When Adam Sinned

When Adam sinned, he did so from a condition of perfection.

Before Adam sinned, he knew no sin. His nature was unfallen. He had no experience with disobedience nor any modeling of it from any source within his culture. The only interpersonal relationship he had on a regular basis, other than with Eve, who also was perfect before the Fall, was with God himself – the Lord of all Creation and the archetype of righteousness.

Of course, Adam’s culture changed when Satan – himself a novice at the temptation of humans, though inexpressibly and universally successful on his very first attempt – made his appearance in the Garden in the form of the serpent.[i]

Even with such a nature and inheritance of righteousness, upon the first opportunity that Adam had to express his will in a case calling for a moral decision, seemingly without hesitation or argument he chose to reject the very God who created and nourished him. 

Even though he possessed an unfallen nature and derived from an uncorrupted environment, when Adam was given the choice, he chose personal pride over personal perfection and rebellion against God instead of the righteousness of God.

Even though he was perfect in nature and existed in perfect surroundings, with his eyes wide open to the consequences of his actions, Adam found it impossible to exercise his free will in the direction of righteousness when left to his own devices and apart from the direct influence of God.

Yet today there are those who insist that salvation ultimately turns on a man’s expression of his free will. God may offer the gift of salvation, but man must accept the gift before it becomes effective.

This is the same man whose nature, unlike that of Adam’s, is corrupted by sin from the moment of conception and whose environment and culture are equally corrupted as a result of the Fall. This is the same man who is surrounded and nurtured by individuals and a people of the same corrupt nature as himself.

According to this doctrine, man’s salvation is dependent upon his making a free will decision in favor of righteousness – a decision that, by its very definition, cannot be manipulated or managed by any external constraint, including that of God.

God may bring positive and righteous influence into the man’s life. He may have him born into a Christian family, surround him with Christian friends, and manipulate his life so that everything brings the man to the very brink of a decision for salvation. Yet God is powerless to move the man past that point, because God’s will is effectively blocked by the free will of the man.

For God to intentionally and willfully and unilaterally move the man from a condition of certain eternal damnation into a state of eternal life would be immoral – and therefore sinful – on God’s part if such a move was in violation of the man’s will.

Since God is perfect and cannot sin, then man’s free will is effectively more powerful than God. Therefore, assuming this assessment to be true, God cannot be omnipotent.

Yet, God is omnipotent.

And in spite of the apparent contradiction, there is a solution.

---

[i] Note that Adam never had a conversation with the serpent – with Satan. Satan never attempted to deceive Adam. Adam never bought into the lie that the fruit would make him wise or that he would become like God. Adam ate of the fruit with his eyes wide open to the consequence of death that awaited him and Eve for doing so. His sin was not so much that of pride as it was of idolatry. He listened to the voice of his wife over that of God.

Who Is A Christian, Part 5

This series has been interrupted a couple of times, once by a study of Joseph (Gen. 37) and again by an Easter-related study of the fig tree of Mark 11. Hopefully, the series will continue uninterrupted until its completion. So far, we have looked at two of five categories of evidences that define a Christian, Profession and Practice. Once again, the purpose of the articles is to help answer the question “Who is a Christian.” These are not intended to provide a listing of steps to becoming a Christian or even to becoming a better Christian. This series of articles is intended to define what a Christian looks like. I encourage you to respond if you have any questions or need clarity on any point. Thanks.

PASSION

Another aspect of the evidences from 1 John that stands out from among the rest is Passion. More than any other single feature (16 times), John writes that a Christian will love other people, especially other Christians. Of the 62 items that define a Christian or a non-Christian, just over 25 percent of them refer to the Christian’s ability to love others, in general, and especially love for the brotherhood.

All but five of these references to love include a reference to Christian brothers. This means that a Christian will love other Christians, both male and female, and will love the church in general. No person can legitimately claim to be a Christian who does not love the church which is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-20; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 5:30; Col. 1:24).

A true Christian will have a love for the brotherhood, the fellowship of other believers, which means that he will love the church, which is the body of Christ.

However, this is not the first time that John recorded such a thought. In his Gospel, John recorded that Jesus himself taught this principle to His disciples, including John:

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35, ESV)

Are you a Christian? Is some other person a Christian? The answer is very simple: Do you love other people? Do you love other Christians? Does that person you may have questions about love the church? Note that this love is so much more than natural affection, or friendship, or fellowship, or brotherly love. This is agape, the kind of intentional, willful love that is passionate and sacrificial in nature.

