Fall from grace? (Galatians 5:4)

[Jeffersonian]

I need help to understand this bible verse since i believe there is no way we could lose our salvation since we have it by grace alone. what Paul tried to say when he said ''fall from grace'' in Galatians 5:4

Thank you.

 

[SOLICHRISTOS]

Couple of things.

1. Paul is addressing the whole Church in Galatia. So we have to keep that in context.

2. Paul is also addressing Judaizers who were rejecting the gospel of grace, the true gospel of Jesus Christ by preaching another gospel, a gospel of works.

So this isn't a situation where individual believers ---- who were truly born of the spirit after accepting and believing of the true gospel; preached and taught to them by the Apostles ---- are falling away from the faith.

It was the situation where there were false teachers/unbelievers in the Church who were corrupting the Church.

This type of activity within the Church leads to apostasy, given enough time. Not the situation where the true believers lose their faith; but that eventually given enough time, they will eventually be pushed out by the unbelievers.

So the "falling away" or "fallen from grace" isn't so much referring to individuals; it's more so referring to the whole Church.

If you are falsely teaching others that in order for a person to be saved; that they have to do certain things, other then have faith in Christ, then you have fallen away from the gospel of grace.

Hope that helps some.

 

[Jeffersonian]

i kinda get it, but... i feel i need a little more to understand .

 

[AMR]

I need help to understand this bible verse since i believe there is no way we could lose our salvation since we have it by grace alone. what Paul tried to say when he said ''fall from grace'' in Galatians 5:4

Thank you.

If you are falsely teaching others that in order for a person to be saved; that they have to do certain things, other then have faith in Christ, then you have fallen away from the gospel of grace.

Indeed, Solichristos has identified key to understanding the passage.

Jeffersonian,

Galatians is basically a polemical Epistle wherein Paul plunges headlong into controversy because of the erroneous teaching that had been introduced into the Galatian churches.

Chapter 5 is in the same vein as the entire Epistle. The first few verses draw the contrast between two beliefs, one false and the other true. Paul makes these distinctions twice. Verses 1-6 look at the contrast among those who practice these beliefs, and verses 7-12 look at the contrast among those who preach these beliefs.

An alternative rendering of verse 5:4 reads, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (ESV)

The Galatians were claiming that the Christian converts had to be circumcised as a theological symbol of salvation by good works in obedience to the law. It was almost a slogan of these false teachers that “Unless you are circumcised and keep the law, you cannot be saved” (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). In other words they were declaring faith in Christ was insufficient for salvation. The false teachers were claiming that Moses must be allowed to finish what Christ had begun!

Paul describes their position as those who ‘receive circumcision’ (vs. 2-3), who therefore are ‘bound to keep the whole law’ (v. 3), since this is what their circumcision has committed them to, and who are seeking to ‘be justified by the law’ (v.4).

Paul minces no words, asserting very solemnly Christ will be of no advantage to you (v. 2), you are severed from Christ and you have fallen away from grace (v. 4). In other words, to seek to be justified by the law is to fall from grace. It is impossible to receive Christ, thus acknowledging that you cannot save yourself, and then receive circumcision, thus claiming that you can. You have got to choose between a religion of law and a religion of grace, between Christ and circumcision. You cannot add circumcision (or anything else) to Christ as necessary for salvation, because Christ is sufficient for salvation in Himself. If you add anything to Christ, you lose Christ. Salvation is in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone.

Summarizing, in verse 5:4, Paul tells the Galatians that they would be renouncing God’s grace by no longer relying on it.

To “fall from grace” in this verse does not mean in the usual sense, “to lose some favorable disposition from another,” rather it means law and grace are mutually exclusive for seeking justification from God and that they cannot find any favor with God.

Thus, the answer to your question and the point of the verse is: To use the impossible ground of justification by law is to leave, abandon, fall from the way of grace as the only basis for justification.

Those who are chosen in Christ will be kept from such a renunciation of the gospel; Paul continued to have confidence that at least some of the Galatians would listen to his warning (v. 10). There may have been those who appeared to be true members of Christ but who demonstrated by abandoning the gospel that they were not (Romans 11:22, 1 John 2:19). The Scriptures clearly admonishes us to be “eager to make [our] calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10) by living in a way that demonstrates the Spirit’s presence within us (Galatians 5:16-6:10; 2 Peter 1:5-11).

 

[SOLICHRISTOS]

Hey Patrick,

I was thinking about Galatians the other day and I haven't really gotten a chance to look at it more, but I was wondering.

Just in the Epistle to the Galatians, can we establish that Paul was referring to the Moral law as well as the Levitical law?

Just curious.... because like in Romans, Paul specifically uses examples of the Moral law to refer to.

 

[hedrick]

Formulating grace as a doctrine is tricky. The primary intent is to help us be grateful to God, and to understand that our salvation depends entirely upon him. It makes perfect sense in the context of a relationship with God. But as soon as we try to turn it into a doctrine that applies to everyone things get complex.

For someone who is already in a relationship with God, telling them that they depend completely upon him and they can rely upon him makes perfect sense. But to make this a general truth that we can apply to everyone runs into a serious problem: We can't tell who are actually in Christ, and thus who this applies to.

Calvinists have never thought that grace obliterates human choice and responsibility. Indeed it enables it. So It's quite possible for people to fall away. When they do, there are two perspectives on the situation. On the human perspective, we have someone who as far as we can tell was a Christian, who no longer is. But God sees the whole of history. He knows where the person is headed. So from his perspective, what looks to us like faith is apparent as a temporary belief that never fully took root.

The falling away was part of God's plan. In some sense he willed it. But the person is the one who did it. God didn't in any way push him away. Hence it's perfectly appropriate to talk about a falling away. Because one of the ways God works is through his people, it makes sense for us to warn people of the dangers of falling away. Normally God doesn't just reach in and zap our brains. He depends upon us to help other people.

But trying to juggle our point of view and God's is really dangerous. Even Calvinsts often don't get it right, and most Christians don't get it at all. Thus Luther refused to talk about God's perspective. He believed just as strongly as Calvin that we are dependent upon grace. But he thought that because we couldn't see things as God did, it was a mistake to try and talk God's hidden will and operation. Hence from a Calvinist perspective it looks like he was waffling. He'd happily speak of our dependence upon Christ, but was less willing to speak of God's responsibility for the lost. Even thought Calvin's approach makes more sense logically, I think there's something to said for not talking about God's secret will and operation. It confuses most people, and tends to shift them away from the real intent of grace, which is to have confidence in God, into speculating on matters that we can't really understand. Calvin felt he had to speak about it because Scripture did. But note that he didn't give the prominence to it that it often has for Calvinists.

 

[AMR]

Hey Patrick,

I was thinking about Galatians the other day and I haven't really gotten a chance to look at it more, but I was wondering.

Just in the Epistle to the Galatians, can we establish that Paul was referring to the Moral law as well as the Levitical law?

Just curious.... because like in Romans, Paul specifically uses examples of the Moral law to refer to.

I would agree, for we can conclude by inference that the entire teachings of Paul were under attack as well as explicitly from what Paul writes:

1. The opening chapters, 1-2 of Galatians suggest a defensive tone and that the opponents in Galatia, which were Judaizers who believed Jesus was the Christ, did not agree with what Paul was teaching elsewhere, e.g., Galatians 2:1-10.

2. Paul attacks the exegesis of his opponents in Galatians 3-4. Chapters 3-4 are misinterpreted if one thinks that only circumcision as the only part of the law the Galatians were attempting to obey in order to be justified. In fact, Paul does not even mention circumcision in Galatians 3-4. Rather, Paul attacks the problem of trying to be justified by the works of the law as a whole (see Galatians 3:10).

In Galatians 3:10-14, Paul teaches, from its main point, verse 14, that in Christ Gentiles enjoy the blessing of Abraham and that the blessing of Abraham is nothing other than the promise of the Spirit (see the emphasis on the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5). In Galatians 3:10-13, Paul explains why the blessing of Abraham can be obtained only in Christ. Trying to obtain the blessing by "works of the law" fails, for the end result will only be a curse since all transgress God's law. The curse of the law is removed only by the cross of Christ and thus faith is the only path to blessing.

3. It is quite likely these same opponents had links with the Jerusalem church, and charged Paul with distorting the gospel proclaimed by the apostles to Jerusalem.

More explicitly, to avoid the error of the "fresh perspective"/NPP folks, who appeal to Galatians 6:12-13 to described what was going on in Galatia as a cultic situation focused strictly on the OT Mosaic law, we note that the underlying Greek word for "keep" in Galatians 6:13 is often used for observing what God has commanded in both the OT and the NT. For example, see Gen. 26:5, Exodus 13:10; 15;26; 20:6; 31:13-14; Leviticus 18:4-5; Matthew 19:20; Acts 7:53; Romans 2:26, and that is the most natural meaning of "keep" in Galatians 6:13.

If you are interested in a wonderful new commentary on Galatians, I recommend the Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series, of which the Galatians book has been recently released and is authored by Thomas Schreiner. In the Preface, Schreiner writes: "I know it is out of fashion in some circles, but it seems to me that Martin Luther and John Calvin were substantially right in their interpretation of the letter [Galatians] and that their pastoral application of the letter still stands today."

 

[SOLICHRISTOS]

Cool thanks..... and you hit the nail right squarely on the head; the reason I was taking a closer look at Galatians was because of the NPP.

 

[hedrick]

Cool thanks..... and you hit the nail right squarely on the head; the reason I was taking a closer look at Galatians was because of the NPP.

I generally find N T Wright helpful on the Gospels, but I find his comments on Romans only make sense for about 2 minutes until I go back and read the letter again...

 

[SOLICHRISTOS]

I generally find N T Wright helpful on the Gospels, but I find his comments on Romans only make sense for about 2 minutes until I go back and read the letter again...

Heh..... yeah, absolutely. There are class leaders in my current church now who are using a lot of Wright's and McGrath's stuff. It's hard at first, because they both use the overly intellectual approach. i.e., we're very intelligent and hold several degree's and are from Oxford so you should listen to us!

But, sadly, in my opinion is just an attempt to change the gospel in a "lawyer/politician speak" kind of way.

But at the end of the day, it's ultimately a different gospel.

 

[hedrick]

Heh..... yeah, absolutely. There are class leaders in my current church now who are using a lot of Wright's and McGrath's stuff. It's hard at first, because they both use the overly intellectual approach. i.e., we're very intelligent and hold several degree's and are from Oxford so you should listen to us!

But, sadly, in my opinion is just an attempt to change the gospel in a "lawyer/politician speak" kind of way.

But at the end of the day, it's ultimately a different gospel.

Wait a sec. First, Wright isn't changing the Gospel. My comment wasn't about his theology, but about the NPP. I'm not convinced that his exegesis of Paul is right. He thinks Paul is speaking primarily of the covenant and not personal salvation. I believe that's one of the key themes of the NPP. I don't think Paul is so systematic. I think he's often speaking of personal salvation.

I note however that Wright thinks Calvin's theology is pretty close, just that Calvin misunderstood what some of Paul's terms meant, particularly righteousness. (You can get one word wrong and still have an overall theology that is basically right.) On that word at least I'm afraid he's right. As I understand Calvin, the heart of his theology is the /unio mystica/, our union with Christ. Through this he thinks we take on Christ's righteousness. I absolutely agree about the union. We are justified by virtue of being in Christ, and through it Christ lives in us and over time sanctifies us. All of which Calvin certainly teaches. The problem is that for Paul righteousness is pretty clearly an attribute of God, his adherence to the promise to Israel to redeem them. It's not moral perfection. His concept of the union as a "community of righteousness," through which Christ takes on our sin and we take on his righteousness, is really neat, I just don't think he's got the terminology quite right. So Calvin is wrong on some details but right in substance. I believe Wright says just about this.

But Mcgrath? Mcgrath is, aside from being a quantum molecular biologist, basically a Church historian. If he has any association with the NPP I haven't seen it. His (second) Ph.D. thesis was on justification. I've read it. It is considered the definitive work on the history of justification. Everyone, from all theological perspectives, accepts that his judgements are on target. But he advocates no specific position in it, although I get the impression is that his personal views are closest to Calvin's. Indeed in that part of his career, he's primarily a theological educator, and not a theologian.

At least McGrath, and I think this is true for Wright as well, is no more lawyerly than the tradition they're trying to present. McGrath in particular is primarily trying to educate people about Christian history, and Protestant history does in fact see the Gospel in forensic terms. Some of his more recent work notes that in much of the world Protestantism seems to be moving away from that tradition and more in the direction of pentecostalism. Again, as a historian he isn't trying to judge that, but he clearly accepts that Protestantism has often been too cerebral, and that the new emphasis is useful as a corrective. Even the end of his history of justification noted that 20th Cent Christianity is no longer so focused on justification as it was during much of history. Wright is primarily an NT scholar. As such he is engaged in a business that is inherently cerebral. I think you want to look at what he teaches as a bishop. I've seen a couple of views of that and I don't think he's doing what you say at all.

 

[Jeffersonian]

Guys, i want to thank you all. i've finally understand! May God bless you guys!