Once Saved Always Saved? Part 2 of 2

(Continued)

Now, concerning Heb 6:4-8, there are different interpretations. The main ones include:

1. Those in Heb 6:4-8 are Christians who have fallen away and lost their salvation;
2. They are Jews who have tried Christianity but returned to Judaism;
3. This passage talks about the loss of rewards for backsliders but not the loss of salvation;
4. This is a hypothetical case to warn Christians about the dangers of apostasy, but it did not happen.

I will discuss each briefly and then tell my position:

Saved and then lost. This assumes that Christians are preserved by their perseverance. If they endure, they are saved. If they don’t, they will be lost. But according to:

• 1 Pet 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Christians are protected by God’s power, not the strength of their perseverance. So, this interpretation is not valid.

Jews who are not yet Christians. According to this view, these are seekers who tasted the goodness of the gospel but never embraced it and returned to the law when they faced trials. Let’s check what they have experienced to see if they are believers:

Enlightened. To give light, to shine, light up, or illumine. The same Greek verb phōtizō occurs one more time in Heb 10:32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings.

So, the group in Heb 6 enjoyed the same enlightenment as the Christians in Heb 10.

Tasted of the heavenly gift (v 4), tasted the good word of God (v 5), tasted the powers of the age to come (v 5). Tasted translates the Greek verb geuomai, which means to try the flavor of, partake of, or enjoy. Heavenly gift is not further defined. Some suggest it to be the free “gift of God” (Rom 6:23) or eternal life. Others believe the gift is grace (Eph 2:8). Some interpret “the word of God” as the Scriptures or the gospel. Some equate “the powers of the age to come” to be “signs and wonders and various miracles” (Heb 2:4). This school contends that since the Heb 6 group only “tasted” the benefits of belief but did not swallow them, they were only seekers but not yet believers. However, besides Heb 6:4 and 5, tasted also occurs in Heb 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Jesus did not just “taste” death partially. He died the most cruel death invented by men, for men! Hence, the premise that “tasted” falls short of full participation is not substantiated.

Partakers of the Holy Spirit. Greek adjective metochos. Sharing in, or a partner in a work or office. Some interpret this to be sharing or having fellowship with the Holy Spirit. Again, this word’s other usage in Heb indicates otherwise:

• Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle, and High Priest of our confession;
• Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
• Heb 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

If a person shares in the heavenly calling, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father’s discipline, having a part with all three Persons of the Trinity, he is an insider, not an outsider! Heb 6:4 is particularly relevant because of Rom 8:9b, “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

My conclusion based on the evidence is that these are not just Jews but Christians.

Lose rewards but not salvation. Proponents claim that the writer of Hebrews is not talking about losing salvation in chapter 6, only the rewards of salvation. What does the text say? We have already examined what these people experienced in v 4-5 to be part of the salvation process. What about v 6? Fallen away translates the Greek verb parapiptō, which means to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander, to error. It occurs only once in the NT in Heb 6:6. What is the outcome of this falling away from true faith? It is impossible to renew them again to repentance. They have repented before. If they fall away, they cannot renew their repentance again. Repentance from what? The word repentance is the Greek noun metanoia, translated uniformly as repentance in the KJV, a change of mind or reversal of decision. Of particular interest is its occurrence in Hebrews besides v 6:

• Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,
• Heb 12:17 For you know that even afterward when he (Esau) desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

Both were genuine repentance, not false. I conclude that Heb 6:6 is about the consequence of falling away from faith in God, not just rewards not even specified in the entire paragraph.

Hypothetical for warning. This school contends that this verse presents a hypothetical case based on KJV (NKJV, RSV):

• Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

They believe the “if” in “if they shall fall away” is a matter of possibility, but had not happened. Opponents point out that the premise does not stand, as there is no “if” in Greek. The phrase is a participle and can be translated as “having fallen away” (see Interlinear). Another objection is, “If this were hypothetical, why bother warning someone against something that can’t happen?”

Nevertheless, there is some merit in this interpretation given:

• Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.

My view is that of the four common interpretations, the first three have serious difficulties. I am not fully satisfied with the fourth, but the problems are less serious than the others. My interpretation principles are to start with exegesis instead of imposing a theological system to explain an idea, and to use clear passages to clarify more obscure verses.