In the early centuries of the church, church members demonstrated a sincere love for one another and the people around them, so much so that they directly impacted their culture.

Luke wrote in his history of the early church (the book of Acts) that the people of the church lived in “wonderful harmony” and were committed to life together, sharing meals at one another’s houses, “every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God.” Each person’s needs were met by the sacrifices of others in the fellowship.

Luke goes on to tell us that this love for one another within the church was noticed by the community around them to the extent that “fear came upon every soul.” In other words, the people of the community where the church was located stood in awe of what they were witnessing. The church had favor with all the people, meaning that “people in general liked what they saw.”[1]

One commentator remarked that “the humble and consistent lives” of the members of the early church “won the favor of the masses of the community” and silenced opposition. [2] Another wrote that the early church commended itself by its “lovely demeanor to the admiration of all who observed them.” [3]

In truth, this should be the typical reaction of a community to the church. After all, the church is the body of Christ – the physical reality of the resurrected Jesus. In his first historical treatise (the Gospel of Luke), Luke wrote of Jesus, “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”

In general, when people met Jesus, they liked what they saw. Crowds followed Him everywhere He went, so much so that, on occasions, He had to intentionally plan to get away from them for a time of rest. One reason may be the level of compassion that Jesus demonstrated towards other people. (Matt. 9:36; Matt. 14:14; Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke 7:13) And His passion for His disciples and all believers is clearly demonstrated in His pastoral prayer recorded in John 17.

This loving characteristic of the church continued on through the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, and continued to awe the local communities. Tertullian, a major theologian of the time, wrote of the early church “…it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another…See, they say about us, how they are ready even to die for one another…” [4]

In his letter to the Roman Proconsul Scapula, Tertullian wrote, “This is the rule of our faith, that we love those who hate us, and that we beseech God to bless those who afflict us; and herein lies that goodness which is peculiar to us.  All men love those who love them, Christians alone those who hate them… Christians have no hatred or ill-will at any man, and least of all at Caesar; for knowing him to be set up by their God, they must needs love him, and shew him worship (reverence and respect).” [5]

In summary, we have seen two standards in addition to a profession of faith for determining whether or not a person is truly a Christian: Are they actively serving God in obedience to His commands, and do they love others, especially other Christians.

PDF

EPUB

KINDLE

---

[1] The references in these paragraphs are based on adaptations of Acts 2:42-47 as recorded in the KJV and The Message.

[2] Barnes, Alfred. Barnes’ Notes. Online Bible Edition, Version 4.32.01, July 18, 2014, Copyright © 1987-2014, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada NOB 2VO. Referenced hereafter as Online Bible.

[3] Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary, Online Bible.

[4] Quotation taken from Tertullian’s Apologeticum. Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, 1869. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm

[5] Quotation taken from The Address of Q. Sept. Tertullian, To Scapula Tertullus, Proconsul of Africa. Translated by Sir David Dalrymple, 1790. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/dalrymple_scapula.htm </span>

The Fig Tree, Part 2

The one thing that amazed me when I began to study the incident with the fig tree was how this event so paralleled the events of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. 

Part 2

Now let’s travel back in time – all the way back to the beginning of man’s time on the earth, to the Garden of Eden, and to another fig tree – the only fruit tree that we are familiar with to be specifically referenced by name in the Garden of Eden.[1]

In this Garden, God created Adam, the first man, though he was created as an incomplete being until God created man’s complement – a woman, whom Adam later named Eve. Both were created perfectly, for when God was finished, He reviewed His handiwork and announce it, not just good, but “very good.”

Yet all who know the story also know that shortly after their creation, the woman was tempted by and deceived by Satan into doubting the words of God and into acting upon that doubt. The man joined her in her rebellion, though he was not deceived,[2] but acted in willful disobedience to the clear command of God. By this one simple act of self-will, they stood condemned in the sight of God.

But Satan was not through with them yet. We tend to think that Satan has exited the picture about verse 6 of Genesis 3, maybe because he knew that God was on His way, but if we keep reading, the serpent is still in the picture in verse 14. Satan is the Great Deceiver, and he is still active in this story until cast out by God. Here’s how.

Just as they were blinded by the words of Satan, they remained blinded to their true standing before God. Instead of an awareness of their spiritual condition in the eyes of God, they could only see their physical condition. By their act of eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were made aware of a significant change in their relationship with God and with each other. However, instead of seeing this change in a spiritual sense, they saw only the physical.

