1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and the Lordship Debate
October 24th, 2006
(Guest Post by Matt Waymeyer)
One of the fundamental issues in the debate over “lordship salvation” concerns whether or not obedience to God is an inevitable fruit of conversion. In the preface to the first edition of The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur wrote:
I have never taught that some pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. But I do believe without apology that real salvation cannot, and will not, fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer. There are no human works in the saving act, but God’s work of salvation includes a change of intent, will, desire, and attitude that inevitably produces the fruit of the Spirit.
This belief that regeneration inevitably results in a spiritually transformed life is one of the main tenets of lordship salvation.
In contrast, many opponents of the lordship view deny that good works are an inevitable result of conversion. For example, consider Zane Hodges, founder of the more radical form of non-lordship teaching known as “Free Grace” (hereafter FG). Hodges argues that the view that “faith inevitably produces good works” is “a theological construct which cannot be established from the Bible” (Absolutely Free!, 216). Elsewhere Hodges writes, “How strange that in our day and time we have been told so often that fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is unsaved. Certainly we did not get this idea from the Bible” (ibid., 118). According to Hodges and other FG teachers, an individual can believe in Christ and yet show forth absolutely zero fruit in terms of obedience to God or love for Christ. Put another way, they believe in a regeneration which may or may not result in a visibly changed life.
Of the many passages which contradict FG teaching, one of the clearest is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. The apostle Paul writes:
(9) Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (10) nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (11) Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God.
The reason this is such a problem for the FG system is that Paul makes it clear that those whose lives are characterized by wickedness (i.e., “the unrighteous”) will not inherit the kingdom of God. In short, such individuals stand condemned, and their only hope for eternal salvation is to repent and believe in Christ.
FG teachers object to this understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, insisting that there is a vast difference between entering the kingdom of God (as all believers will do) and inheriting the kingdom of God (as only obedient believers will do). According to the FG view, those Christians who are carnal and disobedient throughout their lives—i.e., “the unrighteous” in 1 Corinthians 6:9—are saved and will enter the kingdom, but they will not inherit the kingdom in the sense of receiving eternal rewards and reigning as co-heirs with Christ. Sadly, according to FG, the experience of these believing-but-not-inheriting members of the kingdom will be so dreadful that Jesus described it like this:
- “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” (Matt 22:13).
- “The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and shall cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; weeping shall be there and the gnashing of teeth” (Matt 24:50-51).
According to FG, these verses are not a description of a person in hell—they describe the future experience of an unrighteous believer who will enter but not inherit the kingdom of God. In the eyes of FG teachers, then, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 poses no problem for their view that many genuine believers show forth no spiritual fruit and live their entire lives in utter spiritual barrenness.
In contrast, I believe a more careful look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that “the unrighteous” are unbelievers, that inheriting the kingdom is the destiny of all true believers, and that all who live a life of wickedness demonstrate themselves to be unsaved, regardless of what they confess with their mouths (see Matt 7:21-23).
The Identity of “the Unrighteous”
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, “the unrighteous” is what is known as the substantival use of the Greek adjective adikos (“unrighteous”). This may sound technical, but it simply means that the adjective “unrighteous” is being used alone, independent of a noun, and therefore takes on the meaning of a noun itself. In other words, “the unrighteous” is a good translation, for it simply refers to people who are unrighteous. Such people, Paul says, will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Although FG teachers insist that “the unrighteous” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 are unrighteous believers, there are at least two difficulties with this view. First, Paul has already defined “the unrighteous” as unbelievers earlier in the very same context. In 1 Corinthians 6:1, as Paul begins the discussion which he is continuing in verses 9-11, the apostle writes: “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?” In this verse, Paul sets “the unrighteous” [also the substantival use of adikos] in contrast to “the saints,” making it clear that they are unbelievers (also see v. 6 where Paul refers to these same individuals as “unbelievers”). Therefore, when Paul refers again to “the unrighteous” later in the same discussion in verse 9, it is not difficult to know whom he is referring to: unbelievers whose lives are characterized by unrighteousness.
Second, when the Greek adjective adikos [“unrighteous”] is used substantivally in the New Testament, it is never used in reference to those who are regenerate (see Matt 5:45; Luke 18:11; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 6:1; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Peter 2:9), and it is commonly used to refer to unbelievers in contrast to believers. For example, note the substantival use of adikos in the following verses:
- Matthew 5:45b: “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous [adikos].”
- Acts 24:15b: “there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked [adikos].”
- 2 Peter 2:9: “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous [adikos] under punishment for the day of judgment.”
This does not mean that true believers never sin or that they are unable to commit acts of unrighteousness. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 6:8 the apostle Paul uses the verb form of the word “unrighteous” [adikeo] to rebuke the Corinthians for sinning by filing lawsuits against each other—“you yourselves wrong [adikeo]…your brethren.” In this way, 1 Corinthians 6 serves as a good illustration of the lordship position: The Corinthian believers did commit acts of unrighteousness (as the verb adikeo in verse 8 indicates), but their lives were not characterized by an unbroken pattern of unrighteousness (the substantive adikos in verse 9).
The Meaning of “Inherit”
When Paul says that “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” the FG view is that although every believer will enter the kingdom, not every believer will inherit it. To support this assertion, Zane Hodges and other FG teachers point out that the words “enter” and “inherit” are not synonymous in their dictionary meanings.
The New Testament speaks of believers seeing the kingdom (John 3:3), entering the kingdom (Matt 7:21), receiving the kingdom (Mark 10:15), inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor 15:50; Gal 5:21), and having an inheritance in the kingdom (Eph 5:5). The fact that these verbs are not perfectly synonymous with one another hardly disproves that each is being used to describe the experience of every believer (albeit by emphasizing slightly different nuances of the believer’s relationship to the kingdom). In Mark 10:14-15, for example, receiving the kingdom, entering the kingdom, and having the kingdom belong to you are all used interchangeably in reference to the experience of everyone who believes. Does the fact that these three words are not synonyms undermine this fact? Not at all. More, then, needs to be said.
The real test comes in examining the passages which speak of the believer inheriting the kingdom (Matt 25:34; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; cf. Eph 5:5; James 2:5). Although I am convinced that each of these passages lead to the conclusion that every believer will inherit the kingdom, I will limit my comments to what I think is the clearest, most significant problem for the FG view: Matthew 25:34.
In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus is describing what will happen when He returns to this earth in glory and sits on His glorious throne (v. 31). At this time, He will gather the nations before Him and separate humanity into two groups of people (v. 32), placing the sheep on His right and the goats on His left (v. 33). The sheep, of course, represent believers (vv. 34-40) and the goats represent unbelievers (vv. 41-45). Later, Jesus describes how He will tell the goats: “Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41). But first He addresses the sheep, saying to them: “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (v. 34; emphasis added). All believers, Jesus says, will inherit the kingdom.
According to the FG view, Jesus should have divided humanity into three groups: (1) the righteous sheep who will inherit the kingdom, (2) the unrighteous sheep who will enter but not inherit the kingdom, and (3) the unrighteous goats who will depart into eternal fire. But instead, He divided them into two (and only two) groups of people: (1) the sheep who will inherit the kingdom and (2) the goats who will go away into eternal punishment. These two groups are otherwise known as the blessed ones and accursed ones (vv. 34, 41), the righteous and the unrighteous (v. 46). Again, all true believers will inherit the kingdom of God.
The Transformation of the Corinthian Believers
After stating that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom (v. 9a), the apostle Paul lists out various categories of wicked people who are part of “the unrighteous”: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers (vv. 9b-10). He is not referring to people who commit sins in these areas. Rather, he is speaking of people whose lives are so characterized by these sins that they are defined by them—they are the unrighteous. Such individuals, Paul says, will not inherit the kingdom (also see Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5-6; Rev 21:8; and Rev 22:14-15).
Then comes verse 11: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God.” Paul says that none of the Corinthian believers fall into any of these categories of unrighteousness. This is how some of them previously lived as a way of life, but no longer: “Such were some of you” (v. 11a).
The use of the imperfect tense (“were”) indicates something that was continuously true in the past but is no longer true. In other words, some of these believers were previously fornicators, homosexuals, drunkards, etc. But something changed, something brought about a radical transformation in their lives. And that something, Paul says, was God’s work of conversion: “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God” (v. 11b). As Gordon Fee writes, the apostle Paul is saying to the Corinthian believers: “Your own conversion, effected by God through the work of Christ and the Spirit, is what has removed you from being among the wicked, who will not inherit the kingdom” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 245). In contrast, FG people seem to read verse 11 as if Paul had said: “And such are some of you, even though you were washed, sanctified, and justified.”
The conclusion, then, is inescapable. Paul says there are two kinds of individuals in this world: (1) the wicked who will not inherit the kingdom, and (2) those who have been converted by the work of God, all of whom will inherit the kingdom. There is no third category of individuals who have been truly converted but who continue in the same unbroken pattern of wickedness that previously characterized their lives. After all, the grace of God is not only free, it is also powerful, refusing to lie dormant in the hearts of those who have truly believed.
Matt W., That was a powerful and clear look at 1 Cor. 6:9-11. I appreciate all the work that you put into this piece. I hope it clears up a lot of misunderstanding.
Great post Matt.
Hodges logic is flawed in so many ways. He also argued that whenever Paul is writing a letter to a church - He couldn’t possibly be questioning the salvation of his hearers because they were already Christians. i.e. according to his logic - there is no way for a NT writer to challenge his readers as to their salvation since the letters are not addressed to the wicked and unsaved.
