Any position that attempts to add or subtract from this Gospel is a false gospel that cannot save.  Many heresies are such because they claim that something additional is required.  For example, there are some that say that, in addition to faith in Christ, one must be baptized in water in order to be saved.  But water baptism cannot save you; only Jesus can.  Water baptism is merely an outward act of obedience reflecting our unseen faith.   There are those that claim that after salvation, one must do good works in order to maintain that salvation.  This too is heretical because it makes continued salvation contingent upon works, not on Christ.  Jesus is both the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).  Good works will naturally follow from salvation because a saved person wants to please God.  But these works cannot save.  They are merely an outward reflection of inward faith.

In part 1, we looked at those doctrines that are essential to salvation: those that cannot be denied by a person whom Christ has saved.  We found that these all centered on Christ: His perfect nature as God Almighty, His atoning death for our sins, His grace by which He grants us faith in Him, His resurrection that foreshadows our own, and the repentance He grants us which results in obedience and good works.  We cannot attain salvation by our own works, but only by God’s grace received through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).  This is the Gospel and it is all about Jesus.
Any alternative is a false gospel.  The saving faith that Jesus imparts to us allows us to confess that Christ is the Lord God (Romans 10:9-13; John 8:24).  It is a genuine faith that God raised Christ from the dead (Romans 10:9-11), and will resurrect everyone else at His second coming (1 Corinthians 15:20-24; John 5:28-29).  The saving faith God imparts to us always involves repentance from sin and will result in good works (Luke 13:3,5; Revelation 2:5; 1 John 2:4; James 2:4).  These verses also clearly teach that the one who denies any of the above principles does not have salvation, but will die in his sins.
And yet, there are many who would verbally profess the above doctrines but lack saving faith in Christ.  Consider what Christ Himself said in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”  We saw in Romans 10:9-13 that declaring Jesus is Lord is a requirement for salvation.  Yet, Jesus Himself indicates that this, by itself, is insufficient.  He said, “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:22-23).
Notice that Jesus said “many.”  That is, many people think they have salvation in Christ and will be surprised to learn on Judgment Day that they do not.  That is a terrifying thought!  These verses should challenge every professing believer to ask himself, “Am I truly saved?”  Saying the right words does not impart salvation.  Rather, God imparts salvation, granting to the sinner a new heart, repentance from sins, and faith in God.
But how do we know that our faith in God is genuine?  After all, Jesus refers to people who were confident in their salvation, who professed Christ as Lord, and even performed miracles in His name; yet, they will not enter heaven.  Just imagine living your life, thinking you are a Christian, being confident in your faith in Christ, and then having Him say to you on Judgment Day, “I never knew you.  Depart from Me.”
Knowing God
God knows the people He saves (John 10:27-28).  And they know Him (John 10:14).  This knowledge is more than simply an awareness of God’s existence.  Even the demons know that God exists, but they are not saved (James 2:19).  Rather, God enters into a loving relationship with those whom He saves (Romans 8:29).  Therefore, those who are genuinely saved have come to know God and to recognize His voice.
For this reason, a severe misunderstanding of the nature of God is an indication that a person may not be saved.  Suppose that someone professes Jesus as Lord and believes that God raised Him from the dead.  But then when I ask him to describe God, he responds, “Oh, he is a three-headed dragon that lives on a moon of Neptune.”  Such a heretical and absurd response would indicate that this person does not know the real God.  The person may be saying the right words in professing Christ’s Lordship and resurrection, but he has placed his faith in a fictional god of his own imagination.  And a fictional god cannot save you from the wrath of the Living God.
This is the characteristic of cults.  Cults profess to be Christian, but have placed their faith in a false god rather than the biblical God.  It can be difficult to identify cults because they often use the same words as Christians, but they mean something different.  Thus, it is necessary to ask questions about the nature of their god.  Is their god an all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present, unchanging, eternal, triune spirit?  A person who does not know God in a saving way often has one or more fundamental misconceptions about God that are revealed when sufficient questions are asked.