Immediately they noticed something that before had been of no consequence to them – they realized that they were naked. Man had eaten of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He was imbued with a power which was intended only for God [3] – a power he was not capable of wielding.

Yet he tried to wield it and, in the limits of his inability, recognized his sinful condition, but, based on his own misunderstanding of the laws of good and evil, concluded that their nakedness was the sin itself and not the consequence of sin.

Once again, Satan was still at work here. With all of the resources at his disposal, Satan is determined to prevent man from understanding the depth and the degree of the consequences of his rebellion as well as its remedy. He could never allow man to understand that sin, though it may be revealed in the physical, actually finds its roots in eternity – in Satan’s own rebellion against the throne of God.

Since the root of sin is found in eternity, therefore, so must its remedy be found in eternity. Thus the remedy for sin could never be discovered within the realm of the knowledge of good and evil, but only in the grace of an eternal God and the righteous actions of an eternal Savior.

Working within the limits of the knowledge available to him – the knowledge of good and evil – and believing that his sinfulness was in his nakedness, Adam attempted to restore the relationship he had had with his Creator before his willful disobedience. He did so by visiting another tree in the Garden – the fig tree.

From this tree he gathered leaves and, sewing them together, covered up his nakedness and, at the same time – at least, in his own understanding – covered up (made atonement for) his sinfulness in the sight of God.

Because so much of what we believe about the Bible comes from tradition, we often do not stop to consider the truth of an issue in a Bible story. Here is an example.

When you hear the story of Adam and Eve sewing together fig leaves and covering themselves, what is the picture that is immediately formed in your mind? Unless I miss my guess, most people envision a man with leaves in front of or around his loins and a woman similarly attired with leaves around her loins and chest.

But suppose that sewing leaves meant that Adam and Eve wove the branches of fig trees so that they were completely covered. In fact, they were so efficient in their work that from a distance they looked very much like fig trees themselves. There they stood, covered in fig leaves, making a claim of righteousness based on goodness.  This was Adam’s profession.

Genesis 3:9 says, “The LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” Since God is omniscient, certainly He would not need to ask where Adam was, therefore the question was rhetorical. Maybe when God came looking for Adam, all He could see was what looked like a fig tree.

Yet, when God approached, He who knows all things knew that Adam had been cut off from the source of fruit by his rebellion, and, in spite of his profession, could never bear any fruit worthy of repentance and salvation.

And thus Adam stood condemned and withered by the judgment of God.

PDF

KINDLE

EPUB

---

[1] From earliest conception, we have visualized or even taught that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate in their rebellion was an apple, but of course, such a belief is from a fairy tale version of the story, not from Genesis. Some would argue that the first fruit mentioned is that of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that Adam ate of that fruit, which he did. But we have no personal experience with such a tree or what its fruit might have looked like. The same might be said for the Tree of Life. Even though these are trees that bear fruit, we do not have any first-hand experience with such trees. We only know them by the singular reference of Scripture. On the other hand, we all can have first-hand, physical knowledge of a fig tree. Thus this is the first and only fruit tree mentioned in the Garden of Eden with which we have any practical experience.

[2] Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim. 2:14

[3] Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever…“ Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. Gen. 3:22-23

The Fig Tree

This past Sunday morning was Palm Sunday, when Christians around the world once again celebrate Jesus’ Triumphal Entry in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Passion Week. Sometime on Monday, a second significant event took place – Jesus cleansed the Temple of the money changers and those who would profane the house of God.

Yet on that same Monday morning and the following morning, there was another event of paramount importance, witnessed only by the disciples, which seems to slip through the cracks of our memory of all the events that took place that week – the story of the barren fig tree.

For years I have wondered about the story of the fig tree as told in Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:13-14, 20-25. Here was Jesus – kind and loving and full of grace, the Creator of all things. Why would He curse a fig tree? Of all people, He certainly would know that trees are inanimate organisms which do not make decisions and therefore have no moral capacity.

I know I must have heard others teach on this topic through the past 64 years of my life, but apparently I was not listening, or maybe the Holy Spirit simply waited until He knew that I could understand the lesson to give me comprehension.

Whatever the case, I pray you are inspired by this singular event which is often lost amidst the other spectacular events of the Passion Week.