I Corinthians 6:9 refutes that idea. Paul certainly recognized that some in the churches were not saved and he did call them to examine themselves, question their salvation and not to be complacent in a state of carnality.
Matt,
Home run. I saved a copy of this for my exegetical files. Thansk for all of teh hard work!
Hayden
“According to Hodges and other FG teachers, an individual can believe in Christ and yet show forth absolutely zero fruit in terms of obedience to God or love for Christ.”
Good post Matt, a couple of questions here. I am playing a devil’s advocate here - how much “fruit” does one need to show in order to be considered “obedient”?
What about those who try to “show forth fruit”, but cannot seem to do so? What do they need to do, or not to do?
Jenson
Matt,
Your last sentence pointing out that grace is powerful is what the Zanies do not understand.
In their zeal to protect justification by faith alone, they have stumbled over a proper understanding of grace and regeneration.
W.H.
The Most High God be praised and glorified forever and forever! Amen! There is none like Him, Whose truth is sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb.4:12)
Praise God also for those who teach others correct use of hermeneutical principles in order to rightly understand scripture. It is from God alone and to Him alone the glory for bringing my family to a small church that practices hermeneutical study and teaches the congregation to do the same. The pastor teaches scripture book-by-book, verse-by-verse; it has opened our eyes to the riches of God’s holy Word, and His expectations of His people.
Thank you Matt Waymeyer, John MacArthur, and others who are practicing this sacred responsibility of leading the flock, and guarding the flock from the deceptions that surround God’s “called out” ones. God bless and keep you.
Well done. If an FG proponent cannot at least admit to difficulty in holding this “non-hell” idea by such a carefully rendered exegesis, one would have to conclude the position is being held for other than rational or spiritually sound reasons.
Excellent piece. It should be pointed out that Paul was writing this to believers, “…to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:” (1 Corinthians 1:2).
Grace is very powerful and life changing. The results can be seen by God’s word as given through Ezekiel.
“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.“ (Ezekiel 36:26-27).
This is why John was adamant that those who claim to love Jesus but refuse to keep His commandments are liars (1 John 2:3-4).
Keep the heat on…
Thank you for the article Matt. It is well packaged and lucid. I would also like to put this in my files in 2 Cor. Thanks!
Matt:
You wrote, “This belief that regeneration inevitably results in a spiritually transformed life is one of the main tenets of lordship salvation.”
I would agree with the belief that genuine conversion (Eph. 2:8-9) should result in a transformed life and the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) of the believer.
Jenson asked two important questions:
1) “How much ‘fruit’ does one need to show in order to be considered ‘obedient’?”
2) “What about those who try to ‘show forth fruit’, but cannot seem to do so? What do they need to do, or not to do?”
Your article appears to make behavior, not believing, the key to eternal life and evidence of a genuine conversion. This is consistent with most Lordship teachers. The Bible is clear that all who are saved will show evidence of it (2 Cor. 5:17). So behavior is not the key to eternal life, but changed behavior is certainly an evidence of eternal life.
I understand that no one can see or judge the heart. Lordship, however, is making behavior the key indicator of whether or not a man is truly born again. How do you measure this? How and based on what tangible evidence do you declare that a man who professes Christ, but lives in rebellion to Him was never saved in the first place? To what degree of disobedience does a man have to go to when he arrives at the place where you can say, “Never truly saved?”
If he seems little interested in the things of the Lord, like “just Lot,” (2 Peter 2:7) was he never saved?
If he denies the Lord (Matt. 26:75), walks out on the ministry (John 21:3) and causes divisions (Gal. 2:11-13) like Peter did, was he never saved?
If he commits lust, murder, adultery (2 Sam. 11), and has struggles with pride (2 Sam. 24) like King David, was he never saved?
There are genuine believers in our churches today who struggle in their walk with God. They struggle to, “lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us,” (Hebrews 12:1). “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat,” (Luke 22:31). There was plenty of chaff in Peter’s life. There is plenty of chaff in the life of every genuinely born again child of God.
One of my biggest concerns with the John MacArthur’s Lordship gospel is that it conditions the reception of salvation on a commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands. Once a lost person is born again and sets out to live for Christ he will soon find he is not able to live up to that commitment. He then will have doubts and a lack of assurance.
He is looking at the decision he made to surrender his life to the Lord in addition to depending on the Lord. He will be conflicted when he finds he cannot live up to the commitment. He asks himself, “Is it my obedience to the Lord or my faith (depending) on the Lord that saved and keeps me?”
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
“One of my biggest concerns with the John MacArthur’s Lordship gospel is that it conditions the reception of salvation on a commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands. Once a lost person is born again and sets out to live for Christ he will soon find he is not able to live up to that commitment. He then will have doubts and a lack of assurance.”
This, it seems to me, is a non-sequitur. A commitment is not the same as a result. The pledge is not the same as the practice. Intent is not the same as action.
A struggle to “live up to the commitment” does not render the actual commitment false.
Lou,
Good questions. How would you answer them?
Scott
I do like the article. Thanks for the diligemce in God’s Word that you have shown Matt. Paul compares our Faith as a race. If we are truly saved we will run the race on the “Track of Faith” no longer on the “Track of the World”. Hurdles (trials)will come in my lane at different time(s), as to the lives of others whom we race along with not against. I see in the Great Comminsion, “go and make disciples” not go and make a convert/proselyte as the LORD’s language used in Matt 23. Easy believism is there and thus places many according to Matt 7:13 & 7:21. I thank the LORD there are Pastors/Teachers such as John MacArthur and others who will teach and preach the full council of God Acts 20:27. Most importantly the LORD has enabled me to study for myself. I see no other way that to agree with LORDship Salvation according to the scriptures.
1 Peter 1:3-6 - inheritance
God started it, God keeps it going, and God finishes it. FG to me is a denial of God’s sovereignty with respect to soteriology, specifically, preservation and perseverance…
Lou, how much belief is enough?
Jenson,
You asked how much fruit someone needs to show in order to be considered obedient. There is no simple quantitative answer to that question (just as there is no simple quantitative answer if you were to ask a FG advocate how much fruit a believer needs to show in order to be considered an heir of the kingdom rather than just a member of it). The point that Scripture is clear about is that genuine conversion does indeed result in a changed life. If someone is a true believer, his obedience will flow out of a heart that now loves and delights in the Lord.
As a pastor, I often counsel professing believers who are struggling with sin and/or doubting their salvation. In this process, I am very slow to question someone’s conversion. If an individual is caught in a pattern of sin, at some point I may explain to him that there are two possibilities: Either (a) he is an unbeliever who is enslaved to his sin, or (b) he is a believer who is struggling with sin. It is not always easy to determine which one is the case, but in time it usually becomes clear. The point is that I wrestle through this in the context of an ongoing relationship—patiently and compassionately bringing the Word of God to bear on his life—not in the cold and methodical application of a flow chart I have sitting on my desk.
Lou asked: “To what degree of disobedience does a man have to go to when he arrives at the place where you can say, ‘Never truly saved’?” That is a good question, and the answer is found in Matthew 18:17. When an individual refuses to repent of sin after the church patiently follows the restoration process set forth in Matthew 18:15-17a, we have a divine obligation to regard him as an unbeliever (Matt 18:17b). If followed biblically, this process has a powerful way of exposing the true allegiance of one’s heart. Until then, unless this person is blatantly unrepentant and in a church which refuses to address his sin, I am hesitant to regard a professing believer to be unsaved. At the same time, if I were to randomly encounter an individual (as I once did) who told me that he knew he was born again because he had believed in Jesus for eternal life, but that he had no love for Christ and absolutely no desire or intention of living in obedience to God, then I would not hesitate for a moment to tell him that he was self-deceived.
Lou,
I’m not sure what in the article led you to believe that I see behavior as the key to eternal life. Perhaps I was unclear. But let me assure you that I am in full agreement with your statement that “behavior is not the key to eternal life, but changed behavior is certainly an evidence of eternal life.” Put another way: Good works are not a prerequisite for conversion—they are an inevitable fruit of it. As you yourself said so well: “The Bible is clear that all who are saved will show evidence of it (2 Cor. 5:17).” In the end, it sounds like both of us are in agreement with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Matt,
Thanks for your input. I was playing a devil advocate and wanted to get the input from a pastoral point of view. The 2 questions I asked cannot be answered totally by flow charts, as you rightfully pointed out, but by sitting at one’s desk and dreaming out the answers.
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
Jenson
Matt:
We agree on the matter of evidence following a genuine conversion. If you are referring to the “unrighteous” as ones who were never genuinely born again I would agree.
I trust you believe there are carnal Christians in our churches, that these are born again, but struggle in their walk with God. I do know folks who were told to commit themsleves to Christ as a condition to receive eternal life and then struggle with assurance of their salvation, as I described above.
My problem with Lordship Salvation is not with the results of salvation. My problem with Lordship Salvation is how it defines the requirements for salvation.
Lordship Salvation conditions the reception of eternal life on upfront promises of commitment, cross bearing, following, a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake if necessary. Men like John MacArthur redfine saving faith to include these conditions.
LM
Matt:
You wrote, “I’m not sure what in the article led you to believe that I see behavior as the key to eternal life. Perhaps I was unclear.”
I did not frame that statement well.
