Are we saved by God's grace alone?

When the Bible says that we are not saved by works (Eph. 2:9), how shall we understand it? Does it follow that we can both continue in sin and be saved? Of course not, otherwise it would contradict with Paul's clear warnings, just to mention two passages.

Observe what Paul says if we ignore the moral law. "That they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." And Paul was quite serious in his warning, by coming with the same admonitions to both Ephesians and Corinthian Christians.

Let us not deceive ourselves by saying that we can continue living sinful life, ignoring the moral law, and be at the same time saved from the wrath of God. Paul is quite clear: no one who live and practise all those things from the above list of sins "hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Observe how Paul emphasized it. And he is quite serious when he says " any inheritance." Neither an inheritance on the Earth nor an inheritance in Heaven. If that is not so clear, observe his warning to Corinthians.

Are not these three warnings sufficient for not deceiving ourselves in ignoring the moral law? It seems that it was not so clear for Luther and Calvin, and for their followers who have distorted Paul's teaching of God's grace and the teaching that we are not saved by works.

Yes, indeed, we are not saved by works!

But wouldn't that contradict with the teaching of previous verses, namely that a continuance in a sinful life will result in not being saved? No, not at all.

When the Bible says that we are not saved by works (Eph. 2:9), why should we interpret the term "work" in moral terms? The term "work" can mean ritual works of the Mosaic Law and it can also mean good works of the moral law. The term is used in both ways depending on the context. It has no uniform linguistic usage. Therefore, there is nothing wrong of James to say that a man is saved also by works. However, many Christians are so shocked by hearing such statement, illustrating how widespread Protestant influence disastrously governs the average modern Christian mind-set. James shocks us, when he says:

"And not by faith alone." Many non-Christians complain that the Bible has a powerful contradiction, when they compare Eph. 2:9 and James 2:17-24. Their contention would be absolutely correct only if the term "work" is used in the same sense where they occur in both of these two passages. However, Paul uses the term for works of the Mosaic ritual law, while James used the same term for works of the Mosaic moral law.

We can ask ourselves: what wanted God to teach us through Paul's wisdom, which was given to him by our Lord? What is so significant with Paul's teaching that we are not saved by works? To answer this important question, we should observe what kind of problems were present in the first Church of the Apostolic period. Answer to our important question is connected with the first serious conflict among Christians reported in the Book of Acts.

First Christians were Jews, and the first conflict began when they were confronted with the question whether we should continue to observe the Mosaic Laws of purity, animal sacrifices, circumcision, observance of pure animal foods, etc? It was a hard question for Jewish Christians, who were raised in their whole life to observe these ritual works . Imagine yourself on those days, and you were a Jew. The power of habits do not die so easily. What Paul wished to emphasize is that we are free from works, works cannot save us . But in what sense works? The ritual works , of course. Calvin and Luther were so blinded by their concept of work, that they did not study the book of Acts, the context of the Romans and Galatians, where anyone could see obviously that works in question were ritual. If you study closely, for instance, the Epistle to Galatians, you will see that the whole Epistle is concerned about circumcision. The ironic thing is that Luther and Calvin, who were one of the most sophisticated intellectuals at that time, committed the worst sin in hermeneutics, namely the violence of the principle of holism, which says "never ever interpret some section and passage without considering the context and purpose of the whole work." [Hermeneutics is an academic discipline dealing with the principles of interpretation]

However, many Jews were uncomfortable with Paul's teaching, that they thought that Paul's teaching could have disastrous consequences, namely the danger of ignoring other works of the Mosaic law, i.e. the moral works. Therefore, James, who was respected elder among Jews in Jerusalem, wanted also to emphasize that works are still important. But in what sense of the term 'work'? In moral terms, of course.

But Paul was quite clear that moral works are not abolished, as we had seen already in his warnings to Galatians, Ephesians and Corinthians, and where he also said quite clearly that we cannot continue to live in sin in Rom. 6:1-2. [Observe also other of his passages on the theme of continuing in faith in order to be saved, and not living in sin: Rom. 8:13, 11:20-22, Col. 1:22-23 (notice the conditional "if"), Col. 3:5-7, 1 Tim 4:16.]

The trouble is that Jews had no clear conceptual distinction between moral and ritual works. For them a work was work, as it was for Luther, Calvin and other leaders of the Protestant Reformation, as it is for many Christians in the 21st century who follow their antinomian, lawless, teaching. It was terribly confusing for the first Jewish Christian s, and therefore so much heated disputes among them. Many thought that the whole Law defined what is good, and good is something which is moral, not understanding that ritual works served a temporary function.

To repeat, James and Paul would contradict each other only if the concept of work was identical in their both epistles. But it is clear that it was not. Paul would certainly have agreed with James that we cannot continue in sin (Rom. 6:1-2, Gal. 5:16-21, etc). And James would never consider that we must continue with animal sacrifices and circumcision. (Acts. 15:13-21, but see also Peter's speech, vv. 7-11, which preceded James' speech).

What James wanted to teach us is the distinction between dead and living faith, a distinction not touched by Paul's teaching. Would James' distinction contradict with Paul's. No, of course not.

So, can we conclude from Paul's epistles that moral works are not necessary for our salvation. Obviously not.

However, let it be clear that we are not teaching that our moral nature can save us. No, not at all. No matter how morally good we are, we do not deserve to inherit God's Kingdom. We are saved by God's grace but through our living faith. God's grace is indeed great. God is so good towards us in spite of our unspeakable crimes we have committed before His eyes. God forgave us just because we believed in His beloved Son. We don't deserve His goodness at all, even if we believe! Our faith does not diminish the nature of His grace, since we do not deserve to be in the Presence of His Glorious Beauty, whether we believe or not. Truly, His grace is Great!

Yes, God's Grace is great, but let us not misuse His Grace by living intently and actively in sin. God's Grace is efficient only for people who have both acknowledged their sins before God by asking for His forgiveness and submitted to Christ as their Lord. God's Grace is not cheap. It cost the life of His beloved Son. God's shows grace only towards people who are in Christ. There is no forgiveness of our sins if we continue living in sins. Of course, we might have trouble with certain sins, but as long as we honestly wish to have a pure heart before God, God will give us strength. We must believe in Jesus Christ, who died for everyone who would accept His saving hand. He died as a sacrifice for our sins, so that anyone who believes in Him can be reconciled with God. But this faith is a living one, faith which lead us to repentance in not doing sins that had crucified our Lord.

Google Our Site