Printer Friendly Page

The Teachings of Paul Versus The Teachings of A. E. Knoch

A Dialogue Concerning The Function of Grace and The Purpose of Works

Posted October 28, 2003
[Updated to fit TOA Module September 29, 2010

See also The Teachings of A.E. Knoch Versus Scripture

Hi A___,

Thanks for reading the paper twice.

I apologize if I confused you , and I certainly didn't intend to sound like 'mainstream Christianity'.

Where you are stumbling is where everyone stumbles: "to be an overcomer I would assume they must overcome on their own." This is like saying "those who simply have faith in Christ, I would assume, have their own faith." That is where you are stumbling. To assume that people "must overcome on their own," is to assume that their faith is their own. But here is how it really works: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph 2:8-10). Does this sound like our good works are of ourselves? Does this sound like one "must overcome on their own?" Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but there is nothing wrong with the message of Christ and HIM crucified. We must all come to see our need for a Savior. There is nothing wrong with using the law to come to Christ. That is the only way to get there. What is missing in mainstream Christianity is what comes after that.

Mainstream Christianity, like Mr. A. E. Knoch and those who follow him, is full of contradictions. You are right; mainstream Christianity says that the faith to be saved is of themselves. They teach that you must do 1,001 things in order to be saved and at the same time teach "once in grace always in grace," just as Mr. Knoch teaches. Paul's "lest I myself should become a castaway" is simply a figure of speech to many Christians. Their doctrine is "once in grace always in grace." And if anyone is so brash, as I am, to point out that the very apostle for whom mainstream Christianity and Mr. Knoch claim to have such a high regard, tells us to "affirm constantly to maintain good works," they are falsely accused of contradicting themselves and claiming that their good works are of themselves. You will never find such a statement anywhere in my writings. I don't believe that. I, apparently unlike you and many of Mr. Knoch's followers, want to follow Paul's instructions: This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men (Tit 3:8). Why when I do what Paul, right here, tells me to do; do you and the Concordant brothers take offense at this admonition and accuse those who obey this admonition of teaching salvation by works? Is Paul teaching salvation by works when he tells those in his care to "be careful to maintain good works?" Is Paul the only one that can do that without doing it in a wrong way? You quoted me, but you didn't answer my question: "Should we affirm constantly that they which have believe in God... be careful to maintain good works?" According to you, this is the "automatic fruit of grace." So, should we do what Paul says or not?

Is Paul contradicting himself?

Are you saying that I should not "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" Are you saying that Paul is trying to "have it both ways?" I don't think your argument is with me. It seems to me that you just don't like this scripture.

I didn't "claim" anything in the article on free will. I simply demonstrated with the scripture that No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw [Greek - drag] him (Joh 6:44). Here, once again, I am demonstrating with scripture that Paul "constantly" talked about "ergon," 'works,' more than James and all the other apostles put together, including the Gospels and the book of Revelation, and you falsely accuse me of a "scenario" of salvation by works," of wanting to "have it both ways," simply because I want to do it Paul's (Christ's) way: "I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works." Argue that with Paul and the Holy Spirit. Don't blame me. I ask you again, should I "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" If I do, are you going to continue to accuse me of a salvation based on MY works?

These are not my words. They are inspired of the Holy Spirit, through the pen of the apostle Paul. That carries a lot of weight in my understanding of scripture:

Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

"As you are claiming?" Quote me where I have ever said such a thing. "For we are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them," is exactly what I teach in all my writings. The only difference is that I affirm constantly that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works," and I am not afraid to "point out that "grace... chastens" (Tit 2:10-12), and that this is what is meant by "where sin abounds grace [chastening] does much more abound" (Rom 5:20). "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (Heb 12:6). So this chastening, loving grace works out my salvation within me till I am "conformed to the image of His son" (Rom 8:29).

Read the entire letter to Titus. You have not responded to my question: Should I "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" You are presenting these "inspired words of Paul" as if they somehow contradict each other. There is no contradiction. We are "saved by grace" and we should also "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" There is no contradiction.

God's chastening, scourging grace accomplishes everything.

Let us let Paul explain what he means here. His explanation flatly contradicts Mr. Knoch's 'no law' theory: For I delight in the law of God after the inward man... So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin (Rom 7:22 and 25). Would you dare to repeat these plain words of 'your' apostle at a Concordant Conference? Do you delight in the law of God after the inward man? Mr. Knoch believes that 'the law of God after the inward man,' is the same as the ten commandments and the law of Moses: "Both passages apply to the same people, those under law." Nothing could be further from the Truth (Christ). Neither Paul nor Christ 'delighted in the law of Moses!' Will you deny that the law of Moses was only intended to dominate God's people until the time of reformation (Heb 9:10)? Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Christ was certainly a "reformer!" Had He not broken the Sabbath?

