Best Both Worlds

The Best of Both
Worlds

"Leaving the UPCI and still preaching Acts 2:38 is the best of both worlds. You still have the ‘New Birth’ message, but you don’t have the legalism and politics."

This statement typifies the sentiment of some who have left the United Pentecostal Church International. I add with sympathy and compassion that some who believe this are very dear friends of mine. They have left the UPCI because of the issue of unbiblical and uncompassionate holiness requirements. At the same time, they have retained the basic teaching about salvation as they were originally taught it. The feeling is that this is really the best of both worlds. It is having your cake and eating it too (with no calories). Little restriction on many areas of Christian behavior, but all the blessings of preaching the whole Gospel to the whole world.

Bad News

I have some bad news and some good news (no this is not a joke, God forbid). The bad news first. It is not the best of both worlds. Not in the long run. It is in fact the worst of both worlds. Let me explain what I mean. Almost 500 years ago, Martin Luther said that the person who leaves legalism for "liberty" is like the drunk who runs into one wall, and while running straight away from it runs into the opposite wall. There is a very long history of those who leave one error only to fall into a very different but equally disastrous error. This is true of those fleeing legalism who run head on into antinomianism (lawlessness). Both are equally wrong and bad theology. Granted the latter is more enjoyable and self-serving in many ways. But, the fruits are just as destructive when they finally mature.

The most ironic result for those who leave the UPCI over legalism is that they believe they have escaped the problem without having to compromise the message. The bad news I have is this: It’s not the legalism that’s the problem. That is just the fruit or result. Tragically, it is the particular "message of salvation" taught by many in the UPCI (and those who have left) that is the root cause. The problem is the not the practice of the UPCI. It is much deeper. It is the theology itself. The bad news is that it is the original UPCI teaching concerning how one is saved that produces those aspects of the Apostolic practice and culture which their runaway children reject.

"You’ve totally lost me this time," you may say. Or, "You’ve totally lost it" may be more what you are thinking. Let me try to explain what I mean. If you will examine what I am saying in the light of what the Bible teaches concerning the Gospel and the salvation that He gives, it will become very clear that I am making some very sobering sense. You see, it is assumed that the main thing wrong with Apostolics/UPCI is their legalism. It is thought that the rigid, strictly imposed ideas of what holiness should look like is the greatest error. The criticism is against the form of legalism which oppresses its people, causing them to live in fear of failing to live up to what they believe God expects of them. It is said this legalism creates a motivation steeped in guilt with a motivation of trying to please a God who is never satisfied. The final straw was when this legalism flared out in the form of a directive from the top of the organization to require ministers to sign a yearly statement to be faithful to these holiness standards. That was going too far for some and they determined it was time to leave. Books, articles and conferences were held by the expatriates to decry the legalism and authoritarianism of the organization. There was rejoicing at new-found freedom, and in many cases it was warranted.

Failed Diagnosis

The theory is that if one could throw off the prohibitive part of being Apostolic - the legalism with its authoritarianism - then the good part of the movement would remain and be returned to its proper prominence. Then the focus would be on rejoicing in the plan of salvation along with the new-found "grace" of God. All the guilt would be gone, with all the awkward and cumbersome, archaic practices which offend.

I admit there are some grounds for these assumptions, still, the diagnosis of the illness fell far short. The disease was not localized in one teaching of the UPCI. Tragically, the core doctrines unique to most Apostolics are unsound. They are unsound at the heart of the Gospel itself. The Gospel of trusting in the finished work of Christ is supplanted with obedience to and performance of the requirements of preachers.

Those who have left the UPCI or Apostolic churches to escape the legalism for "grace" have tragically missed the deeper issue. It is not the legalism or the absence of "grace" that causes the trouble. It is the theology itself: - a theology that misses the true doctrine of grace as given in Scripture and summarized in the very Gospel of Christ. It is the flawed understanding of salvation - how one gets right with God - which produces the legalism. This is as sure as the clouds produce the rain.

It is critically important to understand this: the truth about grace cannot be separated from the doctrines of salvation which define that grace. The very legalism many attempt to avoid is born and grows from their teaching and understanding that God saves us based on a blend of what He does and what we do. Those who teach "steps" of salvation, things that a person must do to cooperate with God or to "receive" the salvation offered by God’s grace, thereby sow the seeds of legalism. Those who teach that one is right with God based on the quality of the sanctification do the same. The introduction of human performance, merit or works in any sense or measure creates a spoiled Gospel which ultimately will go to seed in future generations. Many times these results occur without the latter generation even recognizing from where they have come.