On balance, I believe the “once saved, always saved” view to be valid, as this article tried to demonstrate.

God’s Fairness?

Q. Why does Ex 20:5 say, “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”? Yet Ezk 18:20 says, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father”?

A. Ex 20:5 is not the only verse on the subject:

• Ex 34:7b Yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.
• Num 14:18 The Lord is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.
• Deut 5:9 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Ex 20:5 follows and elaborates Ex 20:4, the Second Commandment prohibiting idolatry. It gives a stern warning on the severe consequences of sin as a deterrence.

For example, parents addicted to drugs, who have venereal diseases, who are abusive, often pass on the ill effects of their sins to their children. The third and the fourth generations mean the extended family unit. Basically, the sinner can see the devastating harm done to his descendants.

What this passage is not saying is, “God punishes the children for the parent’s sins.” Suffer the consequences? Yes. But personally responsible? No! God is just and will not punish offsprings who are innocent for the forefathers’ sins.

What Ezk 18:20 and parallel passages say is that the sinner will be personally responsible for his own sin:

• Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.
• 2 Kgs 14:6 But the sons of the slayers he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses. As the Lord commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin.”

So, contrary to skeptics’ claims, the Bible does not contradict itself.

Future Judgment or Present Application?

Q. Is the teaching in Luke 19:26 “to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away” referring to the future when judgment happens? Does it apply in the present world?

A. The idea in Lk 19:26 is found in several passages in the Gospels:

• Mt 13:12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
• Mt 25:29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
• Mk 4:25 For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
• Lk 8:18 So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.

Whether it refers to future judgment or the present depends on the context. In Lk 19, Jesus told His disciples the parable of the ten minas because they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately (Lk 19:11b). So the context tells us that it refers to a future judgment. This also applies to Mt 25:29 in the parable of the talents. The passage follows the parable of ten virgins and precedes the judgment of sheep and goats, both of which refer to a future judgment.

However, for Mt 13, Mk 4, and Lk 8, the context is why Jesus taught in parables. He was explaining the principle behind exercise, habit, or usage. Those who show interest, are open, and are sensitive to spiritual truths will be given more and get more out of the parables. Those who are not keen will lose even the superficial knowledge they think they have. This is true in physical training. Muscles that are used become stronger;  muscles that are not used grow weaker. Others call this the principle of momentum, which works both positively and negatively. In all these cases, it applies in the present. So, interpret the passage in the light of the context.

Longevity of Man?

Q. God had made human lives to be 120 years before the Flood in Gen 6:3. Why is it that men still live so long after the Flood (e.g., Gen 11:10-23, at least up to Serug)? I notice they continued to decrease in life span from generation to generation.

A. First, what does the text say?

· NASB95 Gen 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

Second, what does it mean? You interpreted “his days shall be 120 years” to mean human life span, which is what some contemporary translations have done, e.g.:

· CJB Adonai said, “My Spirit will not live in human beings forever, for they too are flesh; therefore, their life span is to be 120 years.”

· CEV Then the Lord said, “I won’t let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than 120 years.”

· ERV Then the Lord said, “People are only human. I will not let my Spirit be troubled by them forever. I will let them live only 120 years.”

Other versions include EXB, GW, GNT, ICB, ISV, MSG, NCB, NCV, NLT, and VOICE.

The problem with this interpretation is that, as you have noticed, Noah’s descendants lived much longer than 120 years for twelve generations, e.g.:

· Shem: 100+500=600 years, Gen 11:10-11;

· Arpachshad: 35+403=438 years, Gen 11:12-13;

· Shelah: 30+403=433 years, Gen 11:14-15;

· Eber: 34+430=464 years, Gen 11:16-17;

· Peleg: 30+209=239 years, Gen 11:18-19;

· Reu: 32+207=239 years, Gen 11:20-21;

· Serug: 30+200=230 years, Gen 11:22-23;

· Nahor: 29+119=148 years, Gen 11:23-25;

· Terah: 205 years, Gen 11:32;

· Abraham: 175 years, Gen 25:7;

· Isaac: 180 years, Gen 35:28;

· Jacob: 147 years, Gen 47:28.

