Views: 7<\/p>
[Note: \u00a0This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts \u00a0page.]<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n There is<\/em><\/strong> one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;<\/strong> one Lord, one faith, one baptism,<\/strong> one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.<\/strong> Eph 4:<\/b>4\u2013<\/b>6<\/b>\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The \u201cone faith\u201d of Ephesians 4:5 is the fifth of seven unique entities mentioned in the context (vv. 4\u20136). The background of the naming of these seven entities is the plea that saints should walk worthily of their sanctified calling (v. 1) and should diligently seek to \u201ckeep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace\u201d (v. 3).1<\/sup> This list is apparently intended to lay down the standard by which the \u201cunity of the Spirit in the bond of peace\u201d was to be achieved and maintained. It is appropriate that the number of elements listed is seven, a number often indicating completeness or perfection in the Scriptures.\u00a0This passage may be correctly thought of as God\u2019s \u201cplatform\u201d for unity and fellowship among His people, with each element serving as one of the \u201cplanks.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If it is correct that this list of seven items is the expression of God\u2019s terms of unity among His people, then it is immediately apparent that each of these terms must be carefully defined. If we do not understand the meaning of God\u2019s conditions upon which unity must be built, we will err in the matter of those with whom we are to be united and to whom we should extend fellowship.\u00a0Indeed, because of an incorrect definition of the meaning of \u201cone faith,\u201d some among us are now advocating unity and fellowship with those who have rejected some of God\u2019s terms of unity.<\/span><\/p>\n What The \u201cOne Faith\u201d Is Not<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If we can determine what the \u201cone faith\u201d is not, it will help us to determine what it is.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cOne Faith\u201d Is Not Subjective Faith<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Many of the popular commentators opine that faith<\/em> is used subjectively in this context (indeed, in practically every context of the New Testament). This would mean that the \u201cone faith\u201d refers to man\u2019s belief and trust in Christ. Salmond expressed this view of mia pistis<\/em>: \u201cOne faith, i. e, one belief having Him as its object; pistis <\/em>having here its usual subjective sense of saving trust<\/strong>, not that which is believed, the Christian doctrine<\/strong> or creed<\/strong>.\u201d2<\/sup>\u00a0 Eadie has a similar comment:\u00a0\u201cFaith does not signify creed, or truth believed, but it signifies confidence in the one Lord\u2014faith, the subjective oneness of which is created and sustained by the unity of its object.\u201d3<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 However, Lloyd\u2011Jones\u2019 arguments against understanding \u201cone faith\u201d in a subjective sense are persuasive:<\/span><\/p>\n The learned commentators nearly all seem to be in trouble concerning the exact meaning of the expression\u2026. There are those who feel that this \u201cone faith\u201d refers to our subjective faith, to that quality in us, which enables us to believe\u2026.\u00a0 It seems to me that this is an impossible explanation of this statement, and for this good reason that in a sense it is already covered by the term, \u201cone Lord.\u201d But thereis a still more serious objection. The Apostle is endeavoring to give absolute proofs of believers\u2019 unity, so that whenever we are assailed by doubts we may have some certainty to sustain us. Now whenever we want to demonstrate or prove something, we must never appeal to that which is subjective, because the subjective is personal and cannot be defined. The subjective is no answer to an objective attack. But the Apostle is giving us objective proofs, something outside ourselves which we can apply to ourselves, and by which therefore we can test ourselves. So I argue that \u201cone faith\u201d cannot be considered subjectively, because to do so removes it from the category of an objective test.4<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 While faith<\/em> is often (perhaps most often) used in a subjective sense in the New Testament, it is not so used in Ephesians 4:5.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cOne Faith\u201d Is Not the \u201cPrinciple\u201d of Faith<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Another explanation of \u201cone faith\u201d is put forth by Vincent: \u201cThe principle of faith; <\/strong>not that which is believed\u2014the body of Christian doctrine, which does not promote unity.