Preliminary considerations:
1. Most sincerely believe that their FAG (faith alone gospel) is derived solely from the Bible. These same people also sincerely believe they are - by their embrace the FAG, declaring the Bible to be God’s indispensable, infallible and incorruptible Word. Few however realize that by embracing what the FAG teaches, they are instead declaring the Bible – or God’s Word to be the opposite of those things. That portions of the Bible can be ignored (or dispensed of) when it comes to determining truth; that there are fundamental contradictions between the OT and NT; and that because of these things, God is now doing things that make Him unjust.
2. The reasons for this dichotomy: (2.1.) though many of their pastors and scholars are aware of this, they refuse to be open about it for fear of losing their jobs, families or friends (CCC has encountered this firsthand). (2.2.) bandwagon manipulation (ad populum) (2.3.) what passes for “deep biblical teaching” in most churches is emotionally driven (e.g., Evan likes to entertain), light on historical context or whole canon synthesis (e.g., Luther’s Law-Gospel Distinction) and heavy on redaction (i.e., contradictory texts are ignored).[1]
3. The result: The typical Evan will be immediately threatened by what we share and most likely respond with “more heat than light” (i.e., lots of feelings-based arguments, or condemnation based on their emotions versus intelligent discussion and inquiry).
4. How Rabbi Jesus calls us to respond: (2Ti 2:24-26).
5. (In light of the aforementioned) Proposed approach: instead of attempting to convince them that their FAG is false, we need to genuinely ask for their help. As the old saying goes, “truth loves an appeal.” If what they possess is the truth, then they should be happy to help - and sufficiently competent, to answer our questions and resolve our concerns. Should they succeed, we will be forever in their debt – as those who loved us enough to “save our souls from death.” (Jam 5:19-20). This too, should be communicated as a motivation to help us. Another important piece worth communicating: we are not trying to be difficult or contrary, we however take seriously our commitment to Rabbi Jesus and His Word as the final authority on truth (especially the gospel) – which means if something contradicts it– or makes God contradict Himself in His Word, then we refuse to believe it – no matter how popular it is now – or has been in the past. Evangelicals should appreciate this more than anyone given what they believe didn’t exist until the 16th century.
1. If Evangelical Christianity is the truth, then why was it necessary for its founder to add words or dismiss NT books to validate his FAG invention?
1.1. The Protestant (Evangelical) Reformation acknowledges the 16th century German monk Martin Luther as its father and founder since he is the one who invented its most precious possession, the FAG.
1.2. What however is often kept out of the history books is the fact that Luther had to dismiss certain books of the NT in order to do so (James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation). IOW: because teaching in those books proved his FAG false, Luther dismissed them questioning even their divine authority.[2]
1.3. Desperate to see his gospel invention thrive, Luther also added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 (“We maintain that a man is justified by faith”) in his translation of the NT into German. This spurious addition remains to this day (e.g., 2017 Lutherbibel).[3]
1.4. Evangelicals have attempted to dismiss Luther or his actions as foolish, claiming that his fears were unfounded. Luther however was no dummy. He was an expert in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and held a doctorate in theology. His actions of dismissal and addition therefore reflected what he knew to be true: if judged according to the whole of the NT canon, his FAG would stand condemned.
1.5. Why therefore would anyone who truly loves God and His Word ever trust the gospel of a man who had to add words or deny books of the NT in order to make it work? (Deu 4:2, 12:32; Gal 1:18).
2. If salvation is by faith alone then why does the only passage to use that phrase exist in the negative?
2.1. (Jam 2:24) = This passage is the only place in the Bible where we find the phrase “faith alone” and James is using it to speak directly against the premise of the FAG (i.e., faith is the only instrument of our justification). Evangelicals attempt to get around this problem by claiming that James is instead teaching “works” as the result of our justification (versus - like faith, another instrument of justification). James however does not say we are justified by faith which results in works but rather we are justified by works and by faith (or “by works and not by faith alone”).
