What is Paul’s answer?....

Part Two What is Paul’s answer?....2

May it never be!

A related question is, will the sins of the Christian be judged, or has the believer been released from the consequences of his actions because of his statement of belief in Christ? Our point of view is, the believer is not released from the consequences of his actions, with two specific provisions:

The sins committed before the individual heard the Gospel and received the Lord Jesus. These are covered by the blood of the Lamb.

The sins that the believer confesses and forsakes as he walks in the light of God’s will. These are forgiven and removed by the Lord Jesus.

It indeed is remarkable that the God of Heaven entrusted to one man—Paul—the explanation of the nature of the new covenant and the ways in which the new covenant differs from the old covenant.

The differences between the two covenants are not as easy to explain as we might wish. Many Christian people would find it quite difficult to explain the principal points of difference.

Paul understood the differences and presented them clearly. But the teachers and saints even of his own day could not grasp Paul’s thinking.

Peter reflected on the problem:

As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction (II Peter 3:16).

We understand, therefore, that the Scripture itself reports that the writings of Paul contain "things hard to be understood." Apparently Peter himself did not understand the principal differences between the two covenants. It appears he did not clearly understand the relationship of circumcision to Christ’s salvation (Galatians 2:14).

In explaining the difference between the two covenants many Christians would say, "We are not under the Law but under grace." The problem is, they would not be able to define grace in a manner that would correspond to Paul’s epistles.

Most likely they would claim that grace means God overlooks the sins of Gentiles who believe in Jesus whereas He would not overlook the sins of the Jews under the old covenant; or that righteousness came from obeying the letter of the old covenant while righteousness now results from faith under the new covenant.

This would be a mixture of errors. God does not overlook the sins of Gentiles who believe in Jesus. Also it is not true that righteousness came from obeying the letter of the old covenant. From the days of Abel righteousness always has come by faith, as we read in the eleventh chapter of the Book of Hebrews.

The faith of today’s Christianism is not always true faith in the Lord Jesus because true faith in the Lord Jesus leads to a new creation. Faith in the Lord is a continuing relationship with the living Jesus in every detail of life. Today’s "faith" tends to be a belief about Jesus. The demons have no faith in the Lord Jesus but they do indeed have a belief about Jesus.

It is important today for Christian believers to understand the changes that are made as we pass from the old covenant to the new covenant, and also aspects that remain the same throughout all of God’s covenants.

A Christian believer might say, "I am not saved by works but by grace." If he were asked to define what he meant by works he might present the meaning as "doing good"; "not sinning"; "being like Jesus"; or a similar definition.

Also, he probably would explain grace as salvation obtained by acknowledging and accepting Christ as the Son of God apart from godliness of character and behaviour. This is the modern form of Gnosticism, an ancient heresy that emphasized the possession of certain secrets of knowledge, belief in which would bring the person into union with God.

If Paul, in the early chapters of Romans, meant we are saved by belief in points of theology pertaining to Christ, and godly moral behaviour is not the proof of our salvation, then Paul is contradicting Jude, First John, Hebrews, First and Second Peter, Revelation, much of the writings of the Old Testament Prophets, and the bulk of his own statements in his Epistles.

Paul, in his arguments, was not contrasting grace and righteous behaviour. If he were, then God’s goal no longer is a new creation but a universe of people whose acceptability to the Lord results from their belief in an abstract, imputed (ascribed) righteousness.

Someone recently taught that the saints do not have to overcome sin. Jesus did all the overcoming, they stated, and we receive perfect righteousness by believing that Jesus overcame sin. Our belief "actualizes" victory in us.

Furthermore, they maintained, whenever we are convicted of sin, this is a trick, a lie of Satan. There can be no sin in us because we believe in the victory won by the Lord Jesus. This is Gnosticism.

An experienced Christian might find such a viewpoint too close to Christian Science or other "science of mind" doctrines or the "faith-prosperity" errors to accept it as being the Divine plan of salvation. There would be no reason for the Christian to put on his armour because there is no need for him to fight. Jesus did it all.

But how does the "Jesus did it all" approach to salvation differ from the concept that righteousness comes by faith in Christ apart from godly behavior (which is the basic Christian position)?

It appears to us that the two doctrines come from the same root.

If Christian grace is salvation by naked belief in the existence and atoning work of Christ, then repentance can never have a place in the Christian experience. Of what would one repent if God does not see his behaviour except through Christ?

If Jesus did all the overcoming and we merely accept the finished work by faith, then repentance is a meaningless exercise. In fact, it is an affront to God who already has given us perfect righteousness.

We saints may suspect that something is wrong with the concept of receiving and maintaining a perfect state of righteousness apart from a change of our behaviour. But Paul’s writings are so hard for us to understand we are unable to pinpoint the error.

When Paul spoke of works he actually was referring to the observances of the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, circumcision, the Sabbath day, the dietary regulations, and the sacrifices of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

Certain Jewish teachers, some seeking their own gain, were following the Apostles into the Gentile assemblies and teaching the Law of Moses. When Paul contrasts grace and the Law of Moses, as he does in the beginning chapters of the Book of Romans, he is refuting the teaching of the Jewish teachers.

Paul is contrasting being saved by the covenant God made with the Jews with being saved by accepting what God has accomplished through Christ. Paul is maintaining we are saved by faith in the Person and atoning work of Christ and that it is not necessary to add to the Divine atonement the statutes of the Law of Moses.

Paul was not contrasting God’s salvation in Christ with righteous, godly behaviour when teaching we are saved by grace and not by works. He was comparing the atonement made by Christ with the Law of Moses.

Paul was not saying "we are not saved by righteous behaviour but by God’s love." God’s love when correctly received always leads to righteous behaviour. There can be no contrast between God’s love and righteous behaviour.

Paul was teaching that we are not saved by the Law of Moses but by the atonement made by Christ on the cross. The atonement made by Christ does not lead to keeping the observances of Moses: to circumcision, to the observance of feast days, to the washing of pots and dishes, to the laws of diet, to animal sacrifices. There is a difference between grace and the Law of Moses.

Back to Study for the book Romans

Back to Chapter Six...

Part Two What is Paul’s answer?....2