in which makes for very hard headed discussion. =) Joe, I would be happy to have a one on one discussion with you about this. I feel a blog discussion would ruffle a couple of feathers.

This is an excellent example of a doctrine that has HUGE ramifications for believing one way or the other. UBF (as far as I can tell) seems to implicitly affirm that it is a beautiful symbol. But I believe this doctrine has to be confronted up front in their statement of faith in plain and clear language. No beating around the bush for on this issue. “We believe that communion is….” It makes an enormousness world of difference.

What would you say is the difference between doctrine and dogma?
When I hear the word “dogma,” I think of the taking of secondary issues and making them primary issues. I always use the language that there are “open-handed issues” and “closed-handed issues.” Open-handed issues are those issues which Bible-believing Christians can debate over, disagree over, even discuss over, but not divide over. The closed-handed issues are those issues we really have to remain committed to, to remain Christian. So for me, in the doctrine book [Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe], I had to really work hard along with my co-author, Gerry Breshears, on those issues that should be in the closed hand, and also talk about the various issues that need to remain in the open hand. I think dogma is putting everything in the closed hand—being absolutely dogmatic and contentious about things that, quite frankly, aren’t as clear in Scripture as other things. So there are issues in the Bible, like eschatology issues surrounding Jesus’ return, speaking in tongues, some things like that where you can love Jesus, and believe the Bible, and disagree on and still be a faithful Christian. There are other issues, like the Trinity or the resurrection of Jesus, you have to be very clear on to remain Christian.

Joe, I think the statement of faith is an excellent starting point. There are a variety of doctrines implicitly affirmed there. I don’t believe I have ever heard a sermon on the trinity either. In fact, I don’t think I have heard many sermon’s on Love despite the strong message conveyed by Corinthians 13:13. I once gave a talk on how family is found in the Trinity. Many people commented afterwards that they didn’t really think much about the Trinity and were glad the topic was brought up.

“These are the spiritual heritage that we received from previous generations and must pass on to the next generation.”
AMEN! Well put.

I feel that kids are going to be confronted with counter doctrines that will challenge them one way or another. Whether that be humanistic ideas such as, “were all good people” to controversial teachings about Christianity, “Jesus is actually an angel and not the son of God.”

It seems that it can get easy for ministry that has such a strong focus to become judgmental since their goals are clear and to the point (Teach the Bible). I personally have never experienced that kind of criticism on teaching the bible. Maybe that’s because everyone already assumes I am lazy. =)

First, I think I understand some of the reasons why many UBF members, and even senior leaders, shy away from discussing doctrinal issues. Here are some of the historical factors at play. (a) These issues can be bitterly divisive, and many churches in Korea (just like churches in the West) have split over matters that, in retrospect, are not really that important. No one wants that to happen to us. (b) In the early days of UBF, when the ministry became self-supporting and independent of the Presbyterian mission, it gave our leaders and members a wonderful freedom to pursue their own divine calling. Becoming independent of a denominational authority was one of the defining moments that made UBF what it is.
Going back to a formal system of authoritative doctrine would seem to be a step backward. And although our ministry has Presbyterian/Reformed roots, this has been so de-emphasized in the last three decades that returning to a Presbyterian/Reformed tradition now would be difficult at best, because North American UBF is now filled with Christians who come from a variety of other traditions. (c) Like many nondenominational churches, we fancy ourselves as a “pure Bible” community that simply reads the Scripture and does what it says. In reality, of course, we do not approach the Bible from a standpoint of objectivity. We read the Scripture through lenses of our own culture and self-image. But the (rather modernist) idea that every passage of Scripture has one objective meaning, and that we are the ones who are really getting close to what that meaning is because we have been able put aside our preconceived ideas, historical traditions, etc. and just look at the Bible objectively, is a powerful myth that persists in many nondenominational churches.