2.2. IOW: just as faith is instrumental to our justification so also are works. Both are necessary instruments of our justification. Hence the reason the preposition “by” accompanies both “works” and “faith.” To believe that the phrase “by faith” is functioning instrumentally requires that you believe the same thing about the phrase “by works.” It is also the only way James’ statement makes sense. How can both be using the same preposition yet one communicating result (i.e., works are the result of justification) and the other instrumentality (i.e., faith is the instrument of justification)? James’ words were ultimately written by the Holy Spirit, not some idiot who didn’t know how to properly communicate.
2.3. James therefore places Evangelical Christianity (or the FAG) in a check-mate situation. By his use of the “by” preposition with “works” and “faith”, he confirms that both are necessary instruments to justification (salvation). Any Evangelical who denies this is not only guilty of poor grammar but suicide in relation to their own position. Why? Because the crown jewel of the FAG, Romans 3:28, employs the same preposition (“we maintain that a man is justified by faith”). If the “by” is instrumental in Roman 3:28 then the same must be true in James 2:24. No bad grammar – or double standards allowed. Now you know why Luther hated James (or more specifically, hated the Word of God) – because it exposed the FAG as false.[4]
3. If Rabbi Jesus came to establish a new religion (i.e., Christianity) then why does He identify it as a new covenant implying existing religion (i.e., Judaism)?
3.1. (Luk 22:20) = By calling it a “new covenant” Jesus confirms two things: there is an existing (older) covenant and an existing religion. Jesus therefore did not replace the former religion (Judaism) but its former covenant (the Old Covenant). Which means this: the principles defining Judaism (most especially those related to salvation since this is central to God’s religion and covenants) remained intact. The only thing changing would be in respect to application. IOW: it would still be Judaism, but Judaism in its upgraded version (Judaism 2.0.).
This makes sense given God’s stern warning against replacing His religion – or those principles established in Judaism, with a new religion – or principles opposed to Judaism. To do so would make that person guilty as a false teacher soliciting a false god (Deu 12:32-13:9).
3.2. Jesus’ words were understood by His disciples as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy[5] which not only upholds the framework of original Judaism (Judaism 1.0.) but likewise exposes Christianity as false (a new religion serving a false god) (Jer 31:27-37):
3.2.1. (27-30 w/Eze 18:1-4 w/19-20 w/Lev 27:29) = Like the OC, the NC will preserve justice by continuing to condemn penal substitution (i.e., someone else being punished for my sins). Christianity teaches penal substitution – or Jesus being punished for our sins though the Bible neither supports nor teaches this form of injustice. The Scriptures claim Jesus’ death was for the purpose of propitiation never punishment (Rom 3:25; 1Jo 2:2 “propitiation” = Moral cleansing [Heb 9:13-14, 22-23, 10:2; 1Jo 1:7][6]; Isa 53[7]). To believe in penal substitution makes the Father both a child abuser (in relation to His Son) and an animal abuser (in relation to the animal sacrifices under the OC given their typological function [i.e., if Jesus’ sacrifice was a form of punishment then the same was true in respect to the animals before Him]).[8]
3.2.2. (30 = Our works are instrumental in our damnation/justification [Jam 2:24; Eze 18:4-9 w/Lev 18:5] w/31-33) = Like the OC, salvation under the NC will likewise be a marriage ([Jer 31:32]“Husband”; 2Co 11:1-2; Eph 5:23-33; [Jer 31:33] “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” = Bundesformel [Marriage formula]) and therefore operate according to the marital paradigm of gain and maintain: we gain salvation by our vow of faith (faithfulness) to Christ’s laws (i.e., the OT Law according to its new application in Christ – 1Co 9:21; Mat 5:17 “fulfill” = Restore to its fullest measure [LXX, 1 Ki 1:14]) ([Jer 31:33] “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it” = I will require they vow/pledge their love and faithfulness to My Law [Exo 24:7; Rom 2:14-15 = They have made a personal vow to love and obey God’s Law]; hence why 1Pe 3:21 “appeal” = Literally, a vow/pledge of faithfulness. Baptism is where God accepts our faith [as a vow of faithfulness] in exchange for a good conscience [cleansed/propitiated soul – Heb 9:14] “through the resurrection of [justification gained by – Rom 4:25] Jesus Christ.” Hence the reason Peter says, “Baptism now saves you"[9]) which then must be maintained through faithful obedience ([Eze 18:9] “if he walks in my statutes…so as to deal faithfully – he is righteous and will surely live”; [Lev 18:5] “Do this and live”; Deu 28:1-2 = faithfulness not perfection). Gain and maintain is the paradigm of all God’s saving covenants in Scripture: 1) Abrahamic (Gen 15:6 w/Gen 17:1-2 w/18:19[10]), 2) Old (Exo 24:4-7 w/Lev 18:5 [in this light consider – Luk 10:25-28]), 3) New (Mat 28:18-20). As discussed, Evangelical Christianity rejects this paradigm, teaching instead “faith-alone” – or more accurately “easy-believism.”[11] Believing that God has relinquished our responsibility to obedience for salvation likewise condemns Him as unjust for once more reneging on His established ethical standard (Eze 18:26-27; Mat 5:18).