My point is that Lordship Salvation does conditon the reception of salvation on a commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands. Promises of behavior expected of a born again disciple of Christ for salvation through Christ.
This is the essence of Lordship Salvation when defined in the context of how a lost man is born again.
LM
I understand what Matt is saying in his article and his comment. Both are very clear. However, with all due respect, I do not understand what Lou is talking about. He seems to want to force Matt’s view into a distorted position of his own design rather than accept Matt’s explanation.
W.H.
As far as any Greek lexicon I have ever viewed, notwithstanding all English dictionaries I have consulted, there stands a great gulf of difference between the ideas of “inherit” and “enter”.
It is clear and plain reasoning to see the difference between merely living in a house and owning it or ruling over a city and being a mere citizen there.
Let us continue:
1 Cor 6:7-11
8 No, you yourselves do wrong [adikeo] and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Notice the verb “do wrong”. This is the Greek verb for unrighteous activity, unrighteousness (adikeo). The Corinthian Christians were “doing unrighteousness” and this to their Christian brothers, for goodness sake! This point cannot be overemphasized. Paul characterized the Corinthian believers (see 1 Cor 6:11) as experientially unrighteous. This is a severe indictment which necessitates a strong warning which Paul is about to give.
The next part serves as a warning to the Christian readers in Corinth! After charging them with “doing unrighteousness”, Paul says that “unrighteous” (anarthrous construction, IOW, those who are experientially characterized by doing unrighteousness) will not inherit the kingdom of God, using the same Greek word in its noun form for “unrighteous”.
Paul is saying, “You Corinthians are performing unrighteousness, cheating, and doing it to your own Christian brothers! Don’t do this! Because don’t you know that the individuals who can be experientially characterized as unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom?”
The word that Paul uses here (vs 8 “do wrong” Greek: adikeo) is the verbal cognate of the substantival anarthrous “unrighteous” (Greek: adikos) of verse 9.
The relationship of the verse 8 “adikeo” (the cause for indictment) to the following verse 9 anarthrous “adikos” (warning of consequence to the born again Corinthians) cannot be overemphasized.
Whereas Paul speaks of the unregenerate in 1 Cor 6:1 as THE (articular) unrighteous, Paul warns those born again Corinthian believers (see verse 11), who are experientially unrighteous, that the experientially, characteristically (anarthrous) unrighteous (not the articular) will not inherit the kingdom of God.
If what Matthew has proposed is true, imagine the impact of this warning:
“Don’t you know that the unsaved will go to hell…?”
I submit that this would neither be a warning nor something that would even cause the Corinthians to give a second thought!
If inherit = enter in this passage, the warning to the Corinthian Christians who were “doing unrighteousness” would be of no effect, for they are Christians and guaranteed heaven (see verse 11)!
As a matter of fact, the warning would only be effective (viewed from the Lordship Salvation proponent perspective) if heaven was attained by a perseverance in holiness and works, which in fact, Lordship theology unashamedly proclaims:
“…we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.” (John Piper “TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism…”, pg 25)
The idea that faith produces perseverant works until the end of life is foreign to this passage. It is something that the Lordship Salvationist must import into this text. Paul puts out the idea of reward here, inheriting the kingdom. The passage is abundantly clear that a perseverance in holiness is a necessary condition for the reward. The texts that hold out ownership, inheritance, and rulership in the kingdom explicitly condition such on faithfulness and a perseverance in overcoming works. Whereas Jesus is abundantly clear that “seeing” and “entering” the kingdom is received by faith alone (John 3:3, 5ff).
Inheriting the kingdom is based on perseverance in faith and faithfulness, while merely entering and seeing the kingdom is based upon faith alone in Christ alone.
Let us continue:
Is Paul addressing unsaved people in this passage? That idea just cannot pan out.
He is talking specifically and only to believers:
1 Cor 6:4-8
4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! 7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
NKJV
Paul is clearly saying that the believing Corinthian Christians are to be SHAMED for
1) Not taking their petty matters before the brethren and
2) Not allowing themselves to be cheated in the first place and
3)Performing unrighteousness (”do wrong”) and cheating their brethren.
The Corinthian believers are being rebuked by Paul for their unrighteous activities! The following becomes a WARNING to those who are “doing unrighteousness”:
1 Cor 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that [I have removed the article for this is a anarthrous construction, meaning those who are characterized by unrighteous behavior and NOT a specific designation of people] unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
Paul says “You Corinthian believers are performing unrighteousness and cheating your fellow believers! Didn’t you know that those characterized by unrighteous activity will not inherit the kingdom of God?”
The warning loses all force and becomes absurd if it is addressing unbelievers. First, to state such, would go against the clear statements of the text addressing it to believers! Next, we are faced with the problem of it implying this:
Eternal life, entering the kingdom of God, no longer is appropriated free by faith alone in Christ alone. It now becomes a contract that a man has to quit the nasty nine and dirty dozen before He can be saved. Paul in Galatians (in the parallel passage) even adds more petty offenses: outbursts of wrath, jealousy, selfish ambition, and envy.
What kind of warning is this supposed to be?
“Do you not know that if you sin too much you go to hell? Don’t you know that if you sin too much that you truly aren’t a Christian? You need to get saved! The first thing that you need to do is to stop your unrighteous activity and start living righteously!” This my friends is works-salvation, works-righteousness.
Why wouldn’t Paul instead say, “Those of you so-called Christians who are acting unrighteously, you need to get saved! You are on your way to hell! You have yet to believe the gospel! You need to 1) repent 2) submit 3) count the cost 4) give up all in your life, etc…(the multitude of Traditionalism’s requirements for one to actually step foot in heaven)”
The plain, simple, and clear message is that the Corinthian believers were acting unrighteously, and Paul states that those Christians whose lives are characterized by unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Jesus is clear in John 3 that believing in Christ is the sole requirement for entering, seeing the kingdom of God.
Paul is clear that perseverance in practical righteousness is required for inheriting the kingdom of God.
One is by grace through faith.
The other is by perseverance in works and faithfulness.
Let us look quickly at 1 Cor 6:11:
The warning that we have been looking at is addressed to those of whom Paul could acknowledge, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:11).
1 Cor 6:8
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!
NKJV
Paul is emphatic here in the Greek. “you yourselves”, the pronoun, is emphatic! (Paul is saying “I am not talking about unbelievers or wordlings, but of you SAME individuals who WERE washed, sanctified, and justified!)
Has the “you” changed!? It would be some kind of miracle if it did!
“YOU YOURSELVES do wrong (adikeite) and cheat” (vs 8 )
“Do you not know that wrong doers (unrighteous - adikoi) will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (vs 9)
We must pay close attention to pronouns and their antecedents.
Paul is thus asserting:
1) That those who have been justified, sanctified, and washed from their old sins may “do wrong” (perform unrighteousness - adikeite) and were doing it! and
2) that “wrong doers” (adikoi) shall not inherit the kingdom!
The SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE IS BEING ADDRESSED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PASSAGE!
Nowhere in this text is the unbeliever addressed, on the contrary, it is only the believer who is addressed!
And since the believer “does wrong”, or performs unrighteousness, would he not consider himself unsaved?
In the Traditionalist, Calvinist system, how could any warning be of value to the born-again Christian when by virtue of their regeneration they will by necessity persevere?
The warnings are at best superfluous, and at worst, extremely dangerous, causing born again people to doubt if they are saved and continue to seek eternal life by their persevering works.
The Corinthians, in whom Paul is addressing, were sanctified, washed, and justified. These same people were performing unrighteousness. Paul warns these justified Corinthian believers that they will fail to inherit the kingdom of God if their lives are characterized by “doing wrong”.
This is the simply clear flow and understanding of the passage.
The Lordship Salvation advocates do harm to communication in general and the passage in specific when they import their theology into the text rather than see Paul’s plain statements for what they are.
Paul is speaking pastorally here and has no thought for the unsaved in his exhortation here whatsoever. His warning is to “you, yourselves” who had been “do[ing] wrong” (Greek: adikeo), who nevertheless were justified, sanctified, and washed. The warning is specifically and only to them!
Lordship proponents are playing around with the communication here! Their theology does not accept the clear meaning of the text and so it becomes the ridiculous and absurd notion that the warnings do not contain any penalty whatsoever to the TRUE Christian, but are MERELY goads to move them to perseverance!
What becomes the result of someone who is unsaved, who thought they believed unto salvation, but whose life is characterized by unrighteous deeds? The warnings don’t tell them to instead fully trust in Christ for salvation, but to expend every effort to persevere in their works!
August:
You asked a good question, “How much belief is enough?” I assume you mean to be born again.
I write about this in my book, because missing the biblical definition of believe, especially when it appears in key verses such as Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31, can lead to the Lordship interpretation of the gospel.
Lordship teachers say Romans 10:9 explicitly demands upfront commitment and personal submission from a lost man; a belief in and acceptance of the Lordship of Christ as Ruler of his own life in order to be saved. You find this theme in works by John Stott (Basic Christianity), Kenneth Gentry (The Great Option: A Study of the Lordship Controversy), and John MacArthur (The Gospel According to Jesus).
This goes beyond the scope and meaning of “believe” in Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31.
Now I want to refer to the episode where Philip the Evangelist encountered the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). We know that the eunuch was saved and then baptized. Philip would not have baptized the eunuch had he made a weak, incomplete or false profession of belief in Jesus Christ. Can we agree on that?