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Had He not "profaned the sabbath?" Had He not eaten that "which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him" on the Sabbath day? HE SAYS HE DID!

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.

Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Yes, Christ was a "reformer."

And what of all the "changes also of the law" that Christ made in Matthew 5-7? Many of these changes were flat contradictions of 'the law of Moses. Let's make a few comparisons.

Hate your enemy. Love your enemy.
Swear by My name only. Swear not at all.
Eye for an eye. Return good for evil.

Read Matthew 5-7. It is all these new commandments Christ is referring to when He says: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mat 5:19). It is certainly not 'circumcise on the eighth day,' 'gather twice as much on the sixth day,' 'hate your enemy,' 'swear by my name only,' nor 'eye for an eye.' No, whenever Paul talks of 'law,' he always has two entirely different laws in his mind. And he makes this very clear because he tells us what they are: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2).

So when Paul tells us twice in Rom 6:18, Being then made free from [the law of] sin, ye became the servants of righteousness, and again: But now being made free from [the law of] sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life (Rom 6:22), is Paul saying that we will never sin again because we are "free from sin?" No, he is not saying that. Here is what he is saying: For sin shall not have dominion over you. But why is it that sin will no longer dominate the life of the believer? It is for ye are not under the law, but under [chastening, scourging] grace (Rom 6:14). Now, compare these plain scriptural statements with the human reasonings and mental gymnastics in the following paragraph:

Here Mr. Knoch admits that as far as he is concerned the "the practical realm of action" in the life of the believer some how differs from "the elementary realm of truth." Neither you nor Mr.Knoch would ever be so "foolish" (Paul's word) as to stand up in a Concordant Conference and teach "For sin shall not have dominion over you." At least I have never heard those words repeated. You would never teach "But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life" (Rom 6:22). This is what I heard: "I don't want to hear one word about works in this conference."

Look at this contradictory, double talk: "The truth remains, that justification is possible to law keepers, the fact is that the flesh in mankind finds it impossible to obey the law and reach justification by this means..." And you ask me if I am trying to have it both ways? Is this not truly double talk? Does this not fly in the face of "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom 7:22)? Doesn't "justification is possible to law keepers," fly in the face of "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal 2:20). Paul goes to great lengths to make it clear that when he talks about being justified by the law; "doers of the law will be justified" (Rom 2:13), he is speaking of "the law of God after the inward man" (Rom 7:22); "the law of the Spirit," (Rom 2:8); "the law of Jesus Christ," (Gal 6:2), and never "the letter [which] killeth." (2Co 3:6). "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Remember Rom 8:2 "For the law [Paul's word] of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. These are two totally different laws. One is for "the lawless," (1Ti 1:9), the other for "the inward man." Here is what Paul taught concerning the 'law of Moses: "But we know that the law [of Moses] is good, if a man use it lawfully; [meaning] this, that the law [of Moses] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners... any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (1Ti 1:8-10).

Mr. A. E. Knoch teaches that "Both passages ["doers of the law will be justified" (Rom 2:13) and "by works of law no flesh shall be justified" (Rom 3:20).] apply to the same people, those under law." Those are his words. To him there is only one law, and that law is 'the law of Moses.' To Mr. Knoch "the law of the spirit of life," and "the law of sin and death" are apparently the same because he "affirms constantly" that we are saved "apart from law." 'The new covenant has nothing to do with these Gentile Corinthians,' he declares. He doesn't let 2 Corinthians 3:6 or the dozens of other scriptures to the contrary get in the way of this, his 'idol of the heart" (Eze 14: 1-9). Read 'The Law of God Versus The Law of The Spirit' on the link below. This is the 'trunk of the tree' in the error of this divisive, reward robbing doctrine of 'two administrations.' The "old covenant" that is "fading away" as we come to know Christ is Deuteronomy 4:13- "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." The "new covenant... [is] NOT ACCORDING to the covenant that I made with their fathers..." (Heb 8:8-9).

Mr. Knoch does not recognize that "the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2) is the "change also of the law" of Hebrews 7:12. It is this law, the "law of Christ," that is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. It is this "law of God after the inward man" (Rom 7:22), this "law of the Spirit of life" (Rom 8:2), that 'justifies the doers.' Not the "law of Moses" which requires physical circumcision. There are vast differences in these two laws, as Christ pointed out in his 'sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). Mr. Knoch teaches that 'those of the circumcision are saved by a mixture of law and grace,' whereas Paul teaches "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal 2: 16). No, not even Jewish or 'circumcision' flesh. "WE ARE THE CIRCUMCISION which worship God in the Spirit" (Php 3:3). Be sure to read The Law of Moses Versus The Law of The Spirit on this site.