\u201d5<\/sup>\u00a0(If he speaks here of New Testament doctrine, he borders on blasphemy in blaming the Holy Spirit for religious division!) Wuest (who almost slavishly follows Vincent at times) parrots Vincent here: \u201cFaith is not the Christian Faith as a system of doctrine and its respective responsibilities. It refers to the principle of faith by means of which all the saints enter into salvation.\u201d6<\/sup>\u00a0Lloyd\u2011Jones argues at length that the \u201cone faith\u201d is \u201cjustifying faith,\u201d \u201cjustification by faith only,\u201d as \u201cpreached by the Protestant Fathers.\u201d7<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Apparently, by \u201cprinciple of faith\u201d is meant \u201csalvation by faith\u201d as opposed to \u201csalvation by works.\u201d\u00a0 Whiteside, in discussing another context, denies that the phrase, \u201cprinciple of faith,\u201d even makes sense: \u201cMuch is said about the principle of faith\u2026. Such an expression as the principle of faith conveys no idea to the mind.\u201d8<\/sup>\u00a0<\/sup>Whether or not this is a nonsensical expression, it is certain that Paul is not referring to \u201csalvation by faith only,\u201d which is not only not <\/strong>taught by Paul or any other inspired writer, but which is antagonistic<\/strong> to the Scriptures (Mat. 7:21\u201323; Acts 3:22\u201323; Rom. 1:5; 2 The. 1:7\u20139; Heb. 5:8\u20139; Jam. 2:18\u201326; et al.). Does the \u201cone faith\u201d refer to the fact that we are saved by faith as opposed to works of our own righteousness? No, for had this been Paul\u2019s meaning, one would have expected him to say \u201cone salvation\u201d rather than \u201cone faith.\u201d Further, the matter of salvation had already been covered in Paul\u2019s reference to \u201cone hope of your calling\u201d (v. 4).<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cOne Faith\u201d Is Not the Atonement of Christ<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To justify unity with other religious groups (especially the Independent Christian Church), some brethren have decided that the \u201cone faith\u201d refers only to Christ\u2019s atoning work. The late W. Carl Ketcherside explained his view of what constituted the \u201cone faith\u201d as follows: \u201cThe faith relates to the life and death of Jesus\u2026. The faith portrays what Jesus has done and will do for us, and we accept it.\u201d9<\/sup>\u00a0Rubel Shelly agrees with Ketcherside in the following statement: \u201cThe one faith has nothing to do with our methods and procedures of doing God\u2019s work; it has to do with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and our response to that once-for-all act of atonement.\u201d10<\/sup>\u00a0<\/sup>Consider his further comments on the \u201cone faith\u201d: \u201cOne who denies any element of the one faith (i.e., the gospel message of redemption through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) has turned back from the truth\u2026.\u201d11<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The early views of Ketcherside on what constitutes the \u201cone faith\u201d are unknown to the author, but those of Shelly are, as seen in the following statements:<\/span><\/p>\n Christ established only one church (Mat. 16:18) and revealed only one faith (Eph. 4:5). Those who discount that church and pervert that faith (as do theological liberals) are not Christian at all\u2026. By virtue of the fact that men hear the one faith<\/strong>, which is the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16), they can believe on the one father<\/strong>, one Lord <\/strong>and One Spirit<\/strong>\u202612<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It is obvious from these statements that in 1972 Shelly taught that the \u201cone faith\u201d was the whole Christian system, the Gospel of Christ, not merely the atonement, as he has taught at least since 1984.\u00a0One is made to wonder why he changed. Sometime between 1972 and 1984 he came to the conclusion that there should be unity between the church of Christ and the Independent Christian Church and that the latter\u2019s use of instruments in worship should not be a test of fellowship. Shelly avers that \u201conly such items as pertain directly to the seven ones of Ephesians 4:4\u20136 are of such a nature as to qualify as issues of faith (i. e., doctrinal tests of fellowship).