In reply to the eunuch asking for baptism Philip replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Philip conditioned baptism on his believing. There is no salvation in water baptism; it is a picture of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. It is an ordinance of the church and should only be administered to the person who has already been born again.
In the eunuch’s confession of Christ is there any mention of making a commitment to live in obedience to the commands of Christ? Is there any promise of surrender? Is there any proclamation of taking Jesus as master over his life? We read his confession, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The eunuch said he believes. Believe what? Jesus is the Son of God! The eunuch humbled himself and accepted the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The eunuch’s confession was enough, and Philip baptized him.
It is also interesting to note that the word believeth in Philip’s question and believe in the confession by the eunuch are identical words. They are also the same as the word believe in Romans 10:9.
LM
(Portions of the above are edited excerpts from my book- In Defense of the Gospel.)
Interesting side note some may appreciate.
When I was a missionary in South Africa I once had a black national say to me, in front of a large crowd of South Africans “Christianity is the white man’s religion. Jesus is the white man’s God”
In reply I told this story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. I made two applications:
1) God loved that man from Ethiopia, a black African, so much that the Angel of the Lord called Philip the Evangelist away from a great work in far away Samaria. The Lord sent Philip into the desert to find and minister to this one eunuch who sincerely desired to know the one true God.
2) God loved the black African so much that He sent this eunuch back to the African continent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. God chose the Ethiopian eunuch to be the first missionary to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in Africa.
Once I finished there were many sincere questions about salvation in Jesus Christ. That was not a prepared lesson. God gave that to me at the moment it was needed.
LM
If he denies the Lord (Matt. 26:75), walks out on the ministry (John 21:3) and causes divisions (Gal. 2:11-13) like Peter did, was he never saved?
If he commits lust, murder, adultery (2 Sam. 11), and has struggles with pride (2 Sam. 24) like King David, was he never saved?
Lou, both of these examples seem to disregard Matt’s assertion that “fruit” refers not to individual acts, but to what characterizes a person.
Yes, Peter denied the Lord and “walked out” once, but he was quickly restored. Yes, he was once the culprit in a division, but he was quickly corrected.
Yes, David was guilty of lust, adultery and murder, but when confronted with his sin he promptly repented.
In other words, these sins didn’t characterize the lives of these men, so I don’t think they’re effective counterexamples to Matt’s thesis.
Antonio,
Do you understand the meaning of “inherit” in Revelation 21:6-8 the same way?
Here the idea of inheritance is tied to the free life of him who thirsts, and to a childlike relationship to the Heavenly Father. The context is the eternal state. And the essence of John’s statement is similar to Paul’s… those who truly believe and (as a result) overcome will inherit the new earth. Those who are characterized by sin (and therefore evidence an unchanged heart) will inherit the lake of fire.
Thanks,
NB
Antonio,
If the unrighteous in 6:9 are believers, then who are the “such were some of you” in verse 11? It says of the “such were some of you” that “they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”, as in contradistinction of the unrighteous of verse 9. In your view wouldn’t both groups (the unrighteous of verse 9 and the “such were some of you” of verse 11), be justified? If this is what you are saying then this comparison of these two groups as believers defined by you makes absolutely no sense.
Lou, thanks for a longer than expected, and complete answer.
As you mentioned, the passages in Rom 10:9 and Acts 16:31 tells us that we should believe with all our heart. Can you maybe tell me what you believe what “all thine heart” entails? At least for me it means a full inner conviction, with no doubts that can lead to later unbelief.
What do you make of Mark 16:15-18?
“Mar 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
I like the story of the eunuch that you brought up. He was busy reading, and needed some explanation of what he was reading, right? This opened the door for him to make a confession of faith, and be baptized. I think it is prudent to reflect on what he was reading. The passage he referred to came from Isaiah 53, where the prophesy of the coming of Jesus was written. It specifically addresses Israel at that point, and continues through a couple of chapters in Isaiah. I don’t know if you have reflected on those passages, but if you read them, there are many calls to “abandon wickedness”, “keep justice”, “do righteousness” etc. I think that the eunuch, if he was reading those passages, would have come to understand after hearing the gospel message, that one would come to bear the inequity, and that righteousness follows.
Is it your contention then, that the righteousness that follows does not manifest externally? Does God-given heartfelt belief manifest itself?
I want to add that faith meets fruits in Gal 5:5-26. Here the fruits of the Spirit are clearly named, and that we, as followers of Christ, will have the same heartfelt desire to walk in the love of Christ. It is all part of the same inner-conviction faith mentioned in Rom 10:9. Faith manifests as love, and to say one believes, is to say one loves.
Thanks again for your response, Lou. I don’t think that we disagree that much. I do agree with some of the other posters here though, that you are reading something into Lordship that is simply not there.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3v28).
You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2v24).
It appears as though we have a contradiction in the Bible, however they are simply complimentary to one another, for God can not contradict Himself.
Paul is writing about a person being justified before God, whereas James is writing about a man being justified before men. Men cannot see another person’s heart as God can. The only way men can tell that someone has a genuine faith is by seeing his/her changed life….in words, by the person’s works. Thus justification before God is by faith alone;justification (or vindication) before men is by works.
Works of obedience do not bring justification before God; rather, works flow from true justification and demonstrate that a man’s faith is real.
James only emphasizes that faith and works are inseparable….not for salvation, but for proof of a genuine faith before men, as the entire context of James reveals. Genuine faith will always result in good works flowing from it (Ephesians 2v10).
Paul,
I would like you to thorougly read my comment again, please, for I believe that I make the connections.
vs 8:
“you yourselves” (the Corinthian believers) “perform unrighteous deeds” (adikeo) against and “cheat” your brothers. (indictment)
vs 9: “Do you not know that those who are characterized by unrighteous deeds won’t inherit the kingdom?” (warning)
vs 11: “But you were washed, cleansed, justified, sanctified”. (positional status)
The whole of the passage, as I have shown in my last comment, is addressed to none other than those who are justified. The warning of Paul is to justified saints!
“The unsavory descriptions in Paul’s list of vices had fit many of the Corinthians in their unsaved days. But God had mercifully washed their past away as He sanctified and justified them by His saving grace. Their past, therefore, no longer stood as a barier to heirship in God’s Kingdom.
But the present could, and this is Paul’s point. ‘The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God,’ he insists, and he has just charged them with behaving unrighteously” (Zane Clark Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 77, emphasis mine).
Nate. I would be happy to discuss that verse. But you see, that would take time as we go through all the verses having to do with inheritance, possession, and rewards. Let us, for clarity and efficiency’s sake, keep to a consideration of 1 Cor 6 for right now.
Did I not make a case that has not been answered here? The flow of the passage, the certain recipients of the passage and warning, the nature of the warning, the relationship of the Corinthians unrighteousness in verse 8 with the warning of unrighteousness in verse 9, etc, the absurdity of the warning if the Lordship position is correct, the unmistakable sense of works-salvation if the Lordship position in this passage is correct, the obvious importation of perseverance theology into the text (the text most emphatically does not say:
Check your works to see if you are saved. For a perseverance in faithfulness and works is guaranteed to those who are regenerate. Therefore, if you are committing unrighteousness, you have every reason to believe that you are going to hell.
This type of consideration is an obvious import into the text.
Paul is clear. A perseverance in holiness and works is a necessary meritorious condition for inheriting the kingdom of God.
I know i wrote alot. but often times it takes many words to clarify and dispute the bald assertions of the opposing views.
Matthew also fails to understand Zane’s points about fruitlessness and works inevitably following from faith.
What Zane (and I) have a problem with is the contention that faith will produce a life-long progression and perseverance in faithfulness and good works (as is the contention of perseverance theology advocates, and Lordship Salvation proponents).
I have read all Zane’s books, journal articles, etc. He does not at all believe that a man will be unaffected by regeneration:
“Finally, we must add that there is no need to quarrel with the Reformer’s view that where there is justifying faith, works will undoubtedly exist too. This is a reasonable assumption for any Christian unless he has been converted on his death bed! But it is quite wrong to claim that a life of dedicated obedience is guaranteed by regeneration, or even that such works as there are must be visible to a human observer. God alone may be able to detect the fruits of regeneration in some of His children.
What is wrong in Lordship thought is that a life of good works is made the basis of assurance, so that the believer’s eyes are distracted from the sufficiency of Christ and His Cross to meet his eternal need. Instead, his eyes are focused on himself. The Reformer’s understood that there was no assurance in that kind of process at all.” (Absolutely Free!, 215, emphasis mine)
“Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically.” (Zane Hodges http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990ii/Hodges.html)
The way Matthew has framed some of his arguments is an appeal to emotion, rather than a dispassionate consideration of the biblical texts. He has constructed a straw man in this area so as to spawn the righteous indignation of those in the choir, which also misinforms those who may be seriously considering the weight of Free Grace theology.
Zane Hodges, as we have seen by the above quotations, categorically denies that a Christian could be totally fruitless, as Matt has contended he does.
August:
You asked, “Is it your contention then, that the righteousness that follows does not manifest externally? Does God-given heartfelt belief manifest itself?”
No, I have said the works and fruit of a born again believer should be expected and in evidence. Some level of both heart (inner) and practical (external) examples should be seen. For example: A heart that wishes to obey the Lord’s command to preach the gospel, will evidence itself in some level of soul winning.
