Don Smith
Introduction
When we think of those who have no respect for the authority of God’s Word, our minds may center on the rebellious and sinners of the world—those who do not even believe in God with any mental assent. However, the informed faithful child of God knows that some of the greatest disrespect for the authority of the Bible resides in denominationalism. This article continues the chronicling of the exchange with Mrs. Julie Jackson, a denominationalist herself—Pentecostal to be exact. She continues to defy the clear teaching of the Bible and in particular regarding salvation and law. A refutation in reply will be given after each of her paragraphs. As promised in the previous article of this exchange, the absurdity continues.
(6)
1Salvation is for everyone who will believe according to Romans 1:16 and who will have faith Romans 1:17. Habakkuk 2:4. 2There is no “formula”. 3You detailed the Church of Christ (COC) Theology (doctrine) in [TGP, March 2024, pg. 25-26, par. 59-63] regarding salvation. 4Salvation is described in Romans 10:9–“If you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved”. 5Christ died on the Cross for our sins. 6That is why He came. 7Titus 3:4-7 shows …”it’s not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His Mercy He saved us, by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” 8Deuteronomy 4:2 says “You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
Reply to Paragraph 6
In sentence 1, Mrs. Jackson uses Romans 1:16 in an attempt to bolster the “faith alone” claim. The obvious problem with this is she would never say repentance is not needed – but where is repentance explicitly stated in Romans 1:16? It is not. However, it is implied. On that note, where is the requirement of confession that Christ is the Son of God? It is also implied, which she would certainly admit. However, what she won’t admit is that baptism is implied as well. If any of these other aspects of the plan of salvation are implied in this passage, baptism is as well, as it is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). In sentence 3, she cited part of what the reply to her first letter covered on the plan of salvation – seems like a careless citation, which indicates she did not seriously consider the information given to her through that reply. In sentence 4, she uses Romans 10:9 for her “faith only” belief as well. Again, where is the salvation requirement of hearing in this passage? It is implied. Where is repentance? It is implied. As these are implied, so is baptism (see TGP, March 2024, pg. 27, par. 66, sent. 4-7). Finally, in sentence 7, it is astonishing that she would use Titus 3:4-7 after it had been so thoroughly shown to be parallel to other passages in the pattern of salvation laid out in the New Testament (TGP, Feb. 2024, pg. 18, par. 49). How could she get that the “washing of regeneration” is anything but baptism? It lines up perfectly with baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and being born of water to enter the kingdom (John 3:5). A contrary meaning would have to be forced into this to make it mean anything else.
(7)
1The truth is Israel, by the time of Christ added over 600 oral laws to the original Law of Moses. 2This is like the sin of the modern church that creates formulas and steps to salvation. 3The 10 Commandments were the Moral Law and it is still in force, because Moral Law cannot change. 4Believers keep the Law by confessing Christ as their Savior & trusting Christ and the Holy Spirit to develop righteousness & holiness in one’s life (sanctification—a process stated in 1 Thessalonians 5:23). 5Sanctification is also spelled out in Philippians 2:12 by Paul—“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”. 6This way the moral law is kept by our love of God and desire to reverence & serve God because of His precious Love that sent us Christ and the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:2). 7Along with conviction when we slip/sin He is quick to forgive. 8So the combination of a relationship with Christ and continually renewing our minds Rom 12:2 is the “working out our salvation”. 9It’s a lifelong journey and we never arrive until we pass into heaven.
Reply to Paragraph 7
Replying to sentences 1 and 2 is simple. The pattern of the New Testament shows the way of salvation:
-
The 3,000 on Pentecost repented and were baptized (Acts 2:38-41)
-
The Samaritans believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12)
-
Simon, the former sorcerer, believed and was baptized (Acts 8:13)
-
The Ethiopian eunuch believed, confessed, and was baptized (Acts 8:26-39)
-
Saul (Paul) was baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 9:17-18; 22:16)
-
Cornelius was baptized (Acts 10:48)
-
Lydia and her household were baptized (Acts 16:14-15)
-
The Philippian jailer and his household were baptized (Acts 16:33)
-
The Corinthians heard, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8)
-
The 12 Ephesians were baptized (Acts 19:1-7)
These were not steps and formulas created by the church. They were and are the commands of God followed. This does not in any way reflect the way the Jews added oral laws – what we see here is scriptural. In sentence 3, she claims the 10 Commandments are the moral law which is still in effect. The Bible teaches that the 10 Commandments, as they were written in the Old Testament, are no longer in effect. Again, she completely ignored the clear teaching of the Bible on this as outlined in the reply (TGP, Nov. 2023, pg. 25-26, par. 22, sent. 1-13). Finally, in sentences 4-5 she shows just how little she understands sanctification, as she does throughout the entire exchange. Sanctification is to set apart as holy, and the Bible teaches this is only done through the word, in obeying it (John 17:17). So very simple, yet the ignorance of denominationalists, in forcing their way in and around the Word, would render it complex beyond understanding.