I can hear the responses to what I am saying. Some would say they believe that they are saved on the basis of God’s grace and not by works; that I am distorting what they believe. Friend, I did not spend 42 years of my life constantly hearing the Apostolic teaching to make such a statement rashly. I know by intimate experience what is part of the woof and warp of the holiness Apostolics. They believe they are not saved unless they are obedient to proper baptism. They believe they are not saved unless they speak in tongues. They believe they will not be saved if they fail to live a life of holiness (however that is defined by their particular group). This teaching is essentially that we are right with God by some portion of our own righteousness. "No!" you say, "it is produced by the Holy Ghost". Nevertheless, if one does not "let the Holy Ghost" get them to a certain level of holiness, they are still personally backslidden or lost. Either way, the person’s salvation is understood to include a mixture of righteousness produced in themselves with the righteousness of Christ. This is not trusting in the righteousness of Christ alone.

Only Christ's Righteousness

Many will say that initial salvation or conversion is by grace, but then we must "stay saved" or abide "in the grace of God" by our Christian living. This is altogether the same as salvation by works. It does not matter if it is "initial" or "perfecting" salvation. It is still salvation with admixture of what we do with what Christ has done. Historically, this is an old holiness argument going back to Wesley and further back into Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic church (RCC) held that the righteousness that saves a person was "formed faith," or the righteousness that comes from cooperating with the Holy Spirit. It is the grace that is poured into us at baptism and that makes us righteous in ourselves. It is hard to escape the obvious: this includes one’s own righteousness. This is how one is justified according to the teaching of the RCC. But, those who championed the Reformation message held with Luther and others that the righteousness that saves us is all and only of Christ. It is the righteousness of Christ that is accounted to us. Not what is done in us, but what was in Christ yet accounted to us in God’s sight. The difference between this and what the RCC taught it incalculable and irreconcilable.

I am not saying that God does not by His Spirit transform us and make us righteous in a real, substantial way. Sanctification is a substantial and progressive transformation of our nature into the likeness of Christ. God does require us as His children to grow in grace. But, this is not the basis of our salvation. Our obedience and growth in sanctification is to glorify God. And I believe that God will one day at His Coming transform me and those who trust in Him so that our righteousness will truly reflect Him in purity and perfection.

What I don’t believe is that I am right with God by the righteousness of sanctification. I am righteous by the righteousness of Christ. Just as my sins were imputed to Christ - and He was not really a sinner in Himself - so God has imputed Christ’s righteousness to me - even though I am not as righteous as Christ in myself. But in the eyes of God, I am considered as righteous as Christ as long as I offer him as my Lamb. As long as He is my High Priest, I can come as boldly to the "throne of God" in prayer as though I were Christ Himself. I will never be right with God in this life based on the righteousness that is formed in me by the Holy Ghost. It would never be enough. I need the full, complete, perfect and unique righteous of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" Peter exclaimed. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

Legalism: Mixing Our Righteousness With Christ's

My fundamental point is this: That the legalism of the UPCI begins with the teaching that salvation comes through a mixture of what a person does with what Christ has done. Even if it is aided by the Spirit or grace of God, and yoked with the greater righteousness of Jesus, it is a blending which dilutes the pure righteousness of Christ. When we have a theology which requires people to take "steps" to be saved, it is the same as teaching there is a ladder by which they can get to God. But, like Jacob, we don’t climb the ladder to Heaven. God comes down to us! He does not ask us to climb up. When we mix our merits, practices, or obedience with the merit of Christ, we then produce a salvation gained through self-righteousness. It is a tainted righteousness. Even if the part of self-righteousness is infinitesimally small or minute it still contains the seed of legalism. And as surely as the day follows the night, legalism will grow out of a theology that teaches that salvation requires our own self-righteousness.

This idea could be laughable if it were not so coldly sobering: leaving the legalism but keeping "the message" is akin to saving the arsonist from the fiery house. The immediate problem of the burning house may be gone, but, the cause of the fire is still in safe keeping and will emerge again in due time. The next time the fire burns it may not be holiness behavior or anything that looks remotely like it. It may be a form of arrogance that says, "I am under no man. No one tell me what to do." This may not be typical legalism but it is self-righteousness in another garb. It is a direct descendant of the former cousin legalism. It could be exhibited in the exclusiveness of those who cry, "I am of Christ." They have an exclusive revelation of God.

Another way the fire can destroy is in spiritual pride. It is pride about how "spiritual" one is. They have as many or more conversions, miracles, blessings, members, programs, new buildings, manifestations of the gifts, or celebrations of worship. This may not be even close to the former legalism of holiness codes. But it is born just as surely from the same family of self-righteous theology. (See the article Spiritual Pride; Thoughts on Revival) Beware of rejoicing over the freedom Christ gives more than Christ Himself. Beware of extolling your ‘spiritual’ accomplishments or ‘revelations’ more than Christ Himself.