\u201d13<\/sup>\u00a0<\/sup>In a 1985 speech to members of the Independent Christian Church he is also on record as saying,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t draw the line at the instrument. I don\u2019t think the Lord died over that. I\u2019m not going to make that a test of my fellowship with you in Christ\u2026. I refuse to be divisive over it. If I were in a congregation where the will of that congregation, the decision of the elders, was that the instrument was going to be used next week, I wouldn\u2019t mount the pulpit and condemn them and divide the church.14<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No wonder one of the Independent Christian Church members made the following observations (after Shelly\u2019s comments): \u201cWe talked about Carl Ketcherside. I am a great fan of his. Thirty years ago, he was saying the same thing you are saying.\u201d15<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It becomes apparent that Shelly had to adopt some view of the \u201cone faith\u201d that does not relate it to our \u201cmethods and procedures of doing God\u2019s work,\u201d which would include how we worship God.\u00a0Instrumental music is not authorized in the worship of God (which Shelly well knows), and if the \u201cone faith\u201d includes \u201cmethods and procedures of doing God\u2019s work,\u201d those who use the instrument would be in violation of the \u201cone faith\u201d and could not be granted fellowship! For sake of consistency with his new conviction that the instrument is not a barrier to fellowship, Shelly was forced to redefine the \u201cone faith\u201d!<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In the same way,\u00a0Ketcherside\u2019s definition of one faith<\/em> conveniently makes room for his similar \u201cGospel\/doctrine\u201d dichotomy hobby. By this view only the \u201cGospel\u201d (by his definition, of course\u2014the plan of salvation in response to the atonement) establishes fellowship; \u201cdoctrine\u201d (his definition again\u2014matters of worship, work, and organization of the church, etc.) should have nothing to do with breaking or maintaining fellowship. It is not difficult to see how this \u201cunity in diversity\u201d position requires the definition Ketcherside has arbitrarily assigned to the \u201cone faith.\u201d The unnamed member of the IndependentChristian Church, quoted above, was right: Shelly was essentially teaching the same thing Ketcherside had taught thirty years earlier!<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Did Paul merely refer to the atonement\u2014to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ\u2014in the \u201cone faith\u201d? No, and for the following reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 First<\/strong>, in the listing of the seven \u201cones,\u201d \u201cone Lord\u201d and \u201cone hope\u201d had already been mentioned. Surely, if \u201cone Lord\u201d does not imply all elements of the atonement (the means by which Jesus was proved to be the \u201cone Lord\u201d), \u201cone hope\u201d does (our hope is the result of the death, burial, and resurrection of the \u201cone Lord\u201d). Thus, to say that \u201cone faith\u201d referred only to \u201cthe atonement\u201d is to make Paul guilty of extreme superfluity and redundancy.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Second<\/strong>, in the immediate context Paul used the faith<\/em> in such a way that it must mean much more than merely the atonement: \u201ctill we all attain unto the unity of the faith\u2026\u201d (Eph. 4:13). There is no indication that he is using one faith<\/em> and the faith<\/em> to mean two different things within the space of nine verses. Where there is no contextual indication or demand that a repeated term is being used in more than one sense within a given context, sound hermeneutics requires a uniform understanding of terms. <\/strong>Whatever the faith<\/em> (v. 13) may mean, it is certainly not a reference to the atonement!<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Third<\/strong>, to limit one faith<\/em> in Ephesians 4:5 solely to the atonement is not only out of harmony with the immediate contextual meaning of the faith<\/em> (as noted above), but with the meaning of the faith<\/em> throughout the New Testament, which will later be demonstrated.