I believe there is also a fear that, once a person starts to think about issues of doctine, he may begin to slide down that slippery slope toward becoming an overly intellectualized Christian who depends on “human thinking” and loses the pure, simple, powerful messages of the Bible. Without engaging in serious study of doctrine, it is quite easy to (mis)characterize all doctrines as watered down versions of a purer, more wholesome truths found in Scripture. In the early 20th century, many seminaries did slide down that slope and lost sight of the Bible. But slippery slopes usually come in pairs. It is equally dangerous to ignore the great creeds and traditions that have guided faithful Christians for two millennia (e.g., the Apostles Creed), deeming these teachings unimportant simply because we have not emphasized them much in our own lives and ministry. When we do that, we effectively substitute our own decades-old local traditions for the great traditions of the church, which is shortsighted and unhelpful.

As Gerardo pointed out, it is impossible to NOT think about doctrine. And even the simplest, most basic doctrines of Christianity, if we take them seriously, provide ample food for a lifetime of reflection and growth.

UBF does have a Statement of Faith that, in my opinion, is very solid and well written. We display it on our websites to signal to the world that our core beliefs are solidly orthodox and stand squarely in the tradition of mainstream Christianity. Personally, I wish that we would pay more attention to this Statement of Faith and give greater emphasis to these teachings as we evangelize and disciple students. For example, our first article of faith is about the Trinity:

“1. We believe that there is one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”

In my nearly thirty years in this ministry, I don’t believe that I have ever heard a Sunday message or conference message that was focused on the Trinity. At best, Trinity has been mentioned only in passing. Why don’t we talk about this? The Trinity is not a minor point of theology; it is who God really is, how God has revealed himself to us throughout the New Testament. The relationship of Jesus Christ to his Father, and the nature and work of the Holy Spirit, are main themes of John’s gospel and many other parts of the Bible. If a church denies the Trinity (as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do) we cannot accept them as Christian, and we have to conclude that they are a cult. But why? I feel that I am only just beginning to grasp the importance of viewing God as a Trinity. I am just starting to see that the Trinitarian view of God has profound implications for our faith and worship, for how we interact with God and with one another. I would love to see a serious exploration of the Trinity in some of our messages and Bible studies.

Or what about the third article:

“3 We believe that the Bible is inspired by God; that it is the truth; that it is the final authority in faith and practice.”

I really like this article, and I have personally commended Mother Barry for writing it this way. She steered away from hot-button words and phrases like “inerrant”, “infallible”, and “original manuscripts,” which have divided churches for the last century. I do believe that the Bible is authoritative and fully reliable in what it teaches. But I personally do not understand a great deal of what the Bible teaches. And although I do hold opinions about matters that have divided Christians (e.g., young earth versus old earth), I do not want to insert my own opinions into this understanding of what Biblical authority means, because my own understanding of these things could be wrong. There is a great deal of mystery in how the Bible, which was written down by sinful and fallible men, could also be the authoritative Word of God. I do not want to shy away from this important matter of doctrine. I want to understand it better than I do now, learning from Christians who have honestly wrestled with difficult issues of Biblical interpretation, so that I can be a better pastor and Bible teacher. If the authority of Scripture is a sticky point that makes it hard for people to believe and/or grow in their faith, then I want to take this matter seriously, not sidestepping or belittling people’s real objections and struggles but dealing with them in an open and honest manner.

Or how about Article 9:

“We believe that the Holy Spirit works in the heart of every believer to lead him.”

Wow. Do I really understand and experience the leading of the Holy Spirit in my own heart? Have I been guilty of quenching the Spirit and substituting my own knowledge and abstract intellectual principles for His leading? Yes, I know that I have. The indwelling of the Spirit in the hearts of individual Christians, and in the Church as a whole, is a reality to which I have been truly blind. Walking in step with the Spirit is what God has commanded me to do, and yet I don’t know how to do it. I have a desperate need for some sound doctrine and renewed understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in my onw life and ministry.

And then there is Article 10:

“We believe that the church is the body of Christ and that all Christians are members of it.”