Part 1

After most of the excitement had died down following His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus and His disciples wound their way to the Temple, working their way through the celebratory crowd that had assembled in the city to celebrate the Festival of Passover.

Once arrived, Jesus toured the Temple and the area around it and, finding all was well, and because the hour was late, He and His disciples set out on their nearly two-mile walk, retracing their steps of the morning toward the village of Bethany where they would spend each night of the Passover Week.

They most likely followed the path from the Temple Mount leading through the Golden Gate, through which Jesus had entered riding on a donkey during the Triumphal Entry earlier in the day. After crossing the Kidron Valley, they passed through the Garden of Gethsemane and followed the winding path that led up the steep western slope of the Mount of Olives, passing through the thick groves that topped the hill.

Having reached the ridge, they passed through the small hamlet of Bethphage, whose name meant “house of unripened figs.” This was the same village from which the disciples had gathered the colt upon which Jesus had ridden into Jerusalem earlier that morning. Branching off the road that would carry a traveler to Jericho and turning south, the path began its shallow descent as the company came near to Bethany on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives.

The Bible does not tell us what time they made the return journey to Jerusalem the next morning. Maybe they left early enough to miss breakfast, or maybe they left long enough after breakfast that the walk toward Jerusalem stirred their appetites. We might assume they left Bethany somewhat later in the morning to begin the 45 minute walk back to the city, for even as they traveled, the transformation in the environment of the Temple which would spawn such an outburst of righteous indignation is Jesus was already in full swing.

Whatever the case may be, somewhere along the route from Bethany to Jerusalem, Jesus experienced hunger pangs.  Then up ahead beside the road in the distance, he saw a fig tree that was completely covered with leaves. To the eye of the hungry traveler, there was the promise of relief. A tree that was so covered with leaves certainly held the promise of fruit. From a distance, the fig tree looked like any other fig tree might look except for one thing – Mark tells us in verse 13 that “it was not the season for figs.”

Commentators[1] do not fully agree on the exact meaning of this phrase, but most seem to agree that this tree should not have been so fully covered in leaves during the week of Passover. The consensus seems to be that the tree was fully leafed out as only a fruit-producing tree would have been, even though this was not the season for fig production. This particular tree seemed to be an anomaly and thus stood out from the other trees around it, making it visible for a good distance.

Here was a tree that, at face value (from a distance) looked like a fig tree and held the promise of figs, but when inspected closely, revealed that it bore no fruit. In spite of its appearance (profession), the tree could produce no evidence (practice or performance) that it was, in fact, a fig tree.

One might wonder right here about why the fig tree is seen in the story in an anthropomorphic light. In other words, the story seems to teach that Jesus held the fig tree morally responsible for not producing figs. Yet to do so seems futile since trees do not make decisions about anything, let alone about whether or not they produce fruit. To understand the nature of fruit trees is to understand that fruit is not the work of the tree. Fruit is the work of nature – that which is produced through the agency of the tree.

Furthermore, fruit is not defined by the type of tree on which it grows. A tree is defined by the type of fruit that it produces. A tree is only a fig tree if it bears figs. A fig tree that is truly a fig tree will produce figs. A tree that looks like a fig tree but does not produce figs is not, in reality, a fig tree.

As Creator of the world, certainly Jesus knew all these things, and, as God in the flesh, He was certainly aware, even from a distance, that the tree bore no fruit. We must conclude that Jesus did not curse the tree because the tree bore any moral responsibility for the situation. His actions in inspecting and ultimately cursing the tree were not motivated by anger or malice or retribution, but by revelation and judgment.

Concerning revelation, this was a teachable moment and the time for such moments was rapidly drawing to a close. Jesus took advantage of the barren fig tree as a living parable – an object lesson for the disciples immediately, on a broader scale for the nation of Israel, and ultimately for the church today. In fact, there are close parallels between this living parable and the actual parable Jesus told in Luke 13:6-9. Jesus saw a tree, inspected it for fruit, found none, and caused its destruction.

Mark 11:14 says that, after inspecting the tree and finding no fruit, that Jesus “answered” (KJV). The word here means “to speak in response to something that had previously been said.” It was almost as if Jesus were responding to a statement – a profession – made by the fig tree. His curse of the tree was his answer.

Mark goes on to say in this same verse that “the disciples heard” what was said. The word “heard” can mean “to give ear to a teaching or a teacher, to comprehend, to understand.” So the disciples understood that Jesus was not simply cursing a fruitless tree but also saw this as a teaching moment – a moment of revelation.