There is very little I would disagree with in regard to the results of salvation as I have read from others here. I have said as much. Although I am convinced the Lordship gospel can and does lead to frustration for a believer who finds he cannot live to the commitment he made.
As I have pointed out in this and other threads my deepest concern is with Lordship Salvation’s creation of requirements for salvation that the Bible does not mandate.
Some folks feel I am misunderstanding Lordship Salvation. I assure you I am not! Even in my book I quote the Lordship advocates liberally so that they define their position in their own words and on their terms. This way there is no chance of my misunderstanding or misrepresenting their position. Then I address the doctrinal problems in their interpretation of the gospel.
Read through the exchange of posts that Nathan and I have placed under the article Common Questions About Lordship, Part 1; and the two articles prior. Visit my blog, there is much there that will help you understand my position on Lordship Salvation.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Antonio,
What do you make of the comment by Hodges on the September 26th edition of Pulpit Live? It seems to imply just the opposite of wht you are saying. I think that is why some of us may “be confused”.
Lou, thanks for the response. I know that you are really busy, but can you maybe just point out what you understand by “belief”? You say on your website that simple belief is enough, how would you define that?
Antonio,
You say that I have constructed a straw man by writing the following: “Hodges argues that the view that ‘faith inevitably produces good works’ is ‘a theological construct which cannot be established from the Bible’ (Absolutely Free!, 216).” Have I misquoted him? Is this not what he said? According to Hodges, this theological construct “cannot be established from the Bible,” but now you’re telling me that he really meant that it can? I’m a little confused. The fact that Hodges contradicts himself on the previous page does not change the fact that here he rejects the notion that faith inevitably produces good works. In fact, I pointed out to you this very contradiction back in February on Faith & Practice, and you failed to clear it up for me. And yet now you accuse me of purposely misrepresenting him? I can provide the link to our dialogue if you don’t remember it.
The other quotation I gave from Hodges (also presumably part of my straw man) was this: “How strange that in our day and time we have been told so often that fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is unsaved. Certainly we did not get this idea from the Bible” (Absolutely Free!, 118). Are you saying that Hodges no longer believes this? Am I being less than generous by interpreting this to mean that a true believer can be fruitless? Or perhaps my definition of fruitless (”without fruit”) is different than his (”with very little fruit”?).
More importantly, please answer now what you didn’t answer in February: Do you affirm that good works are an inevitable result of genuine conversion? If you say yes, you agree with the Zane Hodges of page 215, but if you say no you agree with the Zane Hodges of page 216. Antonio, you yourself have written the following on your own blog: “God does not drag anyone down the path of obedience, nor does faith necessarily result in works.” To me, this sounds like you believe that faith does not necessarily result in works. Do you believe that? If so, why the accusation that I have misrepresented the FG position? If not, I praise the Lord for a positive move in the right direction.
August:
I have provided succinct answers to your questions about “belief.” I provided some illustration of my thinking on belief. If you want a more comprehensive treatment of the biblical definition of “believe,” as it appears in Romans 10:9 and Acts 16:31 you will need to read my book. There is a comprehensive discussion there.
“Simple belief” means I define it as it appears in verses such as Romans 10:9. I do not expand the biblical definition of “believe” as Lordship advocates expand its definition. Allow me to cite two examples and ask a response from you and any others.
Referring to Acts 2:21, 2:36, 16:31; and Romans 10:9-10, John MacArthur said: “All of these passages include indisputably the lordship of Christ as part of the gospel to be believed for salvation. . . . it is clear that people who come to Christ for salvation must do so in obedience to Him, that is, with a willingness to surrender to Him as Lord.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 207.)
Kenneth Gentry wrote, “But to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ means more than to believe that he is Lord and more than to rely on Him to give eternal life. It also means to receive Christ as one’s own Lord, the ruler of one’s own life. (The Great Option: A Study of the Lordship Controversy.)
To keep this in context, both men are speaking of the terms they believe must be met to for a lost man to be born again. They are speaking of what they believe to be the conditions a lost man must meet to receive eternal life. They are not speaking of the growth, fruit or works that should follow conversion. MacArthur and Gentry are defining “believe” as though it demands promises of obedience, surrender and submission.
Nowhere in the Bible is surrendering to Jesus, or committing to live in obedience to the lordship of Christ presented as a requirement to receive salvation.
August- How do you define “believe” as it appears in Romans 10:9? Does your understanding of “believe” require a lost man come to Christ with an upfront commitment to live “in obedience to Him” in order to be born again?
LM
Antonio,
Thank you for addressing my statement. A few observations:
It is obvious that Paul is addressing believers in chapter 6. I don’t think that anyone is arguing that. However it is not obvious that he is talking about believers in verses 9-10 as you assert.
You said: The relationship of the verse 8 “adikeo” (the cause for indictment) to the following verse 9 anarthrous “adikos” (warning of consequence to the born again Corinthians) cannot be overemphasized.
I think that you have done just that, overemphasized it. “adikeo” has a different shade of meaning in this context then “adikos”. You have translated “adikeo” as unrighteous. Since adikeo is never translated unrighteous, it appears that you have done this so that you can slide the Corinthian brethren into the “unrighteous group of verse 9.
Considering the larger context starting at 6:1 is helpful. The Corinthians were being rebuked because they were taking their brethren to court and having “the unrighteous” (adikos, same word used in verse 9 which describes the unrighteous), hear and decide their case instead of bring it before the saints. Continuing in verse 6, Paul further qualifies the unrighteous in verse one by calling them unbelievers. “But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!” So the “unrighteous” in verse 1 clearly are categorized as unbelievers. With this in mind, can we conclude that the term “adikos” (unrighteous) in verse one is descriptive of that groups standing before God, ie: unregenerate/unbelievers?
Are believers ever referred to in Scripture as “the unrighteous”? No, never! There is nothing in the language or context then that would have us conclude anything different but that the group described as“the unrighteous” in 6:9-10 are unbelievers as well. Clearly in light of 6:11 the unrighteous of 6:9-10 standing before God is that they are not washed, not sanctified, not justified, because “such were some of you”! Another words some of you were just like those in the list. “But (even though they are being rebuked by Paul), you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God”.
I hold to another Free Grace understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:8-11. It is called the higher calling or live like the saints view. Not all of us in FG take a rewards view of the passage in question. I side with Dr. Rene Lopez. While there is definitely a reward of the inheritance which Christians can lose (Col 3:23-25), the term inheriting the Kingdom of God refers to entering the kingdom, not the reward of the inheritance. Whereas most in FG believe that inheriting the Kingdom refers to the reward of the inheritance, I believe there is a difference between the two. 1 Corinthians 6:8-11 is not a warning, but an exhortation to be holy in practice as you are holy in position. Here comes my reasoning.
The Corinthians and the “unrighteous” are showing no difference in behavior. The contrast is in identity.
In verse 8, Paul tells them that they are doing wrong (adikeo – from the same word as unrighteous) to their own brethren, and then comes the vice list informing us of the exclusion of the unrighteous from the Kingdom. Then in verse 11 we see that the Corinthians, the ones wronging each other (v.8) are described as having been washed, justified, and sanctified, in distinction to the unrighteous (unbelievers) in verse 9. His message is clear: It does not make sense for believers – those who will inherit the Kingdom, to behave like the unrighteous – who will not inherit the Kingdom (v. 9-10), because they have been positionally washed, justified, and sanctified by simply believing the gospel (v.11). The positionally righteous Corinthians are committing similar sins as those who are positionally deemed unrighteous (5:1, 9, 11, 6:8 ). Even though they were still guilty of commiting these sins Rather than being a warning, verses 8-11 are an exhortation for the believers to be holy in practice, just as they are holy in their position.
Here is what Dr. Rene Lopez has to say:
“Though most of the views above interpret both of Paul’s phrases, “Do you not know …[and] Do not be deceived” as warnings that refer to either losing salvation or rewards, such conclusions are unwarranted. Understanding both of these phrases as
warnings, result in seeing a syllogism that Paul never completes. Rather than saying:
“You do wrong; wrong-doers will not inherit the kingdom of God; thus, you will not
inherit,” instead he concludes: “You do wrong; wrongdoers will not inherit; but you are
not wrongdoers (positionally).”
I suggest you read the full article. http://scriptureunlocked.com/pdfs/ViceList1Cor6-9_10.pdf
Matthew, does “fruitlessness” necessarily mean “absolute” no works at all from the begining of regeneration? Or can it mean from a point in time onward? I submit Zane had the second option in view, as he himself would maintain.
Zane’s point about fruitlessness is that it should not determine whether or not someone is saved. The seed in the second soil germinated and produced life in the parable of the soils, sprang up, and showed the signs of life. Yet it stopped growth altogether and the signs of life disappeared. The point is that fruitlesness does not determine if one is unsaved.
You have misrepresented Zane Hodges by taking him out of the context of his writings. This practice parallels the proof-texting mentality that I find so rampant in Lordship circles. You have failed to accurately present his beliefs and this is shameful.
What I say next comes from me and not Zane:
———-
As an absolute statement, I would find it surprising to have anyone claim that “faith inevitably produces works”.
Did you sin today? how come faith didn’t produce inevitably the proper response? As an absolute statement faith does not inevitably produce works.
If at any moment that a regenerate man is confronted with a decision to act righteously or unrighteously he acts unrighteously, the absolute statement “faith inevitably produces works” is falsified.
Obviously the Lordship proponent means something much less than absoluteness. His statement is one of vagueness and subjectivity.