No doubt, even a saved person can have some misconceptions about God.  After all, God is infinite and we are finite.  Therefore, we cannot know everything about Him.  But there are certain characteristics that are basic to the nature of God.  A denial of one or more of these may indicate that a person does not know God in a saving way. 
So, what are the fundamental characteristics of the biblical God?  What are His essential attributes that are clearly elucidated in Scripture?  All those who truly know God should agree on the following aspects of His nature.
(1) The Trinity
The biblical God is triune.  He is one in nature/essence, and three in eternally distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Thus, these three Persons share one name (Yahweh) as Christ affirms in Matthew 28:19.  Yet each divine Person is one eye-witness under biblical law (John 8:17).  The doctrine of the Trinity necessarily entails monotheism, which James 2:19 implies is necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation.  We have seen that Romans 10:9-10 teaches the belief that God raised Christ from the dead is essential to salvation.  The Trinity is implicit in this passage because all three Persons were involved in the Resurrection.  The Spirit raised Christ from the dead, (Romans 8:11), as did the Father (Galatians 1:1), as did the Son Himself (John 10:17-18).
Fortunately, the Bible does not say that a detailed and nuanced understanding of the triune nature of God is required for saving faith.  It is sufficient to know that God is one in essence, and yet three in eternally distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  No doubt God will forgive some of our misunderstandings of how this all works in practice.  But to reject what God has said about His own nature is to reject God.  God expects us to accept whatever revelation He has given us.
Some may ask, “But what about Old Testament believers?  Did they know about the Trinity?”  New Testament believers have far more information on the Trinity than believers under the Old Testament administration.  Yet, even Old Testament believers knew something of the fact that God is one in nature and more than one in Persons; we see communication between the Persons in the first chapter of Genesis (e.g. Genesis 1:26-27). Even the Hebrew term for “God” (Elohim) is plural (literally “Gods”) and yet used with singular verbs (e.g., Genesis 1:1).  So, the Israelites knew that God was one in one sense, and more than one in a different sense.  They probably did not have the rich understanding of the three Persons that New Testament saints enjoy.  The point is that God expects us to accept whatever revelation He has given about Himself.  A saved person will therefore come to accept what the Bible teaches about the triune nature of God, even if he doesn’t fully understand it.  Thus, a rejection of the Trinity is a strong indication that a person has not (yet) been saved.
(2) God Is the Creator and Judge of All
God is the Creator of all things (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:11).  As such, we owe Him our very lives.  Since all things were made by Him (John 1:3), all things are contingent upon Him.  They exist and continue to exist only because God the Son upholds all things by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3).  God alone is not contingent upon anything.  He is completely self-sufficient and does not require a universe or anything beyond Himself to exist (Exodus 3:14).
God is transcendent: beyond the physical universe (1 Kings 8:27).  God is eternal and without a beginning or an end (Deuteronomy 33:27; Isaiah 43:13; Psalm 90:2).  He has no creator since He has always existed.  He is completely sovereign, answering to no one else (1 Timothy 6:15; Isaiah 40:13-14).  He needs nothing, and does whatsoever He pleases (Psalm 135:6).
As Creator, God has the right to set the rules for all that He owns (which is everything).  Therefore, it is by God’s standard and His standard alone that we all will be judged.  This implicitly requires that God is righteous by virtue of the fact that His nature determines what is right (Ezekiel 18:25).  His judgments are necessarily right because they stem from His holy nature (Genesis 18:25).  Thus, our moral obligation is to obey God.  And when we fail to do so, we must expect punishment since this is the just penalty for our treason (Isaiah 13:11).  All God’s ways are just (Deuteronomy 32:4).
This distinguishes the living God from many false gods of other religions and cults.  Their gods change, are not righteous, and are not sovereign over creation.  As the Apostle Paul explained in Acts 17:24-25,28-29, the biblical God does not need to be served by human hands because He needs nothing; rather, we need Him since He is the one who gives us life and breath.  The biblical God is the sovereign, uncreated Creator of all things.  Therefore, a rejection that God is Creator of all things suggests that a person is trusting in a false god rather than the God of Scripture.