Concerning judgment, Jesus cursed the tree, because giving the outward appearance of being a fig tree without producing figs proved that the tree was worthy of condemnation. The tree professed to be a fig tree by its profusion of leaves, but since there was no fruit to prove it, then it was not a fig tree, and its profession was a lie. Its lack of figs was, of a sort, a type of fruit that proved it worthy of judgment.

Jesus destroyed the tree to prevent others who were hungry and looking for relief from being deceived, and to demonstrate to the disciples that, in the judgment of God, destruction is better than deception.

For the Christian, fruit is not something that he can will himself to produce any more than the fig tree could will itself to produce figs. Just as the fruit of a tree is the work of nature through the agency of the tree, so is the fruit of a Christian the work of the Holy Spirit acting in and through the person.

The tree made a loud profession that allowed it to be seen from a distance, but that did not make it a fig tree. A person may make a firm and a loud profession of the fact that he is saved, but his profession will not prove that he is a Christian. Only fruit will do that. At face value – or from a distance – the one making a profession of faith may appear to be a Christian; however, close inspection will either confirm or deny the truth of the profession.

Maybe that is why, in the Great Commission, Jesus did not insist that His disciples go out and convince men to make professions of faith, but to make disciples – not just to see others from a distance, but to build close relationships that will allow the confirmation of one’s profession of faith.

Just as a fig tree that is truly a fig tree will bear figs, a Christian will bear fruit. The proof of whether or not a tree is a fig tree is an arbor full of leaves that is also accompanied by figs. The proof of whether or not a person is a Christian is a profession of faith that is also accompanied by fruit.

PDF

KINDLE

NOOK

---

[1] Every commentator has an opinion about this phrase and none seem to agree completely. Here is a sampling of some of the commentaries:

Commonly at the beginning of April the trees that still grow out of the rocks between Bethany and Jerusalem are bare both of leaves and fruit, and so probably it was now with all but the single tree which attracted our Lord’s notice. It was in full foliage, and being so far in advance of its fellows it might not unnaturally have been expected to have had, in the first week of April, the first ripe fruit which usually was gathered in May. Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Mark 11:13". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers"."http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/view.cgi?bk=mr&ch=11. 1905.

Passover-time was "not" the time of figs on Mount Olivet. Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Ed 3. Hodder and Stoughton:Oxford University, 118, p. 328. PDF version, digitized 22Aug2006. Downloaded from google.com.

Though it was too early for fruit, it was also too early for leaves. The tree evidently had an unusually favorable position. It seemed to vaunt itself by being in advance of the other trees, and to challenge the wayfarer to come and refresh himself.

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. "Commentary on Mark 11:13". "The Fourfold Gospel". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tfg/view.cgi?bk=mr&ch=11". Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1914.

The early figs in Palestine do not get ripe before May or June, the later crop in August. It was not the season of figs, Mark notes. But this precocious tree in a sheltered spot had put out leaves as a sign of fruit. It had promise without performance. Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Mark 11:13". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament"."http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/view.cgi?bk=mr&ch=11". Broadman Press 1932,33. Renewal 1960.

Who Is a Christian, Part 4

After some reflection, I realized that my last post related to this subject was somewhat complicated and technical and no fun to read at all. In this article I will expand on what I wrote last time and will attempt to clarify the conclusions of the last article in a way that hopefully will help and not hinder the message.

I also need to amend the last lesson. In that lesson, I condensed the 62 evidences John gave in his letter to three categories – Profession, Possession, Practice – when there should have been at least five. The other two categories are Passion and Persecution, which I will cover in a later posting.

In an effort to answer the question “Who Is a Christian,” this article will deal with Practice as it relates to Profession.

PRACTICE

Of the 62 evidences that John presented in his letter (1 John) by which a person might evaluate their standing before God, the largest majority of these evidences have to do, not with what a person professes, but with what they practice. In other words, one’s life-style is a much more reliable testimony of one’s love for Christ and evidence of one’s identity as a Christian than one’s words. You have probably heard the saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” That is somewhat the message John is attempting to get across.

Before going any further, we need to be reminded of a very important point. An apple tree is not called an apple tree with an expectation or hope that it will then produce apples. Pear trees look very much like apple trees, but calling a pear tree an apple tree will not cause it to produce apples. An apple tree is called an apple tree because it produces a specific fruit called apples. We may have a doubt about what kind of tree we are looking at, but once we see the apples, all of our doubts are extinguished.