———-
As I have said, Zane’s problems that he is articulating in the quotes you give have to do with the insistence of Lordship Salvation theology that saving faith produces a life of perseverant works. This is his point! This is a theological construct that cannot be established from the bible.
Any rational and thinking person can see that Zane’s quote can be taken exactly the way that as above, and in fact, this is the way he meant it. He is laboring against a view of perseverance that states that saving faith inevitably results in a life of dedicated and perseverant obedience and works.
Also. You knew of the quotes that I have given, yet you purposefully ommitted them. You have appealed to emotion and intentionally or unintentionally produced a straw man.
I concede that the language that Zane employs with the quotes you give could be misconstrued if taken out of context.
But let us let the man clarify himself!
“Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically.” (Zane Hodges http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990ii/Hodges.html)
Paul E and Danny M.
I appreciate the conversation.
The first thing that comes to my mind is the warning.
In the Lordship Salvation version of the warning (represented by Paul E), men are told that sins will preclude them from the kingdom, so therefore they must pursue holiness and righteousness so as to enter the kingdom.
They are told that the unsaved will go to hell. (Was this a big surprise to them?!)
Where is the warning here?
I’ll tell you:
“Unless you start producing holiness, and unless you persevere in faithfulness and obedience, you will not go to heaven - you will go to hell”
This is the functional nature of the warning from the Lordship Salvation view. Final salvation is made contingent on a faithful endurance in obedience. If there is no perseverance in holiness, there is no heaven.
The problems here are:
1) The entire text is addressed to born again believers (vs 11). What is the purpose of the warning then? By virtue of their regeneration they WILL enter (= inherit, in the mind of the LS) the kingdom, says the LS! Therefore the warning is completly nerfed, and brought to nought. There is no loss or consequence whatsoever! Those Corinthians who were unrighteous in behavior (vs 8 ) are nevertheless born again (vs 11), cannot go to hell, and therefore any warning to the contrary is meaningless.
Paul gave the warning to have a real consequences! It has been conceded that the entire passage is to born again Corinthians. Therefore the warning is meant for them, but under the parameters of the Lordship interpretation, the warning is to no effect, for hell can never be the fate of those who have been justified, sanctified, etc. Under the understanding of the LS, there is no real consequence. The Corinthian believers WILL persevere; they have no danger of falling away.
2) Entering the kingdom (= inherit, in the mind of the LS) becomes conditioned on something other than through faith alone. It is conditioned on quitting the nasty nine and dirty dozen and persevering in holiness and obedience. Faith alone is definitely NOT taught here as a condition for “inheriting” the kingdom! Therefore, if “inherit” is equated with “enter”, it will do irreparable damage to salvation through faith alone.
The Lordship Concession version of the warning (Danny M and Rene Lopez) fails even more miserably than the Lordship Salvation version.
1) It fails to be a warning of anything whatsoever to those Corinthians who were engaged in unrighteousness. Danny M states the interpretation this way:
“You do wrong; wrongdoers will not inherit; but you are
not wrongdoers (positionally).” Being positionally a non-wrongdoer guarantees that they will inherit. So therefore the warning is not a warning at all, but a backhanded encouragement to live in holiness.
2) It is internally inconsistent. As stated by Danny M, the Corinthians are “wrongdoing” and “wrongdoers” don’t inherit. There is an equivocation.
It is both rational and reasonable to consider one who does wrong as a “wrongdoer”! One who lies is a liar, one who commits adultery is an adulterer, etc.
Paul’s point is clear. The Corinthians, who were nevertheless justified saints, were practicing unrighteousness, thus are experientially characterized by unrighteosness. Those Christians who are experientially characterized by unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom.
Paul E is impressed that THE (articular) unrighteous are unsaved (vs 1), and unbelievers (vs 6).
Yet these articular unrighteous are not being addressed by Paul in the context. The connection between verse 8 (which by the way Matthew has tactfully ommitted any consideration of in his treatment) and verse 9 is crystal clear in the Greek text.
The Corinthians were presently acting unrighteously. So Paul warns them that the anarthrous unrighteous (IOW, those who are characterized by wrong doing) will not inherit the kingdom. He sets before them real consequences so that they would shape up! If they continued along on their paths of wrongdoing, they would miss out on possession of the kingdom of God!
1 Cor 6:11
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV
Let me make some observations of this verse:
1) Prior to justification, these Corinthians could be characterized with those features of the vice list. This is Paul’s progression leading up to his statements about them. Again, as a true statement, and in regard to their pre-conversion being, some of them could have been characterized, at that time with those features of the vice list.
2) That Paul makes reference to their pre-justification state does not preclude a consideration of them as presently being characterized by these vices.
As a matter of fact, they were involved in sexual immorality (6:15); covetousness (the probable motive in the lawsuits, 6:1); cheating (6:8); unrighteous acts (6:8); drunkeness (1 Cor 11:21); dishonoring the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11:30–for this reason some of them experienced the sin unto death); adultery (5:1); and they were arrogant (4:18; 5:6). Yet they were justified! That is the terrible inconsistency which grieves the Apostle through all 16 chapters of this book.
3) Paul is speaking strictly of the past in verse 11. The considerations of 8-10 are present.
The positional activities negated the prior failings of the Corinthians at the point of justification. They were washed, cleansed, sanctified, justified. They now were prepared and qualified to inherit. Yet their present activities put this prospect into jeopardy!
Paul is saying:
1) You act unrighteously and cheat
2) Unrighteousness will preclude one from inheritance in the kingdom
3) You in the past had been characterized by these vices
4) But the washing had justified you and qualified you for inheritance
5) Don’t let your present conduct preclude you from inheritance!
I want to again close with Zane’s quote:
“The unsavory descriptions in Paul’s list of vices had fit many of the Corinthians in their unsaved days. But God had mercifully washed their past away as He sanctified and justified them by His saving grace. Their past, therefore, no longer stood as a barier to heirship in God’s Kingdom.
But the present could, and this is Paul’s point[!!!]. ‘The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God,’ he insists, and he has just charged them with behaving unrighteously”[!!!] (Zane Clark Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 77, emphasis mine).
Antonio da Rosa
Of course, salvation is conditioned upon calling Jesus “Lord” (Ro. 10:9). Jesus himself said to be called Lord meant DOING the will of his Father (Matt. 7:21). Ro. 10:9 is a Lordship Salvation verse.
Antonio
“As an absolute statement, I would find it surprising to have anyone claim that “faith inevitably produces works”.
Did you sin today? how come faith didn’t produce inevitably the proper response? As an absolute statement faith does not inevitably produce works.
If at any moment that a regenerate man is confronted with a decision to act righteously or unrighteously he acts unrighteously, the absolute statement “faith inevitably produces works” is falsified.
Obviously the Lordship proponent means something much less than absoluteness. His statement is one of vagueness and subjectivity.”
———-
The contrite heart is evidence of regeneration. “…But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word” Is. 66:2b.
No man is without sin. Even Paul struggled - see Romans 7. We often do that which we would not. Some of the difference from the world, then, is how we handle our sin. We tremble at the thought of the fact that we have disobeyed. In fact, we may have even started our day loving God’s law (Psalm 19:7-14),only to find ourselves stumbling at some point during that day. What then? We have just broken fellowship with our Heavenly Father. We then confess our sin. Why? Because our heart is stricken about having grieved the precious indwelling of God the Holy Spirit. Our desire at that point, thanks to the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is to go from that point to live according to His word.
Here we go with the “you just don’t understand him” comments! It seems anytime we talk about a “controversial scholar” this is thrown out there. {see any discussion on NT Wright, Mark Driscoll, any “emergent” leader}
I believe that Matt W has represented the text exegetically correct according to the normal rules of the Greek language. Interpretaion of this passage historically is overwhealmingly “on the side” of Matt’s interpretation.
Nate.
I am waiting for one of my comments to be approved by you.
I see that you have posted another article already. Will you please allow my comment that is awaiting moderation?
Antonio,
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the teachings of Zane Hodges. I have a number of observations and questions, so perhaps I will number them so they can be referenced more easily.
1. In your comment above, it sounds like you are saying that Zane Hodges teaches that all true believers will produce some amount of spiritual fruit, i.e., that some measure of spiritual fruit is inevitable in the life of every Christian. Is that correct? If so, would Hodges agree that an individual who produces no spiritual fruit is not actually a believer, regardless of what he may profess?
2. While we’re on the subject, Hodges has also written that he rejects the view “that no true Christian fails to love God” (Absolutely Free!, 130). He writes: “The scriptural revelation knows nothing of a doctrine in which Christian love for God is guaranteed by the mere fact that one is a Christian” (ibid., 131). Does Hodges believe that some measure of love for God is inevitable in the life of every Christian? If so, would Hodges agree that an individual who has never had any amount of love for God is not actually a true believer, regardless of what he may profess?
3. In your comment above, you said that I have shamefully misrepresented the teaching of Zane Hodges. Other than simply quoting Hodges himself, here is what I wrote: “According to Hodges and other FG teachers, an individual can believe in Christ and yet show forth absolutely zero fruit in terms of obedience to God or love for Christ. Put another way, they believe in a regeneration which may or may not result in a visibly changed life.” Which statement is a shameful misrepresentation of Hodges’ teaching?