The reason that I say this is the worst of both worlds is this: You still have the original infection in the body which produced legalism, but now you also have the delusion that there is no sickness! Even under legalism, the problem of wrestling with the flesh is taken very seriously. The answer of legalism may be very wrong. But, there is a sense that the legalist is aware of the power of the Fallen nature. But, those who leave the legalism think they have little or no problem. The virus of the flesh is hearty while they believe themselves ‘fit as a fiddle’. Given time, the flesh is insistent about its presence. Eventually and inexorably it will emerge in whole new strains of fleshly practices and inclinations which will overwhelm those who thought they were "free."

Good News

That’s the bad news. And I would imagine that most to whom this applies are not happy with my assessments. But, there is good news. It is the good news which Paul preached to the churches of Galatia. The churches of Galatia were thrown into a dilemma when Judaizers visited the churches which Paul planted. They sought to correct Paul’s teaching by telling the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor that they must keep the Law of Moses in addition to their faith in Christ. Many of them submitted to this teaching. This initiated a stern rebuke from Paul by means of an epistle we know as Galatians. Paul charged them with departing from the Gospel he gave them to "another Gospel." This was a charge of heresy. But, the problem of the Galatians is still a problem today. They were Gentiles who after hearing the Gospel realized that they still had to deal with the "flesh." The Judaizers taught them that the only way to deal with the flesh was to control it through the Law. Paul, on the other hand, instructed them that the Law could not solve the flesh problem. The Law was only able to bring them to Christ. The answer to the sin problem and the flesh problem is Christ. Christ is our sanctification as He is our Justification.

My concern is that among a segment of those who have left the UPCI there is a loss of clear and biblical teaching concerning the doctrine of sanctification. This is a serious error. The matter of sanctification is incumbent upon the Christian. The flesh must be recognized and faced. The Reformers, looking back to the Apostles, saw the answer to the flesh in the two aspects of Christ’s work. First, our sanctification is the result of our union with Christ and identifying by faith with His death, burial and Resurrection. That is what Paul says in Romans 6:9-11:

For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Our sanctification begins when we are justified. This is the work of Christ for our sanctification done outside of us. Our sanctification consists of living our lives out from the reality of what Christ has already done for us. He counts our sins to Himself and His righteousness is counted to us by faith. In sanctification we count ourselves to be dead in sin but alive to God through Christ. Christ becomes our sanctification in that we are set apart unto God first and foremost through Christ. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-- that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (1 Corinthians 1:30 NIV)

Secondly, sanctification involves a real transformation of our nature through the work of the Holy Spirit within us. This is the work of Christ for our sanctification done inside us:

The indwelling Christ works out in us by His Spirit a copy of His own righteousness. The unaided strivings of the Christian would frequently miss the pattern. His practical righteousness is the result of a continual operation of the divine Spirit. In other words, the Lord Jesus is both the ground of our righteousness in relation to God and the source of our righteousness in daily living. God’s requirement of a life of practical righteousness is made abundantly clear -- e.g., Tit. ii. 12. [T. C. Hammond, In Understanding Be Men, (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1958) pp. 154. Click link for the full section of Hammond’s treatment of sanctification "Union With Christ and Sanctification"]

Both the work outside of us (justification) and the work inside us (sanctification) are really one work. They can be distinguished but not separated:

In theological terms, justification (a once-for-all act affording the Christian right standing before God) cannot be separated from sanctification (the life-long process of moral transformation into more of Christ’s image.) [Bruce Milne, Know the Truth, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p.193.]

The heart of our sanctification is our relationship with the Christ who justifies us. By faith we are forever united with Jesus Christ. He is our life. Our lives are now to be lived for His kingdom and glory.

Sanctification is essentially that process whereby the Spirit makes increasingly real in our lives our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. [Bruce Milne, Know the Truth, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982), p.194.]

I would offer to my friends who have left the UPCI for personal "freedom" from legalism that they not throw the baby out with the bath water. The best of both worlds is true biblical justification and sanctification. These cannot be balanced one against the other; nor should they be diminished by emphasizing one over the other. They must be taught and exhibited in their full biblical expression and their complete application to the Christian life. Each does not and will not exist without the other. Sanctification is justification applied to whole of the believer’s life. Justification is the grace that makes sanctification possible. With both you have the "Good News." Without them you have bad news. With less than both you may have the worst of both worlds.