(8)
1[In TGP, Nov. 2023, pg. 24, par. 15, sent. 3-4] you said I used the term legalism as a negative and I did. 2Again, I should have been more specific, but I didn’t see how far apart we were in theology at the time of writing my first letter. 3Doctrine that adheres to the “law” at the expense of the Spirit is detrimental to truth (legalism). 4That is why I stated it in a negative fashion. 5As I just stated above law needs to be kept but is not the answer in and of itself – Romans 8:3 “For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh….”. 6Those under the law have only their will power, which is insufficient to avoid the traps & pitfalls of sin. 7So despite how hard one tries, they are unable to keep the Law. 8Rom 8:4 “That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Reply to Paragraph 8
In sentences 1-2, Mrs. Jackson stated that she should have been more specific about how she used “legalism” in her first response, as though it was not understood. She did not need to be more specific, as it was clearly understood – hence the detailed explanation of legalism and law in the reply. Her use of “Spirit” in sentence 3 is faulty, as the Holy Spirit (which is a person of the Godhead – He has a mind) gave us the various systems of law. This was outlined in the reply (TGP, Nov. 2023, pg. 25, par. 20). He did this through the apostles and prophets (John 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Sentence 7 is true, yet she still grossly lacks understanding in this. Although no one can keep any law perfectly, this does not negate the fact we are all still under a law. Because we cannot keep even the law of Christ perfectly, once we are baptized into Christ properly, we have a second law of pardon, which has been outlined in the reply (TGP, March 2024, pg. 26-27, par. 64, sent. 6-par. 65, sent. 12). The Spirit relayed this through the written word as well. Overcoming the fact we break this law is not done by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the person today but by our obedience to this second law of pardon. This is how we are cleansed by the continual washing blood of Jesus Christ (1 John 1:7, 9).
(9)
1Another discussion of the Law is found in Gal 3:15-25. 2I will try to word this differently than the last paragraph. 3The Covenant God made with man through Moses is still in force. 4Moses covenant was the law. 5We are to obey the Law. 6All those brought into salvation by Faith in Christ like the Abrahamic covenant were/are justified by faith. 7Vs 19 Law given to define sin, till the seed brings the Promise. 8God is the mediator of 2 covenants. 9vs 21 No the Law is not against the Promises of God. 10“If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law.” 11Ie. The Law of Moses could show a man what he was – a sinner but had no power to change the man. 12Vs. 22 The Scripture has concluded all under sin (means that the Law could not give Eternal Life; it could only exact its penalty: which was death), “that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them who believe”. 13(Belief and only belief in what Christ did at the Cross is the object of our Faith that brings salvation). 14Vs. 23 “But before Faith came, we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith which should afterwards be revealed. “ 15The law always pointed to the Christ. 16Vs 24 “Wherefore the Law was our schoolmaster (guardian) to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by Faith.” 17The law had no permanent function, but served only until Christ would come. 18Vs 25 “But after that Faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (guardian).” 19The Law was totally under Christ, not abolished by Christ but fulfilled.
Reply to Paragraph 9
It’s almost embarrassing to have to set straight such clear contradictions within this lady’s writings. Notice in sentences 3-4 how she states the Law of Moses is still in force, but then states, “The law had no permanent function, but served only until Christ would come” in sentence 17—and she even underlined it. However, she then goes on to say the Law was not abolished in sentence 19 (cf. Eph. 2:15). This woman is as confused as can be—and that’s what denominational doctrine does. She is still not making the distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, though this was detailed for her in the reply (TGP, Nov. 2023, pg. 25-26, par. 19-22).
(10)
1How to live life with the power of God through the HS is shown throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. 2It is to live by faith! 3Galatians 2:20 “I am Crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the Faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” 4How could Christ live in us if it was not by the HS? 5And 2 Corinthians 3:6 “Who also has made us able Ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”. 6Again Romans 8 again vs. 1-5. 7Everyman lives by faith, the nonbeliever as well as the saint; the one by faith in natural laws and the other by faith in God.
Reply to Paragraph 10
In sentence 2, Mrs. Jackson expressed that we must live by faith, and again in sentence 7 she states that we are to live by faith, and specifically, we are to live by faith in God. However, the passage she references for this is Galatians 2:20 wherein Paul states specifically, “I live by the faith of the son of God.” This is much different than saying, “I live by faith in God.” It is not just believing or mental assent. Notice the definite article “the” preceding “faith.” Paul is specifically referencing the system of faith, the New Testament (Law), that Christ gave. That is why it is expressed as the faith of Him, not faith in Him. The book of Galatians is a letter Paul wrote to expressly show the rightly dividing of two laws. In the very next verse (Gal. 2:21), Paul implies that righteousness does not come by the law of Moses. However, in the following verse (3:1) he questions the Galatians as to who bewitched them to not obey the truth, which is the word of God (John 17:17; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). He references two covenants in 4:24 and directly mentions the law of Christ in 6:2. It is true that we must live by faith – but it is not by faith only. “Faith—real faith in God—is to follow His instructions. Faith is demonstrating to God that you believe enough to obey His commands.” “Faith is the exercise of obedience toward the instructions of God.” (“Larry” as quoted by Michael Shank, Muscle and a Shovel, 5th edition, pg. 123). “Faith only” is a dead faith (James 2:17, 24, 26). Faith only does not justify.
Conclusion
Untangling the web of Mrs. Jackson’s error is a tedious task. When denominationalists steep themselves this deep in false teaching, it seems they willfully blind themselves to the truth. It seems that Mrs. Jackson does not realize just how badly she is contradicting God’s will. Even more sad is the possibility she does realize it but stubbornly refuses to change. This is a possibility since she had the teachings of the Bible on these simple and fundamental aspects so thoroughly explained. Next month’s article will continue this second response and the accompanying refutations.