However, there are seasons when the apple tree is not bearing fruit and a person may not recognize it as an apple tree. If they ask someone who knows the tree, that person can testify on behalf of the tree that it is, in fact, an apple tree. We may accept their testimony, but later, when the season is right, we will look for the apples, not because we do not believe the person’s testimony, but because we desire confirmation, even though we may not be consciously aware of the desire. It is simply human nature.

In the same way, John’s list of 62 evidences is not a list of things a person should do or ought to do to prove that they are a Christian. This is a list of things that a Christian will do. This list is not a prescription – or a list of requirements – for a Christian, but the description of a Christian. A person may testify or profess that he or she is a Christian, and their testimony or profession may even be supported by other people. But their fruit, or the absence thereof, will confirm to us the truth of their testimony or profession.

Recently, someone posted on Facebook an article that questioned whether or not President Obama is a Christian. One reader took great offense at such a question and responded quite strongly in the comments following the posting. In part, he said the following:

…no one can say he's not a Christian. You don't know his mind. Whether or not he acts the way you think he should doesn't matter. You claim it's about a "relationship" - you don't know his. If he professes to worship God & accepts Christ as his savior - he's a Christian (by definition). Period…If you profess to be a Christian, you are one.

According to this person, all that a person has to do to prove he is a Christian is say he is a Christian. Clearly, a profession of faith is essential in the process of becoming and acknowledging one’s standing before God, or the New Testament would not put such emphasis on it.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom. 10:9, ESV)

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering. (Heb. 10:23, KJV)

But is simply making a profession of faith – is simply saying that one believes in Christ enough to give assurance that a person is saved? Is simply confessing that one believes that Jesus is the Messiah and recognizes Him as Savior enough in and of itself to serve as a proof of one’s salvation?

The Facebook personality mentioned earlier commented further about the subject of faith as it relates to one’s being a Christian:

Any aspect of religion is about faith. It begins and ends there…His actions do not define his faith. Not now, not before, not ever. Only by what he professes will you ever know (whether or not he is a Christian)…

The key words in these comments are “His actions do not define his faith.” There is a degree of truth in those words, but that point will require another discussion. However, this person appears to believe that there is no direct connection between one’s profession and one’s practice when it comes to proving one’s salvation.

This person appears to believe, as so many people do, that all one has to do to confirm that they are a Christian is to announce to others that he does believe. One of the scriptures most commonly quoted to support this idea is John 3:16. However, no theology can be built on only one or even a few scriptures. The Bible must be understood as a unified book that teaches a consistent message throughout.

The Bible, and especially the New Testament, teaches that a profession of faith or a statement of belief is insufficient evidence for determining whether or not a person is saved unless that profession or statement is supported by the practices of a person’s life. Believing is certainly an essential part of the salvation process, but simply stating that one is a believer is not sufficient evidence for proving that a person is a Christian.

James, the brother of Jesus, wrote a book that is included in the Bible. Like the small letter of 1 John, it is also located near the end of the New Testament. In his book, James dealt quite frankly with the idea that simply saying that one believes is enough. In James 2:19, he wrote, “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” (NLT)

In James 2:14, he asked, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith (he believes) but does not have works? Can that faith (believing) save him?” The questions here are rhetorical, meaning that the answer is generally known and requires no verbal or written answer.

Yet James goes on to tell us that the answer to these questions is “No” when he writes, “So faith (belief) by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:17) In plain language, a profession of faith that is not supported by the practical application of that faith is not a profession of faith at all and is useless for purposes of salvation.

In the book of Matthew, and more specifically, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus taught this very same principle to His listeners. Near the end of His sermon He said to His disciples, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21)

Basically, then, those who are welcomed into Heaven – those who are truly saved – are not those who simply profess Christ as Lord, or even those who profess Christ and are busy doing benevolent or church-related work. Those who are truly part of the kingdom of God are those who profess Christ as Lord and who express their faith by doing works that fulfill the will of God.

That is the reason God saves us in the first place. Most people think Christianity is first of all about being rescued from hell and going to heaven and having our sins forgiven and living forever. All these things are truly among the benefits of salvation, but God’s primary purpose for saving us is so that He will get glory by the works He does through us.

For we are his (God’s) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:10, ESV)

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor. 10:31, ESV)

PDF Version