4. In your comment above, you said that the claim that “faith inevitably produces works” is falsified every time a believer commits a sin. Your argument fails to recognize that the claim in question is that “faith inevitably produces works,” not that “faith inevitably produces perfection.” You have still failed to answer the question I put to you back in February and then again yesterday: Do you believe that genuine conversion inevitably results in some degree of good works in the life of every true believer? I am awaiting your straightforward answer to this question. Of course, if you say no, then I’m going to wonder why you have taken issue with my representation of FG. And if you say yes, then I’m going to wonder why you have previously said that this view is tantamount to works salvation.
5. In your comment above, you suggested that we let Zane Hodges clarify himself by looking at the following quotation from him: “Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically.”
The loophole that Hodges provides here is found in the words “every reason to believe.” There is a subtle but significant difference between saying you have “every reason to believe” something will happen and saying that something is “inevitable.” I had every reason to believe that my Green Bay Packers would defeat the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII, but it didn’t happen. (Scott, if you’re reading this, I really don’t want to hear about it!) When Hodges writes in one place that there is “every reason to believe” that faith will produce good works, but in another place he clearly and categorically rejects the claim that “faith inevitably produces good works” (Absolutely Free!, 216-17), I am left to try to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements in some way. To explain how I have done so, let me quote what I wrote in the aforementioned interaction we had over at Faith & Practice back in February: “In fairness to the FG position, I think it is important to point out that they would say that good works should follow faith and that it is reasonable to expect them to follow faith, but not that they necessarily will. One FG writer articulates this by distinguishing between a ‘necessary relationship’ and an ‘expected relationship,’ saying that the relationship between faith and works is expected rather than necessary. In contrast to FG, I believe the Bible teaches a necessary relationship—that is, that faith will inevitably result in a transformed life of obedience.” Antonio, the FG writer I was referring to in this excerpt is you. Are you now saying that you believe there is a necessary relationship and not just an expected one? If not, why the accusation that I have misrepresented the FG position? If so, I praise the Lord for a positive move in the right direction.
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece Matt, as I have other articles you’ve written over at Faith and Practise. Hope you remember me, I’m the guy who officiated at your wedding way out here in Wisconsin. Say hi to Julie
Antonio,
Sorry for the delay in approving your comment. We have recently been hit with a great deal of spam. As a result, we’ve set our spam filters at a very high level. Certain words are automatically flagged by our computers, putting any comments that contain those words into a moderation queue. (Since your comment included words like “sexual immorality” and “adultery” it was flagged.)
You’ll notice that your comment has now been approved.
Thanks,
Nate B. for Pulpit
To Nate and Matt,
I’ll comment more later, but I would suggest at some point you remind yourself of the power of a paradigm. As long as you tightly grasp your entire paradigm you can’t also grasp the very simple point Antonio is making about Hodges views.
Real learning (as opposed to overly eager refuting) requires some “lightening up” and the freed up use of one’s mental resources. The distinction Hodges is making between the Lordship understanding that “saving faith” inevitability results in a trend toward greater holiness (albiet with dome backsliding) that always ends at a reasonably high note at the end of a life is very different from Hodges saying that “the amazing miracle of regeneration” will affect the regenerate person and produce works.
“Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically.” ~Zane Hodges
Blessings,
jodie
Ron,
Hi! How are you? What a cool surprise. The first thing I thought was: “Wow, this guy has the same name as ‘Ron Hoekstra’!” Julie and I were just talking about you, and I still think back to things you taught us in our pre-marital counseling. We are so grateful that God provided you at such a crucial time in our lives. Thank you so much for your ministry to us. And please say hello to Cheryl.
Jodie,
Thank you for your concern. I will work on freeing up those mental resources of mine!
Regarding the quotation you gave from Hodges, you may want to keep in mind the qualification that he himself provides in his book Absolutely Free! On page 215, although he admits that it is a “reasonable assumption” that good works will follow justifying faith (in contradiction to what he writes on pages 216-17, unless I am correct that “reasonable assumption” is not the same thing as “inevitable result”), Hodges says it is “quite wrong” to assert that “such works as there are must be visible to a human observer. God alone may be able to detect the fruits of regeneration in some of His children.”
So even though Hodges says that no true believer will be “totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration,” we must keep in mind that these effects may be so meager that they are not even visible to the human eye. Which is exactly why I accurately summarized the teaching of Hodges in my original article by writing that he and other FG teachers “believe in a regeneration which may or may not result in a visibly changed life.” To those of us outside of the FG camp, the effects of this kind of regeneration are somewhat less than amazing.
Jodie,
You say “To Nate and Matt,
I’ll comment more later, but I would suggest at some point you remind yourself of the power of a paradigm. As long as you tightly grasp your entire paradigm you can’t also grasp the very simple point Antonio is making about Hodges views.”
I’m sure these kind gentlemen hope that you also would lighten up. They too are trying to get a point accross. You aren’t the only one defending a position. Biblical truth is at stake here; the difference between a false gospel and the Biblical gospel. Are you as open to Matt’s points as you wish him to be towards Dr. Hodges?
Excellent lesson. Thank you for this thorough study.
“For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;
Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” Ehp. 5:9-10
“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make a tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.” Matt 12:33
“there are two kind of individuals in this world”
Matthew, I am delighted and pleased that you have chosen to respond to me. This isn’t a luxury that I will any longer take for granted, in view of your Acts 17:30-31 post.
The force of this particular dissention you have with Zane Hodges is one of emotion. The traditionalist position maintains that faith and regeneration automatically produce a relentless disposition toward growth, holiness, sanctification, faithfulness and works that perseveres until death. Therefore when an opposing position states that real failure in the Christian life is a possibility, with attendent severe consequences such as divine chastening and wrath and the loss of inheritance rights in the kingdom of God, it strikes directly at the heart of your revered teaching.
I assume that you have brought up 1 Corinthians 6 as an argument in favor for your idea that all true Christians will persevere and inherit the kingdom of God. This is why I have spent a significant amount of time considering this text. I am convinced that no text teaches that Christians will persevere until the end in faith, holiness, faithfulness, and works, including this text.
Neither Zane nor I would dispute that regeneration will produce fruit of some form or another. Yet such fruit or evidence that would be produced may fail to be observed within the sphere of the world with its imposters, sincere religious (yet unregenerate) adherents, and personable, amiable, and hospitable people. Furthermore, there is no automation nor guarantee that fruit will continue to be produced until death.
We see in nature that there are many necessary variables and ingredients for continued fruitfulness in plants: time, ample water, sunlight, fertilization, etc. If these are not present, there is no guarantee fruit will be produced. Regenerate man has necessary responsibilities in his own sanctification. If he does not invest in it, he is not guaranteed to grow. The seed of regeneration has great potential! When it germinates it will produce some effects. Yet, if man is not engaged in cultivating and developing that seedling, it will not grow to maturity, and could miserably fail.
What I am providing for you here is reasonable as well as biblical. The paradoxical “inevitable” but not “automatic” position of Lordship proponents is intellectually repugnant.
The disasters of the Lordship position are manifold. But the two major problems rest with
1) assurance – the LS can never have absolute certainty of eternal life. John MacArthur states “You can be a spiritual defector who hasn’t defected yet!” The proof of the pudding of eternal life is based upon perseverance. Therefore one cannot know if they are saved unless they persevere (which would take time, no?) and then wouldn’t know unless they persevered until the end!
2) works salvation – people are told that if they don’t have fruitfulness that they aren’t regenerate. They think that they have fully trusted in Christ alone! But are told that they must have a spurious faith. Therefore the remedy is to work hard and persevere until the end.
Your appeal to the emotion of your masses is telling. Why not stick to the biblical texts? I have written a lot on 1 Cor 6:8-11, which I thought was the topic of your post, but you have chosen to race down this rabbit trail.
There is no contradiction or ambivalence in what Zane or I say. Regeneration will produce effects that are not guaranteed to last nor could necessarily be distinguished from the acts of sincere unregenerate people, or seen visibly by anyone at all.
For goodness sake, at the point of regeneration one is but an INFANT! Unless you feed an infant, and provide all the necessary requirements for its growth, it is not guaranteed to reach maturity!
Let me again hit on “faith ineveitably produces works”.
If at any time a regenerate man is confronted with the opportunity to do works (feed a poor man, clothe a naked man, etc.), he chooses NOT to do works, the absolute statement that “faith inevitably produces works” is falsified. Now maybe you will qualify the statement to say “usually” or “sometimes” or “increasingly” or what have you. Yet, the fact of the matter is that at the moment that regenerate man chooses to remain actionless when given the opportunity to do works your statement is thoroughly falsified.
Antonio
Matt,
I think part of the reason you think Hodges is contradicting himself is that the “works” and changes in a person’s life he expects are due to the presense of Christ in the person’s life and all that goes with that presense. The miracle of regeneration causes these changes. When Hodges agrees with the reformers that “where there is justifying faith, works will undoubtedly exist too” he is not agreeing that it is the power of the faith or the essense of the faith that is the reason for those works, but again the power of God in the person’s life.
I’m sorry if what I said seemed insulting, Matt, but I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that it takes quite a bit of effort to grasp a wholly different paradigm, and I think this is an example of that. Hodges would never agree that good works inevitably flow from true faith.
Blessings.
Jodie and Antonio,
Thanks for the clarification. Next time, instead of misrepresenting Zane Hodges by saying that he believes in “a regeneration which may or may not result in a visibly changed life” (as I erroneously wrote in my original article), I will be sure to quote Antonio and say that Hodges believes in a regeneration which produces effects “that are not guaranteed to last nor could necessarily be distinguished from the acts of sincere unregenerate people, or seen visibly by anyone at all.”
