Problem: Many people in false religions teach that salvation and forgiveness of sins are obtained by faith and good works. Many appeal to Scripture to support this idea. But, when these verses are examined in context, they do not teach that works of any kind save us. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches that were saved without the works of the law. This is because nobody can keep the Law perfectly. God requires holiness (1 Pet. 1:16), nothing less.
Month: December 2021
Eph 2:8 – Is “faith” the gift of God or is “grace” the gift of God?
CLAIM: Some Calvinists teach that this passage supports the doctrine of irresistible grace. They argue that “faith” is the “gift of God.” Instead of exercising faith of our own freewill, God gives us the faith to believe in him, as a gift. Is this the case? Sproul writes, “The faith by which we are saved is a gift. When the apostle says it is not of ourselves, he does not mean it is not our faith. Again, God does not do the believing for us. It is our own faith but it does not originate with us. It is given to us. The gift is not earned or deserved. It is a gift of sheer grace.”[1] Is this the case?
Eph. 2:1, 5 – Does this verse support the Calvinist doctrine of total inability?
Problem: Paul writes, “You were dead in your trespasses and sins… even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph. 2:1, 5). Calvinists sometimes argue that our human condition is “dead” in the sense of having a total inability to respond to God. Like Lazarus in the cave (Jn. 11), we needed God to impart spiritual life and call us from this corpse-like, dead state. Calvinists often argue, “Is a dead person able to respond to God or make himself alive? No! Therefore, God had to give us spiritual life before we could believe and respond to him.” John Calvin stated that this is “a real and present death.”[1] Wood states that this expression for death is not “merely figurative… The most vital part of man’s personality—the spirit—is dead to the most important factor in life—God.”[2] Is this the case?
Eph 2:1—How can a person believe if he or she is dead in sins?
Problem: The Bible repeatedly calls on the unbeliever to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and … be saved” (Acts 16:31). However, this passage declares that unbelievers are dead in their sins, and dead people cannot do anything, including believe.
Eph 1:23 – Is Jesus incomplete without the church?
Problem: Paul writes that the church “is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). John Calvin believed that we (the church) fill Christ: “Until he is united to us, the Son of God reckons himself in some measure imperfect” (Calvin on Ephesians 1:23). Is this the case?
Eph 1:10 – Will God save everyone in the end?
Problem: Universalists claim that God will save everyone in the end, because Paul wrote that Christ will unite all things in heaven and on Earth. Is this the case?
Eph 1:5 – Does this verse teach that some are “predestined” for heaven and others for hell?
Problem: Some Calvinistic interpreters argue that this passage supports the doctrine of unconditional election, where God predestines some for heaven and others for hell. Is this the case?
Eph 1:4 – Does this passage teach that some people are “chosen” for heaven and others are “chosen” for hell?
Problem: Paul writes, “[God] chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him” (Eph. 1:4). Calvinistic interpreters argue that this passage teaches God’s unconditional election of believers. Is this the case?
Gal 6:16 – Does the church inherit the promises of Israel?
Problem: Paul writes, “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). This passage has puzzled interpreters of various stripes. Is Paul saying that the church is Israel (i.e. amillenialism)? Or is he saying that the church is distinct from ethnic Israel (i.e. premillenialism)? Paul never uses the term “Israel” to refer to the church. In fact, Johnson writes,
The normal usage of “Israel” in the NT as referring to the physical descendants of Jacob. Galatians 6:16 is no exception, as Peter Richardson observes: Strong confirmation of this position [i.e., that ‘Israel’ refers to the Jews in the NT] comes from the total absence of an identification of the church with Israel until a.d. 160; and also from the total absence, even then, of the term ‘Israel of God’ to characterize the church” (Israel in the Apostolic Church [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969], pp. 74–84).[1]
How do we handle this difficult passage?
Gal 6:7- Does this passage teach karmic law?
Problem: Paul writes, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap” (Gal. 6:7). New Age teachers claim that this passage supports the concept of karmic law. Is this the case?
Gal 6:5 – Are we to bear other’s burdens or our own?
Problem: In Galatians 6:2, Paul exhorts us to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” But only a few verses later he says “every man shall bear his own burden” (v. 5, kjv).
Gal 6:2,5 – Do we bear one another’s burdens or not?
Problem: Do we bear one another’s burdens or not? Galatians 6:2, 5. In once sense we do. In another sense we don’t.
Galatians 6:2, “Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.”
Galatians 6:5, “For each one shall bear his own load.”
Gal. 5:21 – Will sinners not “inherit the kingdom of God”?
Problem: Some interpreters argue that Christians with these sins will not be forgiven, and they will not go to heaven. After all, Paul wrote, “The deeds of the flesh are evident… those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). Is this the case?
Gal 5:4 – Does this passage teach that Christians can lose their salvation?
Problem: Paul says that believers can be severed from Christ. Does this mean that Christians can lose their salvation?
Gal. 4:27 – Why does Paul quote Isaiah 54:1?
Problem: Is Paul’s citation of Isaiah 54 out of context, or does this help him build upon his argument?