(3) God Is All-Knowing, Unchanging, and Eternal
God is eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 9:6; Romans 16:26).  He has no beginning in time, and no ending (Hebrews 7:3).  This would have to be the case since God is the Creator of time itself (John 1:3).  Since God is beyond time, He does not change with time (Malachi 3:6).  He can “step into time” as He did with the incarnation of Christ, and He can act in time.  But God is not bound by time like we are.
Read More
Related Posts:

If the church is to be on earth what it is in heaven, the church’s mission is to see sons of Adam become sons of God by the preaching of the gospel. More predestinarian, the mission of the church is to find the lost sheep in every fold (i.e., in every nation), and by so gathering God’s elect this increases the divide between sheep and goats. Truly, the truth of two races— one natural, one spiritual—is so important today, because there is a spirit of Babel that wants to unite the human race and eliminate the divide between sheep and goats.  

Here is the thesis that I want to argue: Your race is more important than your ethnicity.
When defined biblically and not sociologically, one’s race is more important for identity formation than one’s ethnicity. And by extension, the mission of the church is to help you make that statement true. Which raises the question. What is race? And do you know what your race is?
As insulting as that question may sound at first, I am going to suggest it is an easy question to mistake—especially if we have fused biblical ideas with worldly ideologies. At the same time, if we can answer this question from the Bible and the Bible alone, then we have hope for knowing and growing the mission of the church. This is the point that I will argue here, and here is how I will proceed.
I will show why the concept of racialization in America is popular and pervasive, but ultimately unhelpful—if not harmful.
I will attempt to draw the lines of race and ethnicity according to the Bible.
With those lines in place, I will demonstrate that the mission of the church helps men and women, who hold PhD’s in ethnic Partiality, ethnic Hostility, ethnic Discrimination, grow up into Christ, who is the head of a new chosen race, redeemed from nation (ethnē).
So that’s where we are going today.
Racism (Re)Defined as Racialization?
If you have not seen or heard this word before, you probably have not been reading the newer books on the subject of race and racism. Not that I am counting, but this term has been used by John Piper (Bloodlines),[1] Jarvis Williams (Redemptive Kingdom Diversity),[2] Irwyn Ince (The Beautiful Community),[3] and many others. And importantly, all of these works point to Michael Emerson and Christian Smith in their landmark book, Divided by Faith.[4]
Irwyn Ince is a wonderful brother who has been a PCA pastor for years. He has served as Moderator of the General Assembly of the PCA. And most personally, I met him a few years ago when I sat in on one of his classes at Reformed Theological Seminary. After that, he preached in our church’s pulpit and delivered an edifying message from the book of Hebrews. So I deeply respect Dr. Ince and there are many parts of his book I appreciate. That said I find his use of the idea of racialization unhelpful.
In The Beautiful Community: Unity, Diversity, and the Church at Its Best, Ince describes the effects of Genesis 11 on America. And in that discussion, he cites Ibram X. Kendi and Kendi’s thesis that racist policies in America have always come from racist ideas (pp. 75–76). Affirming this sociological perspective, Ince makes a theological connection. He says, “Put in theological terms, our racialized society is an outworking of our ghettoization at Babel. And the devastating reality is that groups of people still seek to serve the interests of their ghetto.”[5]
Ince continues:
“Kendi’s point about the changing nature of racialization in America reinforces what Christian Smith and Michael Emerson explained in 2000 when they wrote: “The framework we here use—racialization—reflects that [post-Civil Rights era] adaptation. It [Racialization] understands that racial practices that reproduce racial division in the contemporary United States [are] (1) increasingly covert, (2) embedded in normal operations of institutions, (3) avoid direct racial terminology, and (4) invisible to most Whites.”[6]
Without getting into all the details of racialization, we need to consider where this new, Post-Civil Rights racism comes from. If you look at Ince and all the other evangelicals who use this term, almost all of them cite Emerson and Smith. And where do Emerson and Smith get the definition of racialization, the idea of racist ideas hidden in plain sight?