3.2.3. (31 and 33 w/35-37 w/Joh 4:22 w/Heb 2:16 w/Rom 2:29 w/Gal 3:26-29 w/Rom 11:17) = The New Covenant would remain very Jewish ([Jer 31:31 and 33] “a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah…this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel and Judah”) not only in its religion ([Joh 4:22] “salvation is from the Jews”]; Judaism 2.0.) but also its members ([Jer 31:36] “the offspring of Israel”; [Heb 2:16] “descendants of Abraham”). Gentiles are grafted into this community spiritually through baptism ([Rom 11:17] “grafted in [to Israel]”; [Rom 2:29] “he is a Jew who is one…by the Spirit”; [Gal 3:27 w/29] “baptized into Christ…you belong to Christ…you are Abraham’s descendants”).[12]
Auxiliary questions:
4. If Jesus is the end of Law (i.e., He obeyed for us – Mat 5:17 w/Rom 10:6), then how do we love God and others and why does Jesus teach it will remain until heaven and earth pass away? ([Mat 22:36-40; Rom 13:8-10] = God’s Law is the definition of love; Mat 5:17-18)
5. If Paul’s prohibition against performing the “works of the Law” means the principles established by God’s Law are no longer necessary for salvation, then why is that phrase only ever associated with the Old Covenant identity markers or signs of circumcision, ceremonial separation, Sabbath calendars and animal sacrifice? (Gal 2:1-3, 11-16, 4:10-11 w/21, 5:1-3; Rom 3:20-28, 4:1-13; 1Co 7:19 = There is a distinction between the moral commands and the OC identity markers/covenant signs)
6. If God’s standard of obedience for salvation is impossible then why does He say we can do it and how is He just in judging us according to our obedience to the Law (or “deeds”)? (Deu 30:11-14; Rom 2:5-13; Rev 20:11-15)
7. If a person can’t lose their salvation, then why all the warnings of damnation directed toward the saved? (Deu 29:18-20; Mat 7:21-23; Rom 11:22; Heb 6:1-6, 10:26-31, 12:15-17; Gal 5:4; Gal 5:21; 1Th 1:4 w/3:5)
[1] Ironically, these last three are essentially the same as the tactics historically employed by cults and evil regimes (e.g., Manson cult; Nazi Germany): 1) fuel emotional investment, 2) favor discord/discontinuity with former institutions, 3) hide/remove opposing voices.
[2] “[James] is an epistle of straw... Let us banish this epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except once at the beginning. I think it was written by some Jew who had heard of the Christians but not joined them... The epistle of James gives us much trouble...Accordingly, if they [the books of the New Testament] will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of [them]. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove.” (Luther’s Works; Table Talk, 1522-1545).
[3] Luther’s response to those critical of his addition, “You tell me what a great fuss [people] are making because the word ‘alone’ in not in the text of Paul...say right out to [them]: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’...I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text.” (Rebuilding a Lost Faith)
[4] CCC has spent countless hours and over $60k (in billboards) attempting to get Evangelicals to address the pickle created by James 2:24 with no success. This includes conversations with their pastors and scholars. Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California, even went as far as to lie by telling one of our members that the preposition “by” was not in the original Greek (audio recording available). Like Luther, he realizes the threat this verse poses to the FAG.