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fourth<\/strong>, identification of the \u201cone faith\u201d with the atoning work of Christ seems to be peculiar to Ketcherside and Shelly (and presumably to those who share their dictum on \u201cfellowship without endorsement,\u201d \u201cunity in diversity,\u201d \u201cbig [F]\u2014little [f] fellowship,\u201d e.g., Leroy Garrett, et al.). No hint of this view has been discovered in any of the several other sources which have been researched. The fact that it is clearly an unusual view is not in itself a decisive reason to say it is incorrect, of course. However, when it is remembered (as earlier demonstrated) that this definition was necessitated <\/strong>by doctrinal presuppositions relating to fellowship<\/strong>, the definition becomes even more suspicious. We suspect that these men have let their desire determine their doctrine, rather than allowing the doctrine of Christ to govern their desires! While it is readily conceded that the \u201cone faith\u201d includes <\/strong>the atonement of our Lord, to say that it refers only to His atonement is arbitrary, and unjustifiable, and, in the final analysis, deadly.<\/span><\/p>\n What the \u201cOne Faith\u201d Is<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One does not study God\u2019s Word very long without discovering that it uses faith<\/em> in more than one sense. Often (as earlier noted) it is used in the subjective sense\u2014that is, in reference to man\u2019s act of believing and trusting in God and Christ and in the evidence God has provided for spiritual Truth. In fact, this is by far the most common usage of faith<\/em> in the New Testament. Unquestionably, this sense of personal trust is used throughout Hebrews 11 during the discussion of many of the spiritual heroes and heroines of ancient times.\u00a0<\/strong>Verse 6 expresses this meaning clearly: \u201cAnd without faith it is impossible to be well\u2011pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him\u201d (cf. Heb. 11:1). Numerous other passages obviously employ faith<\/em> in a subjective sense (e.g., Mat. 6:30; 9:22; Acts 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:15; et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 At least once faith<\/em> is used in reference to one\u2019s strong personal conviction of a matter as right or wrong: \u201cBut he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin\u201d (Rom. 14:23).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Another frequent usage of faith<\/em> in the New Testament is in an objective sense. When used this way it has reference to the whole body of Christian doctrine, the Gospel, the message of the New Testament, Christianity itself. One key to this usage of faith<\/em>is that the definite article precedes it, indicating the faith<\/em>: \u201cAnd a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith\u201d (Acts 6:7b). Christians are to \u201ccontend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints\u201d (Jude 3). Although the English text does not fully reflect it, the grammatical construction in the Greek text in Galatians 3:23\u201326 is as follows (Note: Verse numbers are left in text for reader\u2019s convenience in checking author\u2019s comments after the quotation. The definite article as it appears in the Greek text is in brackets):<\/span><\/p>\n But before [the] faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the [correctly translated here] faith, which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that [the] faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through [the] faith in Christ Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Please observe:<\/span><\/p>\n But before the faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith, which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by [the] faith. But now that the faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through the faith in Christ Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0It is unfortunate that the translators (for reasons unknown) did not <\/strong>translate three of the four definite articles in this passage. It is just as mysterious that they did <\/strong>translate one of the four articles (v. 23b\u2014where is the consistency?).\u00a0Their rendering leaves the distinct impression that Paul is speaking of one\u2019s own personal, subjective faith throughout most of the passage.\u00a0This author is convinced that just the opposite is true; this entire passage centers on faith used in an objective sense\u2014 \u201cthe faith.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Another key to understanding when faith<\/em> is being used in an objective sense (i. e., in reference to the Gospel) is the immediate context in which it is found. There are several places where the faith<\/em> is so defined. In Acts 13 \u201cthe word of God\u201d (vv. 5, 7), \u201cthe right ways of the Lord\u201d (v. 10), and \u201cthe teaching [doctrine\u2014KJV] of the Lord\u201d (v. 12) are also called \u201cthe faith\u201d (v. 8). the faith<\/em> is equated with \u201cthe truth\u201d and \u201cthe word of God\u201d (1 Tim. 4:1, 3, 5).