Skip to main content.

Is Salvation By Faith Alone?

William J. Stewart

THIRD NEGATIVE ESSAY

I thank Mr. Peacock for his participation and each reader for giving attention to the essays presented. I pray that much good will come from this effort.

I consider Jason to be a friend, and have enjoyed conversing with him, but I am convinced that his doctrine of salvation by "faith alone" is foreign to the Bible. Jason admits that if his doctrine is not true, "...the majority of Christian thinkers are not truly saved..." Therefore, I call our earnest attention to this important topic, that we might know and carefully do God's will.

Jason asks, "...if salvation by faith alone is not a Biblical doctrine, then what were the 3000 words affirming in the 2nd affirmative?" In each essay my friend has affirmed "faith alone"; but that does not make it Biblical. Some affirm that homosexuality is acceptable in the sight of God. Others place church traditions on par with the Bible. Just because someone affirms something to be Biblical does not make it so. I fervently deny "faith alone", as I would any other teaching that opposes sound doctrine.

JOHN 3:16 AND CONTEXT

Jason corrects me, "...I did not say that the water is not water, please do not make me say things I have not..." Indeed, he acknowledges water as one of six possible interpretations. However, the nature of truth requires that one understanding be correct, to the exclusion of all others. Rather than answer my question about the new birth, Mr. Peacock danced around it. If his doctrine of "faith alone" is to stand, he must reject that water means water. So, he opts for an obscure position.

Jason believes he "...offered good reasons..." why his position should be accepted. He takes John 3:5 with 3:8, and tells us that Jesus combined "...the 'wind' of Ezekiel 37:9-10 and the 'water' of Isaiah 44:3..." to explain the riddle of Proverbs 30:4. An interesting theory to mold a custom-made explanation of John 3:5. Using that type of convoluted reasoning, why not take Genesis 8:1 ("...God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided.") and force it into John 3:5 and pretend Jesus was referring to the Flood?

Jesus did not say "...unless one is born of water, wind, and the Spirit..." nor did He say "...unless one is born of water and the wind..." Sounds more like a 'nature' birth than a 'spiritual' birth to me. In his desperation, Jason must change John 3:5, for he cannot deal with Jesus' plain statement. Mr. Peacock insisted on the importance of the context of John 3:16, yet he has not dealt correctly with the verse nor its context.

MR. PEACOCK'S FAVOURITE TEXTS

Throughout the debate, I have kept track of how often my friend has used Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-10 and Philippians 2:13. These are supposed proof-texts, yet none say or even imply "faith alone". Mr. Peacock reads that into the text. In his second essay, Jason thought the count was "...kind of funny..." Now, he tells us "...I did not find it all that funny..." Whether he is amused or not, we continue the count in this final essay. His total use (misuse) over the three essays is Romans 5:1 (12 times), Ephesians 2:8-10 (16 times) and Philippians 2:13 (7 times).

He says my count is "...like reverting to name calling when your arguments do not succeed..." Not at all. I am simply pointing out his heavy use of these texts, and noting with the reader that none of them support his proposition. If counting the number of times he used specific passages is like name calling, what shall we consider his slanderous words, as he commented on "...the 'Church of Christ' false cultic understanding of Depravity..."?

Jason tells us that many real concepts are taught in the Scriptures without being expressly stated. For instance, the 'trinity'. Indeed, the plurality of the Godhead is taught in Scripture. No one verse speaks of all three persons of the Godhead as being God, but each is called God in the Bible. However, Mr. Peacock is in error, trying to compare "faith alone" to the Godhead. No Scripture specifically rejects the three persons in the Godhead. The New Testament specifically condemns justification by "faith alone". No Bible text affirms there to be only one Person in the Godhead. However, many Bible passages teach that a saving faith is a working faith. My friend has had three essays to illustrate that "faith alone" is a Biblical doctrine. He has not done so. He has introduced passages that speak about faith. I believe faith is essential to salvation. However, he has failed to account for numerous texts which speak of other elements that justify (Matthew 12:37; Luke 18:14; Romans 2:13; Romans 3:24; Romans 5:9; James 2:24).

Jason keeps coming back to the sovereignty of God. That is not at issue, I believe in the sovereignty of God; I reject the puppetry of man. Jason attributes salvation to "faith alone", and then, by his corrupt understanding of Ephesians 2:8, he affirms that this faith is God's gift to us. By this, he rejects Paul's statement that "...faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God..." (Romans 10:17). If faith results from hearing the word of God, then it is not a gift God gives to us, but our responsible reaction to hearing His word (Luke 16:29-31; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Jason, by his insistence that faith is God's gift to us rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and makes God a puppet master over men. Salvation is God's gift to man, not faith, otherwise the free will my friend declares to believe in does not exist.

I am charged with believing that "...Philippians 2:12 is best interpreted without its immediate context..." It is not I who has avoided the context. In my previous essay, I said it is our responsibility to work out our own salvation (v 12). God does not act on our behalf, but compels us and supplies us with the wherewithal to do so (v 13). Mr. Peacock has not told us what Paul meant in verse 12. He has avoided it like a plague. What kept him from dealing with verse 12?

