Justification: Rome's Doctrine Compared to Scripture

In the little Epistle to Philemon, we have Paul's side of his relationship with a wealthy man. Part of that relationship involves a slave named Onesimus. Onesimus (Greek for "useful") had run away, during which time Paul had met him. Paul convinced him to become a Christian, and to return to his place in the household of Philemon. The epistle is then Paul's plea to Philemon to receive Onesimus back, not just as a member of his household, but now also as a brother in Christ.

Paul makes a plea on behalf of Onesimus (Phmn 1:18-19): "If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it."

I think this is a very significant statement. How so? Paul is expressing the biblical concept of surety. He is obliging himself to cover any shortcomings on the part of Onesimus.

Paul provides here a pithy, visible example of the role Jesus plays for the elect. Just as Paul pledged to make up any shortfall in Onesimus, Jesus committed to the Father to cover the debts of His people.

This is justification: our debt is cancelled because Jesus has paid it all. We see how Rome's concept of justification, by an infusion of righteousness, falls short of the biblical model. Paul's commitment was to pay for Onesimus's debts, not to give money to Onesimus to pay for himself. In the same way, the Christian is justified before God not because Jesus has transferred some of His righteousness to him, but rather because Jesus has assumed the debt of sin on Himself. The justified sinner does not stand before God as now good enough, but rather as a criminal now declared "not guilty"!

Who Is the Only-Begotten God?

The first chapter of the Gospel of John is the highest concentration of christological declarations in all of Scripture. It culminates with, "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him" (John 1:18 NASB). The Apostle tells us that Jesus is God, but is distinguished from the Father in His having been begotten. That is His office, as the Father's office is to beget, and the Holy Spirit's office is to proceed. It is not a carnal inference.

Modalists resist this reading, though it is widely accepted as that of the best Greek manuscripts. They prefer the reading of the King James Version, derived from the later manuscripts used by the Textus Receptus: "only-begotten Son."

The reason they want to hold on to that reading is because Modalists (and I am speaking of the variety known as Oneness Pentecostals) teach that "Son" refers only to the flesh of Jesus. they deny the deity of the Son, while claiming to believe in the deity of Jesus.

When I insist on the eternal deity of the Son, including the reference from John 1:18 in the NASB, they respond with, "Then who is His mother?" As they rightly add, Mary was the mother of His flesh. Therefore, they claim, if He was begotten in His deity, then He must have some kind of divine mother, just as the Mormons believe.

And that assertion is nothing more than that, an assertion, assuming that "beget" can only refer to the physical act of fatherhood. But that assertion is self-serving, ignoring other relevant biblical data.

In the Epistle to Philemon, the Apostle Paul says to that man (verse 10), "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment." Paul is telling his friend that, in his time with Onesimus, he had led this useful slave to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. He had begotten him spiritually, as Paul is quoted in their beloved King James, "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds." And there is that pesky word "begotten" again.

The question that I have, then, for the Modalists is this: So, if Paul begot Onesimus, who was his mother? And, as is patently evident, the question is nonsensical. Just as it is when Modalists make the same challenge to John 1:18.

Paul in prison

Perseverance by Grace in the Ministry of Paul

We have all read of Paul's imprisonments. The first, house arrest in Rome for two years, is described at the end of Acts. The second ended with his martyrdom. It is during the first that he wrote what are commonly called his "prison epistles," Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.

Even before his second imprisonment, Paul was conscious of a time of martyrdom approaching (II Timothy 4:6-8): "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day." Paul's attitude here is so contrary to the predominant theology of our day, which I label "neo-Pelagianism." According to that theology, there is no security for the believer; he can fall into unbelief at any time, if he ever stops having enough faith. My response is that such a belief turns the Christian life into the same terror against which Martin Luther revolted on October 31, 1517. And it certainly isn't an accurate portrayal of Paul's attitude in this passage.

According to the Arminian, Paul could fall from his faith before his death, and thus lose his salvation. Yet, Paul expresses his secure hope in a successfully-run race, for which he would soon receive the crown of righteousness in glory. Where is his insecurity? He shows none.

Further, a few verses later, Paul tells Reverend Timothy (II Tim. 4:18), "The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into His heavenly kingdom." Not "my strength," not "my faith," not "my holiness." In fact, not "my" anything! Rather, he looks to Jesus to carry him through, just as he described in Philippians 1:6: "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." That is why I dislike even the phrase "once saved, always saved," because it gives the misimpression that it is the strength of the individual that brings him safely through this life. Rather, I use the historical phrase "perseverance of the saints," because it is God Who carries the believer by means of faith and sanctification until the day of his glorification (Romans 8:30). That is why Paul is secure as he sees death approaching, because he knows he can trust his divine redeemer, Jesus Christ (Deut. 33:27, Psalm 145:20, II Tim. 1:12 NASB, John 10:28).

Since the earliest days of my Christian life, thirty-three years ago, I have never understood why people hate this doctrine. Why do they prefer the terror of believing that they may be saved today, just to lose it tomorrow? Even if it were true - and I thank God that it isn't - such a doctrine would be too horrific for me to hold. What does such a doctrine say about the efficacy of Christ's blood and the ministry of the Holy Spirit?