Do I really believe this? Have I truly experienced and practiced the catholicity of the church and the “communion of the saints” as described in the Apostles’ Creed? No, I have not. And the consequences of that failure in my personal life, my immediate and extended family, my friendships, my ministry, and my relationships with the greater community have been truly devastating. There are intensely personal reasons why this has become a burning issue for me. Sometime in the future I will write about this and try to explain what I mean. I am just beginning to understand it myself. Needless to say, this is not an obscure doctrine. It is a very serious issue with serious consequences for the long-term health of all Christians and all Christian ministries, including UBF. There are important reasons why this statement had to be included in the ancient creeds and in our own UBF statement of faith. I have only been able to discuss these things privately with a few members of our ministry. I long for the day when we can discuss these things openly without people becoming hurt or defensive, without accusing one another of disloyalty and “becoming difficult”, and so on. These things should not be controversial at all. They are just the basics of what we already claim to believe.

Sorry for this longwinded comment. My main point is that doctrine does matter. It matters in our personal lives, and it matters in discipleship, far more than I had previously realized. I do not want to stir up trouble and argue over fine points of doctrine that are controversial and divisive. But I do want to explore, understand and hold to the articles of faith that guide and define our UBF ministry and the church of Jesus Christ. Historically, we have been very eager to talk about the things that set UBF ministry apart from other churches. Usually these are matters of practice, such as one-to-one Bible study, or the way we help young couples to court and marry. Those things are near and dear to us. But I believe that we, and all Christians who fancy themselves as present or future leaders, need to continually and deeply explore the foundational doctrines of Christianity. These are the spiritual heritage that we received from previous generations and must pass on to the next generation.

My point is, people who grew up Christian need just as much (sometimes more) time and life experience to fit in new ideas to their personal mental schema as those of us who come to Christ after a lot of life experience. It is easy to press on them from OUR perspective of knowing more and having more experience.

One time I inadvertently pressed a girl (an hbf friend who had been coming for awhile) a bit too hard on a doctrinal issue (the idea of man’s inability to be truly good) at the wrong time and she got really mad and never came back. She wasn’t ready to hear it, and I pressed at the wrong time. While I know the value of pressing people about foundational and doctrinal issues, it must be done very carefully. I have regretted this for a long time.

As leaders, we need to be patient and smart, kind yet honest, most of all we need to know WHEN to press doctrine and when to let THEM think it through. They think about this stuff all the time, sometimes they just don’t let us know they are thinking about it.

Sometimes I think that in UBF we may have a kind of reductionistic theology, that reduces the Bible to a few practical applications, such as, repent, believe, “just obey” (from a previous post), deny yourself, take up your cross, feed sheep, the gospel must be preached, be a blessing, make disciples, world mission, kingdom of priests, etc. This is not necessarily biblically incorrect, BUT these imperative emphasis in the way we preach or teach the Bible do not help one grow in awe and love for the marvellous magnificent majestic mystery of Christ. Rather, it inadvertently becomes “judging others by externals,” and a form of control and guilt manipulation (you’re worldly, lazy, selfish, unspiritual, proud, you’re not living for mission, etc), in the name of “shepherding,” or “training” those who are younger. Is this too broad a generalization, or am I too harsh in my critical assessment?

However, I also feel that part of the reason why some people are don’t accept Christ is because they are operating under false doctrine. If you ask non devout Christians what God desires, they may say things like “that I be a decent person….that I do what makes me happy….that I go to church here and there.” Personally, I didnt seek God out until I was 22 because I operated under the false doctrine that God only wants Saints not sinner. I needed solid food to combat the rotten message I learned to ingest.

I think doctrines continue to do that at every point of one’s life. But your right, this necessity comes to different people in God’s time.

Before I met Jesus personally, the only spiritual food I allowed myself to receive was through a spiritual I.V. that dripped little by little (once or twice a week at Sunday service or bible study) while I still ran around in the world and ate whatever else I pleased. Although this was still nourishment, I only allowed it to take place in a tiny, rationed and selfish way.

Now that I know who Christ is and know who I am before Him, I’ve moved on to spiritual solid food (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). Each portion is small and appropriate for a newly re-born follower of Christ like me, but it’s solid food and I chew each bite as well as I can on a daily basis because I am spiritually hungry for God’s Word.

So, I agree with you that we should be aware of sharing and instilling solid doctrine among the young members of our ministry but I also know through personal experience that it will take time (God’s time) for each young person to “graduate” from spiritual milk (their parents’ desires for them to go to church or do bible study) to solid food (their own burning desire to receive more knowledge of the grace of God).