# Did Paul treat the Galatians as Christians or non Christians?



## Arch2k (Feb 12, 2006)

This is meant to be a follow-up to the question from brother Kevin:



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Perhaps a more biblical example:
> 
> Were the Galatians regenerated and converted? Paul says they were bewitched by the Judaizers. They were being taught a false gospel and they believed it. So, in light of this, how were they different than Arminians? The gospel was false, and yet Paul has not condemned them to hell.
> ...



This thread is not intended to be another discussion on if Arminians are converted or not, but rather to exegete Galatians, to see how Paul treated not only those who taught salvation by faith+works, but how he viewed the followers of these teachers. Did Paul view them as brethren, or apostate?


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 12, 2006)

> Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,



Paul was speaking in Galatians to an entire church. A church that at one time, professed the true gospel of salvation by Christ Alone. When the Judiazers snuck in to deceive His church, it marveled Paul at how fast those who once professed the true gospel of Christ, resorted back to salvation by the law.

Note that at this point, the church is "œturning" (present tense) and has not gone completely apostate. Paul was quick to condemn the teachers of the Galatian heresy because it was easy for him to judge what they believed"¦they were explicit. What Paul did not do, was to presume that just because a false gospel had be recently introduced, that instantly all members of that church had believed them. Writing from afar, he also did not have the luxury of hearing each congregant for himself, as to what he believed or did not believe. He gave them the benefit of the doubt"¦NOT because they had "œenough knowledge to be saved" even though they held to pernicious error, but because at one point, the group had professed the true gospel of salvation by Christ alone, and because false teachers were trying to persuade them of a gospel of works, he saw it fit to try to convince them of the gospel they once professed, and return them from their being tossed about.



> Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
> Gal 3:4 Have you suffered so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain?



Here Paul calls into question the salvation of the Galatians. Was their suffering for Christ in vain? If they are going to deny the gospel of Christ by adding ONE work to it, why not make life easier"¦.eat, drink and be merry!

Martin Luther on this verse:



> The Apostle adds the afterthought: "œIf it be yet in vain. I do not despair of all hope for you. But if you continue to look to the Law for righteousness, I think you should be told that all your past true worship of God and all the afflictions that you have endured for Christ´s sake are going to help you not at all. I do not mean to discourage you altogether. I do hope you will repent and amend."





> Gal 4:11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.



The Galatians (taken as a whole) are teetering. They are losing the gospel, and now Paul explicitly states that he is afraid for their salvation. If they accept the doctrine of the Judiazers, Paul will have labored in vain, and will count them as loss. If they repent of their sliding, and return to a gospel of salvation by Christ alone, he will continue to treat them as brethren in the faith.

Martin Luther:



> It grieves the Apostle to think that he might have preached the Gospel to the Galatians in vain. But this statement expresses more than grief. Behind his apparent disappointment at their failure lurks the sharp reprimand that they had forsaken Christ and that they were proving themselves to be obstinate unbelievers. But he does not openly condemn them for fear that oversharp criticism might alienate them altogether. He therefore changes the tone of his voice and speaks kindly to them.





> Gal 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.



Here Paul speaks directly to those in the Galatian Church that were convinced of the Judiazer heresy.

Martin Luther:



> Paul in this verse discloses that he is not speaking so much of circumcision as the trust which men repose in the outward act. We can hear him say: "œI do not condemn the Law in itself; what I condemn is that men seek to be justified by the Law, as if Christ were still to come, or as if He alone were unable to justify sinners. It is this that I condemn, because it makes Christ of no effect. It makes you void of Christ so that Christ is not in you, nor can you be partakers of the knowledge, the spirit, the fellowship, the liberty, the life, or the achievements of Christ. You are completely separated from Him, so much so that He has nothing to do with you any more, or for that matter you with Him." Can anything worse be said against the Law? If you think Christ and the Law can dwell together in your heart, you may be sure that Christ dwells not in your heart. For if Christ is in your heart He neither condemns you, nor does He ever bid you to trust in your own good works. If you know Christ at all, you know that good works do not serve unto righteousness, nor evil works unto condemnation. I do not want to withhold from good works their due praise, nor do I wish to encourage evil works. But when it comes to justification, I say, we must concentrate upon Christ alone, or else we make Him non-effective. You must choose between Christ and the righteousness of the Law. If you choose Christ you are righteous before God. If you stick to the Law, Christ is
> of no use to you.
> 
> "¦That means you are no longer in the kingdom or condition of grace. When a person on board ship falls into the sea and is drowned it makes no difference from which end or side of the ship he falls into the water. Those who fall from grace perish no matter how they go about it. Those who seek to be justified by the Law are fallen from grace and are in grave danger of eternal death. If this holds true in the case of those who seek to be justified by the moral Law, what will become of those, I should like to know, who endeavor to be justified by their own regulations and vows? They will fall to the very bottom of hell. "œOh, no," they say, "œwe will fly straight into heaven. If you live according to the rules of Saint Francis, Saint Dominick, Saint Benedict, you will obtain the peace
> ...



Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom[1] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. 

In closing, Paul pronounces a blessing on those who "œwalk according to this rule." What rule? The rule that we should not boast except in the cross of our Lord. The Judiazers certainly had something to boast in"¦their own works! He leaves them out of the blessing, and pronounces favor on those who held fast to the gospel of salvation by Christ alone.

Paul certainly feared for the salvation of the Galatians, and with good reason. For to add one work to justification is to destroy the gospel and to cast off all need for Christ.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 13, 2006)

*Jeff...*

As I see what you've posted, I realize that their example is not comparitive with Arminians. These have had the true gospel preached to them and have turned from it, as you have posted. That doesn't track with one who as never heard the true gospel.

I can't think of many Calvinists who have become Arminian. So this was not a good example. I was too hasty in my argument and I was wrong. Thanks for your posts, brother. I beg your forgiveness for my ill-formed argument.

I think your exegesis is right on. And Luther, too.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## satz (Feb 13, 2006)

Just some initial thoughts;



> The words, "œYe are fallen from grace," must not be taken lightly. They are important. To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.



With respect, i do not think Luther is right here.

Either a man is elect, or he is not. Either he is regenerate or he is not. No one can fall from grace. If they have the grace of election and regeneration, they can never fall from it no matter what they do. Those who are unbelievers never had that grace and thus cannot be said to fall from it. There is no middle category of people who are in danger of falling from grace (in the true sense).

I think in light of everything else we know about salvation Gal 5:4 must be interpreted either as a metaphor or a figure of speech. This is not compromise or weakening the message. We know it cannot be talking about a literal falling from the saving grace of God or from what Jesus Christ bought for us on the cross because the rest of the bible tells us this is absolutely impossible.

I will not hazard exactly what it means yet, but i believe it is akind to Paul telling the corinthians that to partake unworthily of the supper is to 'eat damnation' to oneself. It is clear from the surrounding verses he does not mean the damnation of hellfire, but simply to incur sin to themselves.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> As I see what you've posted, I realize that their example is not comparitive with Arminians. These have had the true gospel preached to them and have turned from it, as you have posted. That doesn't track with one who as never heard the true gospel.
> 
> I can't think of many Calvinists who have become Arminian. So this was not a good example. I was too hasty in my argument and I was wrong. Thanks for your posts, brother. I beg your forgiveness for my ill-formed argument.
> ...



Kevin,

There is nothing to forgive...it was a good question.


----------