Are you saying that, since the thief on the cross had no opportunity to perform good works, this nullifies Paul's admonition to those of us who DO have opportunity to "affirm constantly that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works" is nullified? You asked: What am I missing, Mike? It seems the "overcomers" will be able "to boast" about their accomplishment of "overcoming." Now tell me, is Paul telling us these things because he wants to "boast about his accomplishments?" Should we not follow his instructions? Should we not "affirm constantly that they which believe in God [should] be careful to maintain good works?"

You seem to be avoiding the question I keep asking, Should I "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" DO YOU AGREE WITH PAUL? If you do, then why shouldn't I?

"In my scenario?" "Affirm constantly... to be careful to maintain good works," is Paul's 'scenario,' not mine. Where have I ever said or even insinuated "man has something to brag about?" Quote me. You know that I do not believe that. It seems to me that you think that if I do as Paul instructs and "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" then that bothers you, and YOU ASSUME that "In [my] scenario, man has something to brag about whether he will be inclined to brag or not." The Lord knows that I know the utter Truth of this statement: "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing" (Joh 15:5). The problem is not with my obeying the instructions of the apostle, but with you fearing to obey, because of your 'no function whatsoever for works,' "idol of your heart" (Eze 14:1-9).

Again, just read Titus and then write me again and tell me that we should not teach "that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works?" I think that you know that you cannot contradict the teaching of the apostle. I pray that God will not "deceive that prophet [and] answer that prophet according to the multitude of his idols" (Ezekiel 14) in your case, but will give you eyes to see that "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings," (1Ti 6:3-4).

Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

There's that Greek word 'ergon,'. And this is Paul.

I'm a little slow myself. If I have overlooked something, please point it out to me. Maybe there are sufficient scriptures to show that what Paul meant was 'By grace ONLY are ye saved'. But I don't think you will find that anywhere. If you do, please point it out. I promise I will pull 'Strong Delusion' off my page the day I see such a statement made by Paul or anyone else in the Bible. I think rather what you will find is: Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient [disobedient to what?], and unto every good work reprobate.

You are demonstrating that you have an "idol of the heart." I looked really closely at all the scriptures you give and I don't see the word 'alone' in any of them. This is typical of those who have bought into Mr A. E. Knoch's divisive, two administration doctrine. You demonstrate that there is no such statement in scripture as, 'saved by faith alone.' YET YOU CANNOT SEE THE TRUTH OF YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATION! WHERE IS THE WORD 'ALONE'? Mr. Knoch teaches that James taught salvation by works alone. Nothing could be farther from the Truth. In reality James teaches the same thing as Paul, a faith that produces works: "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works ["and not by faith only"], when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

See those words 'faith only?' Yes, James taught salvation by grace through faith, just like Paul. Yes, he does. "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (Jas 4:6). Is this a different kind of grace? I don't think so. And the law James taught was the same one Paul taught, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty" (Jas 2:12). Be sure to read the paper on the law.

God says, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exo 3:6). Where in this verse does it say that he is the God of John the Baptist? Are you actually asking me whether Paul said to "be careful to maintain good works?" Is that your question? Just because these three verses don't mention works, doesn't negate the thousands of admonitions given by Christ and every one of His apostles any more than Exodus 3:6 proves that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the God of John the Baptist.

'Believe in your heart' is 'faith.' "By grace are ye saved through faith." Here are your own words: "saving grace causes you to want to do good works." Exactly! To which I would only add: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching [Strong's #3811-paideuo-chastening] us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.

Is the word 'alone' mentioned here? Where have I ever said that our works are "done by man?" I teach "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

I have never taught that I am my own workmanship. Now, do you teach that we are "created unto good works?" Do you teach that we "should be walking in them?"

The difference between me and the Concordant brothers that I have met, is that I dare to teach what Paul taught. They don't teach what Paul teaches. They fear what Paul teaches. They despise and squelch the teachings of Paul, hiding them under phrases like "ideal acts." They don't teach works at all. They despise Paul's admonitions: Who will render to every man according to his deeds [Gk. - ergon - #2040 - works]: To them who by patient continuance in well doing [Gk. - good works] seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life... (Rom 2:6-7). How do they seek for 'eternal life?' "By patient continuance in 'GOOD WORKS.'" They despise " This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men (Tit 3:8). Concordant brethren prefer, "Works have nothing to do with our calling. Nothing you do, or don't do, will affect your standing with Christ." They prefer the words of men to the words of God. That is Concordant emphasis. Show me those words in Paul's writings.

Isaiah 30:10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to thenprophets, Prophesynnot unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits...

Where have I ever "reversed this process?" Quote me. I promise I will apologize.