The short answer is Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a sociology professor at Duke and a leading proponent of Critical Race Theory (Divided by Faith, 9–11). What is important about Bonilla-Silva, is that racism after the Civil Rights movement has been transformed and is now embedded in social, political, and legal structures. The result is that racism can now exist without racists. That’s the title of his book (Racism with Racists), now in its sixth edition. This book was published after Divided by Faith, but Emerson and Smith cite an unpublished paper that he wrote in 1997.
Here’s the point. Without getting into the details of CRT, when you use, or hear, or see the word “racialization,” take note. It is not a concept that comes from the Bible, nor is it a word that comes from a sociology grown from biblical stock. Racialization is a term that comes from a view of the world that is wholly inconsistent with the biblical narrative. And thus, Christians should take caution whenever that word is used and should seek a biblical definition of race and ethnicity, as well of the universal sins of ethnic pride and hostility.
In what follows, I will argue that if we are going to rebuild our understanding of race, ethnicity, and the ministry of reconciliation, we must not borrow the idea of racialization. Instead, we need to go back to the Bible itself. We cannot simply employ the tools of CRT, or any other religious ideology (e.g., White Supremacy, Black Power, or anything else), to assist biblical reconciliation. Instead, we must mine the depths of Scripture to find God’s perspective on fallen humanity, its sin, and God’s plan of reconciliation in Christ. Because Scripture is sufficient to handle any type of sin, importing the concept of “racialization” does not give us a better understanding of Scripture. It only confuses the problem.
For not only does racialization, a concept drawn from the quarries of CRT, identify sin with groups of people—specifically, people with power—but it also ignores human agency in sin. Even more, it gives a view of the world that comes from sociology—and not just any sociology, but a sociology that redefines biblical words and concepts, so that in talking about race, ethnicity, justice, and the church, we end up talking the language of Babel. Therefore, we need to go back the Bible.
One Human Race, Or Two?
With our eyes fixed on Scripture we need to see what the Bible says about race, ethnicity, and the pride, hostility, and discrimination that arises in the heart of every son or daughter born of Adam.
The first thing to observe is that the Bible identifies two races, not just one. This might sound strange, if you have been schooled in the biology of Darwin and his kind, because various Darwinists have argued that different races came from different origins. This was the scientific rationale that supported the racial inferiority of blacks.
By contrast, Paul declares there is one human race, derived from one man. “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26).
Still, this singular human race, with one common ancestor, does not deny a second race in the Bible—namely, a people born from above (John 3:3–8). As Scripture presents it, every child of God has a Father in heaven and an older brother in Christ, not Adam. In Romans 5, these two races are set against one another. There is the human race whose head is the first man, and there is the new human race whose head is the last man. Maybe we do not think of Adam’s family and Christ’s family as two separate races, but we should. Peter does. Just listen to 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
So, does the Bible teach us about race? Absolutely. Race is a biblical concept. For all the ways that sociology has (wrongly) defined race, there is something in Scripture that speaks to this very issue. The word “race” is the word genos, a word that can mean descendent, family, nation, class or kind. Indeed, it is a word that deserves its own study, but in 1 Peter 2:9, it is clearly speaking of a new humanity, chosen by God, redeemed by the Son, and made alive by the Spirit. And this “chosen race” is set against another “race,” the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.
In this way, we should see in Scripture one fallen human race and one redeemed human race, thus producing two peoples, or as Genesis 3:15 would have it, “two seeds.” From the beginning, there was a single divide in humanity, producing two kinds of people. And in the fullness of time (i.e., when Christ came), this divide manifested in the two races referenced in 1 Peter 2:9. Today, all biblical thinking about race begins with this fact—there is not one human race, but two.