Blessings to you both.
Matt,
Which shows how, in our view, it is inadequate as a test of life. Wouldn’t you even agree that some love Christ who are not regenerate? Don’t many Catholic missionaries love Christ? It is inadequate as a test of life. There will be front row Christians in hell. Any concern that someone isn’t really saved should be faced and treated with the true message of eternal life.
My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jodie,
Looks like my attempt at subtle humor was a little too subtle. I was actually poking fun at the fact that, after all the dramatic talk of my shameful misrepresentation of Zane Hodges, it turns out that my original summary statement of his view was accurate after all. Shalom.
I think in order to have an understanding of I Cor. 6, contextually, we should go to the first 4 chapt. of I Cor. As has already been highlighted this epistle has been written to believers, what hasn’t been noted is that Paul engages in rhetorical language to combat the factionalism (which occasioned the writing of this letter) that was occuring at the church of Corinth. Note Margaret Mitchell’s comment in regards to this reality:
The position which will be demonstrated here is that in fact the entire letter of I Corinthians is permeated with the vocabulary and topoi used in political rhetoric to discuss and combat factionalism; thus dissension is at issue throughout all sixteen chapters of the letter. (Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of I Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 67
I bring this up to further substantiate the reality of Paul’s usage of rhetoric throughout the pages of this first letter to Corinth.
To further illustrate this point I also want to point out that this whole epistle is framed by Paul speaking to the Corinthians as if they are unbelievers (i.e. engaged in usage of the world’s wisdom vs. the wisdom of God)in a rhetorical sense. Notice what Peter Lampe (NT scholar, and my interaction with Lampe around this issue) has to say about Paul’s rhetorical engagement of the Corinthians as unbelievers:
Lampe argues that Paul uses the Jews and the Greeks in a synonymously parallel way. He states, “Jews and Greeks are treated by Paul in a parallel manner.” And that both are used as examples of what man-centered wisdom about God accomplishes.
Lampe provides an excellent summary of the tone that Paul is using with the Corinthians throughout the epistle, he states:
In 1:18-25 and 3:18-19 Paul uses the same terminology, which shows how much 1:18-25, in fact, may be read with the Corinthians and their parties in mind. 3:18-19 makes the general theological reflections of 1:18–2:16 clear in regard to the party situation. In other words, and this is the rhetorical finesse, the Corinthians, at first, can accept the fundamental theological text of 1:18–2:16 as agreeable and even enjoyable, for the text in its foreground does not criticise them but the “world.” They can enjoy the “we” who are being saved (1:18), at least intially, until suddenlty, from 3:1 on, the implications of the fundamental theological passage are shockingly turned against the Corinthians themselves. 1:18–2:16 is a “Trojan horse” with which Paul thrusts himself into the middle of the Corinthian party situation. With the Corinthians lulled into security after 1:18–2:16, Paul can attack them openly with the discussion beginning in 3:1. (Peter Lampe, “Theological Wisdom and the ‘Word About the Cross,’” Interpretation 44 (April 1990): 117-131
I present all of this to make a singular point on the text at issue, I Cor. 6, why can’t the “unrighteous” that Paul references be being used rhetorically by Paul, as the precendent has already been set in the first four chapters of Corinthians, as a “class of people” who indeed are characterized by such worldy wisdom. In other words Paul compares the Corinthian church to the world and its wisdom rhetorically, saying that indeed they have indeed been saved from such wisdom–so why do they still look like this world (i.e. why do they consider the cross as foolishness and weak).
Implication:The Corinthians, in general, looked like the world still, i.e. being more characterized by their old man, which Paul points out in 6:11. In my estimation its possible for the “Church” or Christians to look like the World–and I think the pressuposition and occasion of this letter lend itself to this conclusion. I don’t think this text can be used, given its broader context, to argue for the perseverance of the saints.
In Christ,
Bobby Grow
“For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. … And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” Eph. 5:3-8;11
Who are the sons of disobedience? We all are.
“according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of bisobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of the flesh, … and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” Eph. 2:2-3
But we were quickened, or made alive, from the dead by His great mercy, because of His great love. And we are now His workmanship in Christ Jesus for good works!
Bobby,
I have to say…
Excellent points!
“Which shows how, in our view, it is inadequate as a test of life. Wouldn’t you even agree that some love Christ who are not regenerate? Don’t many Catholic missionaries love Christ? It is inadequate as a test of life.”
Hi Jodie,
I take an issue with that statement. You were once a RC, right? What is the difference between your religion then and now?
I would suggest that those who love the “Christ” that is not described in the Bible is unregenerate (i.e. Christ of the Mass, Crucifix, Icon, etc). It is a violation of the first table of the law of God…
Sincerely,
Jenson
Bobby, Would you agree with this:
Ephesians 5 basically says the same thing as 1 Cor. 6. We can see Pauls heart clearly here.
Don’t let anyone deceive you. The sons of disobedience are under God’s wrath. Those who sin. Sins such as fornication, greed, etc.
Do not be partakers with them. These people are not inheriting the kingdom. They are in darkness.
We were in darkness at one time too. BUT now we are light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
The Spirits fruit is righteousness and truth, and this proves what is acceptable unto the Lord.
Don’t fellowship with these who are under God’s wrath, but reprove them. Expose them. And all things are exposed by the light.
“Peace be to the brethern, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Thanks Antonio!
Donsands,
yes I would agree with that–he’s saying the same thing; anyone characterized by those “qualities” (i.e. the class of people who are perishing) will not inherit the kingdom. This doesn’t mean though that Christians can’t “look” just like those who are perishing at points–even appear to be “characterized” by such sin. If you don’t allow for this, then the Corinthian correspondence actually makes no contextual sense. It’s beyond question that the occasion of I Corinthians was that the Church there had accepted the worldly wisdom which caused them to see the cross as foolish and weak. All of the moral failures listed in in I Cor 6 (as well as the other errors outlined in the epistle i.e. I Cor 15 etc.)are expressions of the Corinthians acceptance of a false wisdom, a worldly wisdom.
I actually did my Master’s thesis on I Cor 1:17-25, and I have a hundred more pages of argument to help substantiate my points here
.
In Christ
If Christians can be fornicators, than how do you know they are Christians. I suppose we don’t. But they could be, is what your saying.
This is what I believe Paul is saying to the Ephesians. Don’t let someone use empty words, and tell you that fornicators will inherit the kingdom of Christ and God. They will suffer the wrath of God.
Can a Christain fall into sin? Surely. However the genuine born again Christain will be restored by His Father, who will chastize him. Will there be consequences? Yes, there will always be that, but God’s love will never leave one of His true children, he loves us too much. If He died for us when we were blasphemers and rebels, how much more that we are now righteous, and slaves to righteousness will he take care of us. Also, if there’s no discipline, then he’s not a child.
Paul said that not all of Israel is Israel. I would say not all of the Church is the Church.
Many will even be pastors and teachers, who are not the Lord’s.
These will be those who thought they were Christains. But Jesus says you will know them by their fruit.
They have bad fruit, because they are bad trees. Good trees bear good fruit, and can not bear bad fruit. Bad trees bear bad fruit, and cannot bear good fruit.
100 pages! That’s a lot of writing for just 9 verses. Thaty humbles me, and I appreciate what you are saying. I’m not really that smart, but I do believe there must be fruit in the believers life. No fruit, no Christian.
I also believe that God saves all His elect, whom he chose before the foundation of the world. And that He is conforming us into the image of His holy Son, Jesus Christ.
I enjoy a challenge. It helps me study the Bible. I will be studying all you said for a while.
Thanks. And God bless.
Donsands,
what about the brethren in I Cor. 11:30, who died in their sin–and because of it–via God’s direct discipline upon their lives. This text does not ever give us the indication that these people were brought back to their “senses” prior to God’s judgment on them. I’m curious, Donsands, how do you deal with this text?
From your perspective what’s the threshold of fruitbearing one must have to ensure that indeed they are one of the elect of God, Donsands? Your position seems rather vague on “what” kind of fruit one must bear (i.e. is character qualities, is it particular works, how do motives and intent play into this?).
In Christ
P.S. I’m not that smart either, actually anyone who commits to writing a thesis or dissertation is actually quite insane (hehe
).
Bobby - isn’t the premature death of a believer as cited in I Cor. 11 also a form of discipline God uses to purify His church?
They didn’t fail to receive discipline - they received the ultimate.
Bobby,
Sorry if you have taken my words to be false humility. It’s difficult to show one’s heart in blogging.
I am simply trying to express myself with fear for the Word, and respect for you. But i am less than good at doing so in this manner.
If we were to sit together with our Bibles, and discuss all this, it may still be intense, but i beleive we would see each other in a better way.
Now for 1 Cor. 11:30. I brought this up when I was discussing this very thing with Jodie, on another blog.
The Lord does chastize His children. He deals with us so that His name is not blasphemed, and because He is our Father. If there is discipline, that shows this person is a believer.
You said that there is no indication that they were brought back.
“God deals with you as sons; … no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterwards it yields the peacable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Hebrews 12:7,11
These Christains were abusing the Lord’s body. God dealt with them. He judged them, so that they would not be condemned.
The fruit that the Lord produces is love. Everything blossoms from this love that the Holy Spirit has