What about Romans 9:16 Jason inquires? Paul said, "...it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." We might will with all our being, and run with all our might; salvation still depends upon "...God who shows mercy." However, our will for and our doing of God's will are not excluded. Neither does the text teach that God arbitrarily gives and withholds mercy. Those who seek righteousness by faith will receive God's mercy, those who do not will not (Romans 9:30-33).

FAITH AND WORKS

Clearing up a 'misrepresentation', Jason claims, "...I did not say that we must be a Christian to know what God wants of us." Let me refresh my friend's memory. In his first essay, he said, "...we cannot even know what works we should do without God's Spirit..." Either he believes that we must be a Christian to know what God wants of us, or he believes that some who are not Christians have received God's Spirit.

ARTICLES IN THE FAITH ALONE DEBATE
1st Affirmative 2nd Affirmative 3rd Affirmative
1st Negative 2nd Negative 3rd Negative
Download the entire debate in PDF here.


The context of 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not say we must be saved to understand what God's will is. It does teach that we must be of a spiritual mind. The context refers to the Corinthian Christians as carnal, and for this reason, they could not understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 3:1-4).

ABRAHAM ON FAITH AND WORKS

Jason cannot accept that we are justified by obedience to the faith for two reasons. Let us alleviate his hesitation to accept God's will:

  1. He holds that if we do anything prior to salvation, Jesus could not have meant it when He said, "It is finished!" The question is, did the Lord mean what Jason thinks He meant? His suffering was finished. The Father's plan to make Him a sacrifice for our sin was finished. His obedience to the Father's will was finished. The prophecies made concerning him (note John 19:28, cf. Psalm 22:15; 69:21) had been finished. Truth be told, Jason's attempt to base his false doctrine on this text is incredibly feeble.
  2. Jason states, "Paul does not say we are justified by being obedient to the faith." Several times the Bible speaks of obeying God's word, in view of salvation. Jesus is "...the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him..." (Hebrews 5:9). In Acts 6:7, we are told that "...many of the priests were obedient to the faith." And that we might appease Jason's concern, Paul himself wrote, "...God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered." (Romans 6:17). Before they obeyed the form of doctrine (the gospel of Christ), they were "slaves of sin". Is a slave of sin justified? Is there any doubt that obedience is necessary to be justified before the Lord?

I asked Jason twice whether Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness before or after he had obeyed the Lord. He has not responded. I am curious why not. The Lord told Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees, so "...he went out, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8; cf. Genesis 12:1-5). Had he not done so, he would not have stood justified before God. When the Lord commanded him to sacrifice Isaac, he would not have stood justified before the Lord unless he heeded the command. As James says, "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:22-23).

CALVINISM AND "FAITH ALONE"

Mr. Peacock is correct, I keep changing the title of this section in the debate, and I admit it has been deliberate. Jason has tried to camouflage his Calvinistic arguments under the title "The Atonement and Man's Condition". He has been speaking pure Calvinism, so I'll label it for what it is. Of total hereditary depravity, he says "...I knew you would accuse me of being Calvinistic as soon as I brought up this doctrine." Why bring it up then? Our discussion is on "faith alone" not depravity. He tells us that "...it is of paramount importance to have a correct understanding of man's condition to a holy God before we can fully grasp atonement." Amen! But Calvinism will only muddy the waters. Fact is, "faith alone" is based upon his false assumption of depravity.

So far as Jason's depravity proof-texts, I will not deal with them in this debate. I responded to them in part in my first essay, and was rebuked by Mr. Peacock for turning the debate into a discussion of Calvinism when it was he who brought it up in the first place. I have extended a challenge to my friend to debate the topic of depravity at another time, but he has refused.

REPENTANCE, OBEDIENCE AND JUSTIFICATION

Jason accuses me of saying "...we repent to God and are obedient prior to having saving faith..." I have not said that. I did say that we repent and are obedient before we are justified. One who has faith in God must repent and obey the Lord's will. Then, the faith which is present becomes a saving faith (ie. a faith that has heard and responded to God's word). Jason says, "...faith must come first, and repentance and obedience naturally follow, if this is the faith which justifies." AMEN! Faith must come first. Faith ought to lead us to repent and obey the Lord's commands. What determines whether it is "saving faith" or not? Repentance and obedience. When does it become a "saving faith"? After repentance and obedience.

In my second essay, I said one must repent and be obedient to the gospel, in order to be forgiven of sin and thus stand justified before God. Jason said he agrees 100%. However, his argument throughout this debate says he does not. He believes we must be justified before we can obey, repent or receive the forgiveness of our sins. Mr. Peacock's doctrine has saved people still dead in their sins!