A Biblical Theology of Race
Moving across the canon helps us take the next step in a biblical theology of race. If we had more time, we could consider all the ways that the Law divided Jew and Gentile as two “races.” Indeed, if the language of Scripture means anything, it is striking that in Acts 7:19, Stephen speaks of Israel as his “race” (genos) not his ethnicity (ethnos). Indeed, because the divide in the Law separates Jew and Gentile as two peoples, set under different covenantal heads, the division between Jew and Gentile stands in typological relationship to Adam and Jesus. To put it in an analogy,
Jew : Gentile :: Christ : Adam
More fully, we can say that the legal division between Jew and Gentile, did not create a permanent, spiritual, or lasting division in humanity, but it did reinforce the divide created in Genesis 3:15, when God set at odds the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent. Ever since, the biblical story carves out one people to be God’s chosen race. In the Old Testament, this was the nation of Israel according to the flesh (see Exod. 19:5–6). And during the time of the old covenant, there were two “races”—the Jews and the Gentiles. Typologically, these two races were roughly equivalent to the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, even though not every Israelite was truly a seed of the woman (e.g., Saul) and some Gentiles would become members of the covenant community (e.g., Rahab and Ruth).
In the fullness of time, however, this covenantal difference would be brought to an end, and the real, lasting, and spiritual divide, of which God promised in Genesis 3, and again in Genesis 12, would be created in the new race of men created by the firstborn from the dead, Jesus Christ (Col. 1:18). And this again is what makes two races.
Therefore, “racism,” according to Scripture alone, should be defined as the hostility that stands between seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. Indeed, what is commonly called racism today is not racism at all, but ethnic hostility, ethnic pride, ethnic partiality. Moreover, what is called diversity, equity, and inclusion is actually an affront to the very division that Jesus is bringing into the world (see Matt. 10:34).
Now, in redefining racism according to Scripture, I am not trying to ignore the fact that our world is filled with pride and partiality amplified by color-consciousness. America’s history is filled with hatred and violence due to skin color. If there is anything redeemable in Divided by Faith, it is the selective but shocking history of slavery and Jim Crow that it reports. Those who deny the horrors of history should listen to the testimonies of Frederick Douglass (Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass), Booker T. Washington (Up from Slavery), and Solomon Northrup (Twelve Years a Slave).
Read More
Related Posts:

In the end, the pastoral thing to do is to point people to Christ and to call them to faithfulness in him. If we think Jesus has put things in place that matter for the local church, being pastoral must mean faithfully standing on those things Christ has called the church to stand on. It cannot be pastoral to encourage people to set aside Jesus’ commands and to say they simply do not matter. The pastoral implications of doing that, I would argue, are far worse.

I am often unsure what to make of people, faced with teaching from scripture, want to encourage us to consider the “pastoral implications”. Whether it be facing the biblical teaching on marriage and its implications for same-sex attracted people, the doctrine of complementarianism and its implications for gender roles or that vexed issue of the ordinances and who it is appropriate to welcome into the church and what is demanded on those who would seek to be welcomed. All of these are examples of teaching on which the Bible has something specific to say but some are keen to encourage us to be aware, and even to moderate what we perceive to be the biblical position, based on “pastoral concerns”.
My major concern with the call to be mindful of the pastoral implications is that it so often sounds to me like a call to set aside what the bible clearly teaches on a matter so we can make people who will not abide by it feel more comfortable. Of course, I would love it if a church altered its position on any number of things to align with my views and welcome me. But I, ironically, wouldn’t want to join the church that did that in the face of what it actually believed on the matter at hand. A church willing to change its position in the face of what it thinks the Bible is teaching in order to welcome those who see no reason to abide by such things is not, in my view, being faithful. It is placing the desire to welcome over and above what the Lord explicitly commands and sets aside the very grounds by which Jesus says we ought not to welcome.
Of course, everyone agrees with this when it concerns matters they reckon to be sinful. You don’t get many genuine evangelicals arguing that our churches should become affirming despite teaching clearly about Jesus’ views on marriage and same-sex relationships. Their uniform understanding of what is and is not sin in these circumstances mean most are quite ready to say that we ought not to welcome those who would ride roughshod over the commands of Christ in this area.
The issue tends to come when one party considers a matter one of sin and faithfulness while the other does not. The argument in such circumstances boils down to I do not find this sinful so you should welcome me. There seems to be little recognition that I might find it sinful so cannot welcome you if you refuse to acknowledge it is so.
Read More
Related Posts: