Do you remember the Parable of the Second Preacher? He tries to prevent believers from entering God’s tunnel of salvation. What is his reasoning? He takes “faith” to mean just the initial acceptance of the message. That people believe there is a tunnel is sufficient for him. He interprets Paul’s warning against “works” to mean, “There is nothing for a person to do.” To enter the tunnel, therefore, in his mind, amounts to the “work” that ruins everything.
In fact, this second preacher may be the one who is ruining everything. He is taking Paul’s words far beyond their original context. Within that context, Paul clearly defines what he means by “works.” To throw “works” wide open, as if Paul meant anything in which humans are involved, leads to damaging conclusions. Jesus, for example, spoke of belief as a kind of work. It is something that God requires and that humans do.
Then they said to Him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29).
“What must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus…” (Acts 16:30-31).
If Paul excludes everything humans do, that could even exclude faith. That may sound strange to you, but millions today think that way. They accept universalism, the idea that God saves everyone with or without faith.
If Paul excludes everything humans do, that could exclude repentance. Does that seem far-fetched? Right now, millions are casting their vote against repentance. They believe facts about Christ, but their lives show utter disdain for change of any kind. Heirs of the Reformation have long been embroiled in a debate over “lordship salvation.” Those who are for “lordship” insist that saving faith includes repentance. Their opponents—leading churchmen and academics—reject the role of repentance. How is that possible? You guessed it: Paul excludes human “works” and repentance is a human work. Our Parables are not just theoretical. They are current, and they underline the importance of fairness and accuracy in handling Paul’s teaching. We must allow Paul to define his own terms. We must allow Paul the freedom to exclude certain “works” while including essential responses to the Gospel.