It was not until Joseph (110 years, Gen 50:22, 26) that men’s longevity dropped below 120 years. Now, would God say something He does not mean? Of course not!

Next, let us note the context:

· Gen 6:1-2 Now it came about when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

· Gen 6:5-7 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the Earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The problem was the sons of God (fallen angels) taking wives from the daughters of men and engaging in prohibited sexual union. The cause was Noah’s and prior generations. The punishment was the blotting out of man. If Gen 6:3 refers to shortening man’s life span to 120 years, then the punishment would extend to generations not even born and have not contributed to the problem, which would be unjust.

Accordingly, an alternative interpretation is that the 120 years refers not to man’s life span but to the period God gave warning to Noah’s generation to repent or face the consequences. This meaning was chosen by The Living Bible:

· Then Jehovah said, “My Spirit must not forever be disgraced in man, wholly evil as he is. I will give him 120 years to mend his ways.”

This would be fair and conforms to God’s stated principle:

· Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. Also, 2 Kings 14:6b, 2 Chron. 25:4b.

· Ezk 18:20 The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Lastly, let us deal with an objection based on:

· Gen 5:32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

· Gen 7:6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the Earth.

Some critics assumed that since Gen 6:3 is between Gen 5:32 and 7:6, there were only at most one hundred years for God’s Flood warning, not 120 years. However:

· Gen 6:8-9 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Could God have pre-determined to punish mankind in Noah’s 480th year, 20 years before the birth of his sons? The text did not say, but it is a possibility. This is a solution with fewer difficulties, and my position is based on all available biblical data.

God is Light

Why is it that God created everything, but the Bible says, “He is light without darkness?” If he is the God who created light and darkness, shouldn’t he be called “light and darkness?”

No, the word “light” is used in two ways:

• Gen 1:3-5 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
• 1 Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him, there is no darkness at all.
• When God created “light” in the beginning, on the first day, that light was physical. In modern terms, you might call those photons or light waves. Notice that the Bible did not say God created darkness. Darkness is not a “thing” – it is simply the absence of light. Gen 1:2a says, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep.” There was darkness because the creation of light came later.
• However, when the Bible says, “God is Light,” it is a metaphor; it is not physical. It meant that God is all good, with no evil in His nature. So it would be wrong to call God “light and darkness” since the Creator is different from what He created.

Eisegesis

Q. Mark 9:1 “see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” The transfiguration is a microcosm of the glory of God’s kingdom. Jesus appeared in the center with Moses and Elijah. In the Jewish minds, this affirms the true important stature of Jesus. Should we read more into it than this, making it into eisegesis? Putting our words into God’s mouth! Is my conjecture out of line?

Only Luke conveys the content of the conversation, not Matthew or Mark. Luke portrays Jesus Christ as Savior. Might it be Luke’s reason to reveal God’s plan for salvation, a prophecy of what is going to happen in the near and distant future? Jesus’ exodus from the world (death, resurrection, and ascension) is for the salvation of the world, including the gentiles. By grace, in the future, the two witnesses are partners in the plan for the salvation of the chosen people. Prophesies are from God/Jesus. He fulfilled the OT prophesies of salvation for human beings as in Genesis 3:15.

God/Jesus is the lawgiver. He fulfills the law for salvation. The OT Moses’ laws condemn sinners to death. The NT Jesus frees the sinners from death (and gives life) with His own blood as required by the law. Leviticus 17:11″For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”  John 1:14 Moses mediated the law, Christ mediated grace and truth. Deut. 18:15-19, Moses prophesized a prophet like him will come. Moses represents both the law and prophet. Jesus Christ has fulfilled both laws and prophecies.

I do not think Elijah has ever prophesied about Jesus or much of other things besides curses. Besides God’s wonders done through Elijah, it seems that the only reason Elijah was among these three is because of Malachi 4:5-6 “Elijah will be sent before Jesus’ second coming of the awesome day of the Lord. “

The time of Jacob’s trouble will be the time for the Jews. Moses and Elijah were both Jacob’s descendants. The two lampstands and the two olive trees are all Jewish terms. Enoch was not Jewish. The presence of Jesus talking about salvation with the 2 Jews might point to John 4:22 Salvation is from the Jews. The appearance of the OT Jewish saints together with the NT Jewish savior of the world might point to Ephesian 2:14. God has not told us their names. Perhaps He wants us to concentrate on glorifying Him for the wonders done by the witnesses whoever they are.