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In Galatians 1 Paul wrote in strong language about the Gospel, besides which there was none other, which some were perverting, and which alone must be preached and received (vv. 6\u20139). Later He referred to that same Gospel, which, as an apostle he preached, as \u201cthe faith of which he once made havoc\u201d (v. 23). Jude\u2019s bold exhortation that the Lord\u2019s people must \u201ccontend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints\u201d is obviously an illustration of an objective usage of faith<\/em>(Jude 3).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Upon several grounds we can confidently affirm that the \u201cone faith\u201d of Ephesians 4:5 is correctly understood in an objective sense. It therefore refers to the message of Christ, the body of doctrine in the New Testament, that which is to be believed and acted upon by men.<\/span><\/p>\n The unity of the faith<\/em> in this passage does not refer to a spirit of oneness and harmony in the church. Rather, it refers to the completion of the written Word, by which the Ephesians (and all other Christians) would have the means of attaining complete knowledge of Christ and of becoming \u201cfullgrown.\u201d At the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians, the New Testament had not been completed in written form, and there was still the need for living apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach infallibly (both orally and with the pen). Paul used all of the material between verses 6 and 13 (except for a parenthetical digression) reminding them of this very fact\u2014God endowed men with such miraculous spiritual gifts that they might serve, perfect, and build up the church in its infancy. These men thus supernaturally endowed were given \u201ctill we all attain unto the unity of the faith,\u201d that is, until they all had the perfected, completed Word of Christ available to them.<\/span><\/p>\n Ephesians 4:7\u201314 is closely parallel to 1 Corinthians 13:8\u201313 which refers to the coming of the completed Gospel message as \u201cwhen that which is perfect is come\u201d (v. 10). That the former passage teaches implicitly, the latter teaches explicitly: The miraculous spiritual gifts shall \u201ccease\u201d and \u201cbe done away\u201d when the completed message of Truth was realized. It is beyond successful contradiction that the faith<\/em> in Ephesians 4:13 means the Gospel, the Truth, the Word of God. There is nothing in the context to demand (or even to indicate) that Paul is using \u201cone faith\u201d (v. 5) to mean something different from \u201cthe faith\u201d (v. 13). The \u201cone faith\u201d is simply the Gospel, the doctrine of Christ\u2014\u201dthe faith.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Some question whether faith<\/em> is ever objective. We have found it so quite a number of times, it is then generally written with the article, \u201cthe faith.\u201d Here \u201cone faith\u201d is like \u201cone hope.\u201d The list presents objective items, our basis of oneness is objective, must be so in order to be such a basis\u2026. Hence one faith<\/em> includes our personal believing, but the stress is on the Christian faith as such, on what constitutes its substance<\/strong>. This is one even as it centers on one Lord, one, whether you and I embrace it or not [emph. DM].18<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Bultmann commented as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n The message itself, then, can be called pistis<\/em> [\u201cfaith,\u201d DM] \u2026.\u00a0 For this reason, Paul can already use pistis<\/em> in the sense of Christianity<\/strong>\u2026. Pistis <\/em>is also found for the preaching of faith at Acts 6:7, and it is a principle in Ephesians 4:5<\/strong>\u2026. The orthodox doctrine handed down by the Church is also pistis<\/em> in Jude 3, 20; 2 Pet. 1:1 [emph. DM].19<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n While the sectarian terminology in some of the foregoing quotations is repugnant to faithful saints (e.g., \u201ca common creed,\u201d \u201cthe orthodox doctrine handed down by the Church\u201d), nonetheless, in principle these writers show a correct understanding of Paul\u2019s reference to the \u201cone faith.\u201d The \u201cone faith\u201d is \u201cthe faith,\u201d the body of doctrine revealed to inspired men, which, when followed, constitutes Christianity, the religion of Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n Implications of the Fact That the \u201cOne Faith\u201d Is the Doctrine of Christ<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Having determined that Paul speaks of the Gospel\u2014the one unified body of New Testament teaching\u2014in his reference to \u201cone faith,\u201d what are some implications of this fact?<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n