[5] (Heb 8:7-12, 10:16-17)
[6] Part of the confusion surrounding this issue involves the word translated “propitiation” (Grk., hilasterios) being understood (by Christianity) as “the appeasement of God’s wrath.” The word however carries no such connotation. It is associated with (God’s) mercy not wrath (e.g., Heb 9:5 – see also LXX Exo 25:16-17, 37:6 “mercy”). This was true also for its use outside Scripture in the ANE (e.g., The Religious Context of the Lydian Propitiation Inscriptions; Scholars favor “reconciliation” – not “punishment”, as a close synonym for propitiation). With regard to punishment (or serving justice), this has always been our responsibility – and the prerequisite, to receiving propitiation (or mercy) (e.g., Mat 5:24).
[7] Isaiah’s original audience, OC Israel would never have understood chapter 53 to be communicating penal substitution (e.g., vv5-8 “chastening…scourging…stricken for the transgression of my people” = Put to death for the purpose of propitiation – i.e., moral cleansing unto justification [v11]). Familiarity with their sacrificial system, made clear the difference between propitiation and punishment. They were also keenly aware of God’s prohibition against this heinously unjust act (again, Eze 18). Some have posited that Jesus’ mention of becoming a “ransom” for His people (Mat 20:28) implies punishment. This too however falls woefully short when considered against not only God’s prohibition against such forms of ransom (Lev 27:29), but the context of Jesus’ words: slavery (See vv26-27 w/“the Son of Man [however] did not come to be served [by slaves] but to serve [as a slave] and give [or by giving] His [entire] life [the disposition of a slave in relation to their Master] as a ransom for many [to free us from our bondage/slavery to sin]; See Phi 2:6-8). “Ransom” is the commonly used in the Bible to refer to the act of purchasing freedom for those enslaved (e.g., Mic 6:4).
[8] To believe in penal substitution likewise makes God guilty of another form of injustice - double jeopardy, since even those who have received Christ’s death for their sins end up incurring punishment for their sins. The greatest proof of this is our physical death (Gen 2:15). If Jesus was punished for our sins (i.e., He served our justice) then those saved would never experience physical death.
[9] Due to the threat it poses to their sacred cow (the FAG), 1Peter 3:21 – or the statement, “baptism now saves you” is another text Evangelicals wish didn’t exist. Their “brilliant solution” is to claim it doesn’t mean what it plainly says. Taking this position however creates an even bigger problem given the statement takes its meaning from the prior verse (verse 20) as indicated by the phrase “Corresponding to that” which begins verse 21. In the prior verse (verse 20), Peter establishes what will serve as his justification for linking baptism to salvation, God’s past use of water to destroy sin and save His people – most specifically, the destruction of sinful humanity and salvation of Noah and his family in the flood. Peter’s reference to the former deluge is most likely because it is the case which sets precedent. It is not however, the only historical example of God’s salvific use of water. Paul makes the same connection when recounting God’s use of the Red Sea to save the Israelites from the Egyptians even going as far as to refer to it as a form of baptism (1Co 10:1-2). Anyone therefore attempting to deny Peter’s linking of baptism to salvation, is not only failing to consider the watery event to which it corresponds, but more importantly, the historical continuity of God’s redemption so necessary to discerning the true gospel from what is false.
[10] See Dr. Richard Pratt, “Were The Covenant With Abraham and David Conditional?”
[11] Though the word “faith” in the NT (Grk., pistus) implies a vow of faithfulness – or the attribute of faithfulness itself (hence why it is translated also as faithfulness – e.g., Rom 3:3), like the FAG’s inventor, Martin Luther, Evangelicals choose to view it as communicating no such obligations. It instead functions only as a statement of trust (in the person and work of Christ). This understanding of faith is contrary to its historical use both in Scripture and in the ancient secular world. For further study see, Matthew Bates, Salvation By Allegiance Alone.
[12] Verse 34 represents the portion of the prophecy which makes the NC unique or different from the OC. When considered alongside similar prophecy (Jer 24:7, 32:40; Eze 36:25-27), it seems clear that what is meant by, “They will not teach again… each man his brother, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me…[and] I will forgive their iniquity” is regeneration – or the replacement of our old sin stained and weakened hearts with a new, fully cleansed (propitiation versus pass over forgiveness) and HS empowered heart better equipped to carry out our vows of faithfulness.