A. A large part of your “question” is your view on the topic, not a query. I will therefore respond only to your actual question in italics.

Eisegesis is reading your own ideas and presuppositions into the text, as opposed to exegesis which is drawing out the author’s meaning based on an analysis of the text, context, including the historical and cultural background, grammar, and genre. Eisegesis is subjective, while exegesis is objective, based on evidence. I am of the “old school,” and against eisegesis, which makes the scripture say what you want it to say. I stand 100% on exegesis. So we should not read more into a text than its plain and implied meaning. To do more would be to put words into God’s mouth, which is the sin of false prophets and false teachers.

Having said that, much of your comments are not wrong, as they are based on other scriptures. It is just that that is not what Mk 9:1 said. In expounding a passage, you can use Scripture to explain Scripture. If we must understand a certain subject, God will repeat the lesson in other passages to make sure we get it. Just state the related passages you are bringing in so that readers know where you are coming from, and whether those passages are indeed relevant. To say that all these ideas come from the single text you are expounding would be out of line.

For example, my views on Luke’s record of the Transfiguration are in:

Transfiguration

Whether you agree or disagree, the rationale and supporting verses are all listed for you to verify or challenge. I have learned from the thousands of sermons I have listened to, and from the thousands of articles and hundreds of books I have read over the years. All of these contributed to shaping my opinion when I wrote this post. But to assume all of that came out of Lk 9:31 would be wrong.

Hand Writing on the Wall

Q. Why does Daniel 5:28 use the term “peres” while on verse 25 it is “upharsin”?

A. I will try to keep it as simple as possible since the original words were written in Aramaic, and I will use English only. Dan 5:25-28 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) read:

²⁵ “Now this is the inscription that was written:

‘Menē, Menē, Tekēl, Upharsin.’

²⁶ This is the interpretation of the message: ‘Menē’—God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. 

²⁷ ‘Tekēl’—you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. 

²⁸ ‘Perēs’—your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

You need to know the following:

• Upharsin in v 25 is the actual word written on the wall; Perēs in v 28 is Daniel’s interpretation of the message.
• Upharsin has a footnote which reads “and half-shekels (singular: perēs) from verb ‘to divide’”.
• Perēs has a footnote which reads “half-shekel from verb ‘to divide’’’.

In other words, Daniel’s interpretation is that the Babylonian kingdom, Upharsin or half-shekels (plural), has been divided and given to the Medes (half-shekel, singular) and Persians (half-shekel, singular). Hope this sheds some light on these verses.

Faith or Works?

Q. I told a Catholic friend salvation is by grace through faith, not as a result of works (Eph 2:8-9). She then asked her priest, who told her James 2:14, i.e. can that faith save him?  I am sure this passage is not about salvation, what does it mean? 

A. There are two Protestant views on Jas 2:14-26. The majority view believes James to be contrasting two kinds of faith – a genuine saving faith versus a false intellectual assent dead faith. The minority view feels James was not referring to true versus false faith but mature versus immature faith. Either way, the Catholic priest’s rejection of the Protestant position would be wrong. Let me explain.

First, the priest pits Jas 2:14 against Eph 2:8-9 as if they contradict each other. He chose Jas 2:14 because it refers to works which Catholics believe in. In his mind, Jas 2:14 trumps Eph 2:8-9, and for him, that settles the issue. That is wrong because God is omniscient, so His word is infallible and inerrant, and never self-contradictory. If there is an apparent contradiction, the problem is with our understanding, not with the word of God. The solution is to reconcile the difference, not just choose the idea that appeals to you. Catholics tend to do that because they accept tradition as a basis of authority besides Scripture. But how can human thinking which at best is finite and at worst depraved be on par with, or even override, God’s word? That is error #1, in his premise.

Second is the issue of hermeneutics or interpretation. To determine if there is a real contradiction, we must ascertain whether the words employed are used in the same sense or refer to different things altogether. While Paul and James both use the word faith, they use it to refer to different things, as we will show below. To assume that they meant the same thing and conclude that there is a contradiction would be a mistake. That is error #2, in his methodology.

What exactly does James mean? Let us examine the text in its context. James listed several characteristics of the kind of faith in 2:14-26 –

1. It is useless (v 14, 16, 20) – both to the person who has it and others i.e. those in need,
2. It is what someone says he has (v 14) i.e. it is only a claim when it is not backed up by works (v 14),
3. It does not save (v 14),
4. It is dead (v 17, 26),
5. It cannot be shown to others (v 18),
6. It is only a belief (v 19), an intellectual assent held even by demons, but not something to be obeyed,
7. It is not perfected (v 22), or complete, and
8. It is not the type that justified Abraham (v 24) and Rahab (v 25), which are accompanied by works.

But the characteristics of the faith Paul talked about in Eph 2:8-10are:

1. It is the vehicle of salvation (v 8 saved through faith),
2. It is not of yourselves, but God’s gift (v 8),

Based on the above most scholars conclude that Paul and James are referring to two different types of “faith” altogether:

• Paul is talking about a true “saving faith” whereby he places his trust in God alone. That faith is not the result of his own effort and is visible only to God, as the LORD looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). God justifies him and declares him righteous. Rom 4:3, 5 Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. … But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. This faith is the basis or root of our salvation, which invariably manifests itself in good works, since Christians are created in Christ Jesus for them, and would walk in them (Eph 2:10).
• James is talking about a nominal faith in name only, which a person professes but which lacks good deeds as evidence that the faith is genuine. This type of faith is useless, does not save, and dead. Other people cannot see this faith, as man looks at the outward appearance (1 Sam 16:7), but there are no accompanying works or fruits as proof. It is a cognitive faith only, in which a person subscribes to the truth of some doctrines, but which does not change him/her on the inside. Because there is no root, there is no fruit, and therefore a false, dead faith, not the type possessed by Abraham and Rahab.

The minority view does not go so far as to label the faith James described as false, but as imperfect, incomplete, immature. I will not dwell on it but suffice it to say that with either view, James did not contradict Paul. Their views are complementary. In fact, both are derived from what the Lord Himself taught:

• Mt 7:20-21 So then, you will know them by their fruits. ²¹ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 

The faith that saves is always that which trusts in the finished work of Christ alone, never in one’s work. But this faith is not alone in that it leads to good works as fruits. The priest’s error #3, then, is a lack of understanding of the context. He followed his church’s teaching in putting the focus on works, not faith in Christ. Hope this explanation helps.

Is Faith a Gift? (2 of 2)

(Contd. from yesterday)

Let’s move onto the second verse:

• Eph 6:23 (NASB) Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Unlike Eph 2:8, there is no ambiguity here. While 2 Tim 2:22 also talked about peace, love and faith in the same verse, there the initiative is on the Christian to pursue:

• 2 Tim 2:22 Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart,

Here the assertion is that faith comes from God. But what is not clear is what kind of faith is under consideration. Is it saving faith, mountain-moving faith, or some other kind? The text did not specify, so it could be faith in general. But one thing is certain. Since Eph 6:23 is addressed to “the brethren” i.e. Christians, the faith could not be saving faith, since the brethren are saved already, and there is no need to bestow saving faith on them in the benediction. However, the context of Eph 6 refers to faith to withstand attacks from Satan:

• Eph 6:16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

So fortifying faith could be in mind, but we just can’t be dogmatic.

The third verse is:

• Acts 3:16 (NASB) And on the basis of faith in His name, it is ^[a]the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.

^[a]His name

The phrase “the faith which comes through Him” might give the impression that the Lord (Him) gave the lame beggar (him) faith to heal him. But closer examination reveals otherwise. When the beggar saw Peter and John, he began asking for alms (v 3). Even when they asked him to look at them, and he began to give them his attention, he was only expecting to receive something from them (v 5) i.e. alms. There is no indication that he had faith in Jesus. Peter raised him up and he began to walk. So, the faith referred to was not faith that the Lord gave him to restore him, but faith which the apostles exercised through Him that healed the cripple.

Note also that “comes” is in italics. This means that the word is not in the Greek text but supplied by the translators. Other translations e.g. English Standard Version, has this verse as:

• Acts 3:16 (ESV) And His name—by faith in His name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus^[a] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

^[a] him

So again, a prima facie case for God giving saving faith turns out otherwise on close examination.

The last verse is:

• Rom 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Superficially, God has assigned or apportioned to each an amount of faith. What kind of faith are we talking about? The “each” to whom God has allotted faith corresponds to “everyone among you” at the beginning of v 3. Who are the “you”? The context in v 1 makes it clear, “Therefore I urge you, brethren …” “You” refer to brethren, brothers and sisters in Christ. So, the faith distributed by God was not saving faith which all brethren already have, without which they would not be Christians.

What could this measure of faith be? The context in Rom 12:3-8 is humble service in the Body of Christ:

• Rom 12:6a Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly.

So, measure of faith could be God allotting grace and different spiritual gifts to us for ministry.

This also fits with Paul’s use of the same Greek word “metron” for measure:

• 2 Co 10:13 But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you.
• Eph 4:7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

2 Co 10 is Paul’s description of his ministry, while Eph 4 talks about Christ giving gifts to men (v 8). Both refer to God or Christ allotting us a sphere of influence enabling us to serve.

Let me conclude by summarizing our key findings:

Verse	Who?	What kind of Faith?
Eph 2:8	Christians, formerly dead in sins	Salvation is gift of God; faith only secondary
Eph 6:23	Brethren	Fortifying faith or faith in general
Acts 3:16	Faith of apostles	Faith in Jesus’ name to heal
Rom 12:3	Brethren	Faith/grace/gifts in ministry

Except in Eph 2:8, the subject under consideration was not saving faith, but faith in spiritual warfare, faith in Jesus name to work miracles, and faith in ministry. Even in Eph 2:8, we saw that faith is not the primary gift of God, salvation is; and faith is only a secondary gift as part of the salvation-grace-faith bundle. I have not read the book and can’t comment on how the author presented his arguments, only on the four verses you quoted. If they are the only proof-text offered, then I feel that he had not established his case (saving face is given by the Father) adequately. Feel free to point out deficiencies in my observations. Hope this helps.

Kindness to All?

Q. On the sheep and goats passage in Mt 25, I tend to think that we should show kindness to all, more than just brothers mentioned in 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers , you did it to me.’  Any comments? Why did Matthew use the word “brother” in 25:40? What’s his point?

A.  I believe we should show kindness to all, but not based on Mt 25:40, which specifically addressed to “brothers”. The context contrasts sheep, representing brothers, with goats, those who are not brothers. So, to say “brothers” implies “all” goes beyond the text and the Lord’s intended meaning.

I base “kindness to all” on the following:

• Lk 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. (Also Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27)
• 2 Tim 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged.
• 2 Co 6:6 in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love,
• Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
• Col 3:12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

The Lord commanded us to love our enemies. If we are to be like God, and He is kind to ungrateful and evil men, who are not our brothers, we certainly need to show kindness to all. This is explicitly taught by Paul. Even though 2 Tim 2:24 addressed the Lord’s bond-servants specifically, the principle does not go against the context and is applicable to all. This is also the case in 2 Corinthians 6:6, where Paul was commending themselves as servants of God (2 Co 6:4). They are to be kind so that they give no cause for offense in anything, in order that the ministry will not be discredited (2 Co 6:3).

The fruit of the Spirit, which includes kindness, should be manifested by all those who belong to Christ Jesus (Gal 5:24). Since Christians are those who have been chosen of God, we are to put on kindness to all, not just to those who love and do good to us, in keeping with the spirit in Lk 6:32-34. So, while I agree with your conclusion, my rationale is different.

Lastly, why did Matthew use the word “brother”? In chapter 25 there are three periscopes:

• Parable of Ten Virgins;
• Parable of the Talents; and
• The Sheep and the Goats.

All three showed a separation – the wise from the foolish, the faithful from the lazy, the blessed from the accursed. Each time the focus is on what they did versus did not do. The emphasis was on the subject, not the object, which in the first two cases were things – oil and talents – not people. What’s important is the action or inaction, not the recipient. So, “brother” is not the main point of the story, faith in action is. I could be wrong, so if you have a better explanation please inform me.