JAMES ON FAITH AND WORKS

Jason tells us that James was writing to Christians about living Christian lives. James says the topic is salvation, "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14). Notice, he shows that both the long standing child of God (Abraham) and the alien sinner (Rahab) are justified by works. In answer to his own question, James concludes:

  1. "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (2:17)
  2. "...do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" (2:20)
  3. "...a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (2:24)
  4. "...as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (2:26)

GRACE THROUGH FAITH ... NOT OF WORKS

Jason was bothered that I called his use of Ephesians 1:11, 'Calvinism'. The Bible doctrine of election is simply that those who will come to Christ by faith will be saved. Those who are predestined are not randomly selected by the Lord, but those who are found in Christ. Notice through the context Paul's emphasis on being in Christ (v 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13). Paul reveals how we might be in Christ, and thus the sons of God (Galatians 3:26-27).

Jason wrote, "...William...objects to me saying grace is through faith and nothing we do can earn this grace..." Where have I said this? I agree fully with that statement. Paul said "...by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." I do not believe we can be saved by works of merit, nor that we can ever earn God's grace. However, it is still required that we do the things commanded by God (Luke 10:17). God's grace does not exclude obedience. It simply removes any ability of boasting in our obedience.

Sundays (map)
Bible classes.....................10:00 a.m.
Worship...........................11:00 a.m.
Wednesdays
Bible classes......................6:30 p.m.


What I do oppose is salvation by "faith alone". Jason took exception to my car analogy. Whether he likes it or not, the illustration drives home the point that in order to receive a gift, one may have to do something. However, these 'works' are not to earn the gift. God has provided the gift of eternal life. We must DO something to receive it. The Bible evidence for this is overwhelming (Proverbs 10:16; Mattthew 7:21; Luke 10:17; 13:24; Acts 6:7; Romans 2:7; 6:17-18; 1 Corinthians 9:24; Phillipians 2:12; Hebrews 4:11; 5:9; James 2:14, 17, 20, 24, 26 and much more).

With his wayward concept of God's sovereignty, Jason rejects God's desire for all to be saved. He tells us, "...as for God desiring everyone to be saved, I do not doubt that, but William is looking at it from a human perspective..." Actually, I was looking at it from God's perspective. The apostle Peter said that God "...is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9). Jason tells us "...everyone is not saved, or has been, or will be..." Correct, but that is not because God is the puppet master Mr. Peacock makes Him out to be. Calvinism and "faith alone" turn God into a monster. According to my friend's doctrine, God will condemn those who do not come to Him, though they are unable to, because He has withheld faith from them. He calls this sovereignty. It is unjust and cruel and far from the God of the Bible.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Through this discussion, Mr. Peacock has realized in part the trouble with his doctrine. In his second essay, he acknowledged his mistake "...to defend the presupposition that faith alone saves us..." Now, he says he would rather have said "...faith alone justifies." Distinguishing between justification and sanctification, he tells us "...faith alone justifies" and that "...faith plus good fruits or deeds, works prepared for us by God, sanctifies." I agree with my friend that justification and sanctification are not the same. Justification is to be declared righteous, free of guilt. Sanctification is to separated, or set apart to God. However, the only passage in the Bible which mentions both together reads, "...but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified..." (1 Corinthians 6:11). Shall we believe Jason, who tells us we are justified first, and sanctified afterward? Or shall we believe the apostle Paul, who speaks of being washed, sanctified and justified in concert?

I asked my friend two questions to be answered with his third essay. He refused to organize the list of things related to salvation. In order, according to the Bible, they are:

  1. Hear the gospel (Romans 10:17)
  2. Faith in Christ (John 8:24)
  3. Repentance of sins (Acts 2:38)
  4. Baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
  5. Saved and added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:41, 47)

Not sure why my friend found that too difficult to deal with, but nonetheless, there is what the Bible reveals.

I also asked Mr. Peacock if he would renounce his false doctrine and accept the whole counsel of God regarding the salvation of souls. Sadly, he said no. If he accepted all of God's word, he would reject the doctrine of "faith alone". Not only is it not in the Bible, but it stands contrary to many Bible passages. He takes exception to the phrase "false doctrine", calling such a statement "...the height of arrogance..." If I did not believe that "faith alone" was a false doctrine, I would not have entered into this debate. Likewise, if I believed the doctrine was wrong, but that it was of no eternal consequence to the souls of men, I would not have involved myself in this discussion. I believe with all my heart that salvation by "faith alone" is a false doctrine, and those who attempt to enter heaven by means of this teaching will hear the Lord say "...I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:23). Lawlessness is to act without or outside of the law. Salvation by "faith alone" is no part of the law of God.

Throughout this discussion, Mr. Peacock has had one responsibility; to show us that the Bible teaches faith as the exclusive element of salvation. He has failed in this task, and predictably so, for the Bible does not teach salvation by "faith alone". Rather than support his proposition, my friend has attacked it, stating that "...salvation is gained by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone." In that very statement, Jason admitted there to be at least three elements which combine for man's salvation. I appreciate his honesty, but I am puzzled that he refuses to accept the remainder of Scripture. Surely we can see that the New Testament does not teach that one is saved by "faith alone".