Here is what Paul teaches: They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate (Tit 1:16). You know that I have never written nor even insinuated that we are saved by our works. If I have said or written such a thing then quote it back to me, and I will write you and apologize and post it in the letters section of my page. All I do is "affirm constantly that they which have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works," and for some reason known only to God, Concordant brethren are scared to death that someone might get the impression that we should "be careful to maintain good works." Why is it such an awful thing at a Concordant conference to mention good works? When your own apostle cannot be quoted, something is wrong. I dare you to go to your next conference and stand up and read Titus as if it had anything to say to the attendees. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, [WHY?] as the steward of God; not self willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre... (Tit 1:6-7) Isn't this the kind of stuff you would expect to hear in James or Peter or John? And that is just the beginning. Read it, and then ask yourself if I have ever written anything, anywhere nearly as works-oriented as this letter of Paul's.

As I said, it is not 'weak delusion', it is "strong delusion." Something to the effect that; 'there will be a rapture, so none of these warnings really applies to you. I'm just telling you what will deceive those that are left behind. You don't need to concern yourself with these things. You are saved by grace alone. And be sure that you don't fall for that lie that "Grace chastens." Why that will have you believing that you should be careful to maintain good works, and we all know that grace is the opposite of works.' That is part of the half-truth definition of 'grace.' It is certainly part of the 'Strong Delusion' that permeates 'mainstream Christianity.

You believe that too. You apparently believe that I should be careful not to affirm that we should maintain good works.

And at the same time you, as A. E. Knoch, and mainstream Christianity, teach 'once in grace always in grace'. As I said above, they are full of contradictions. Paul, on the other hand, does not contradict himself, as Mr. Knoch's teachings attempt to force upon him. Concordant brethren need to get their thinking in line with Paul's words instead of trying to force scripture to conform to their divisive heresies. Those who are sent 'strong delusion' "receive not a love of the truth." One of those truths being, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds [works]: To them who by patient continuance in well doing [good works] seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:" (Rom 2:6-7). Another truth they despise is:

Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men"

I agree. And I unashamedly submit to you the words of God concerning Abraham: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works ["and not by faith only"], when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (Jas 2: 21- 26).

Mr Knoch simply was not 'given eyes' to see the great truth of Titus 2:11-12.

Mr. Knoch continues:

"In the epistle to the Romans, after showing that no one comes up to the standard of God's glory, Paul makes known the foundation truth of the evangel of the Uncircumcision, that justification is by gratuitous grace, through faith (Rom 3:22-26). He then enlarges on this and shows that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised. In our search for the underlying basis for the evangel for today, we will consider carefully what is revealed concerning Abraham at the time of his justification, and, later, when he was circumcised, and, in this way, throw further light upon the truth, so that we may grasp the full import of justification, the importation of God's righteousness, as contrasted with pardon or forgiveness, which is for the Circumcision, for this is a basic distinction between the two.

God's righteousness, as contrasted with pardon or forgiveness, which is for the Circumcision, for this is a basic distinction between the two."

There it is. Here is A.& E. Knoch's 'two administrations' doctrine in a nutshell. "God's righteousness, as contrasted with pardon or forgiveness, which is for the Circumcision, for this is a basic distinction between the two." Do we dare question A. E. Knoch? Could he possible have missed something in the writings of Paul? Or do A. E. Knoch's words mean more than Paul's? You decide for yourself:

Here is Mr. Knoch's own translation of Ephesians 1:7:

"In whom we are having the deliverance through His blood,THE FORGIVENESS OF OFFENSES..."

Did A. E. Knoch translate that correctly? Yes he did. Does it contradict "God's righteousness, as contrasted with pardon or forgiveness, which is for the Circumcision?" YES, IT DOES! How are these Gentile Ephesians saved? "Through His blood the forgiveness of offenses."

Now, how about this word 'pardon?' Does Mr. Knoch properly translate this word in Paul's writings to the Gentile Colossians? Indeed he does. Here it is; Col 1:14: "In whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins..." This is Mr. Knoch's own translation of these two verses. They both contradict his teaching: "God's righteousness, as contrasted with pardon or forgiveness, which is for the Circumcision." Are the Ephesians "the circumcision? Are the Colossians "the circumcision?"

Now back to Mr. Knoch:

"First, however, let us consider briefly what Paul reveals concerning this great grace. To begin with, he tells us that his evangel is God's power for salvation to everyone who is believing because in it God's righteousness is revealed for faith (Rom 1:16,17). Here we have a tremendous contrast to almost all previous revelation. There we are occupied with man's righteousness or rather unrighteousness, from Adam on, and especially after Israel was given the law of Moses. Hitherto God's righteousness condemned man. Now it is made a part of the evangel to save him. Heretofore the revelation of His justice was against all because of their unrighteous acts, now it is on all who are believing because it is a gratuitous gift of grace bestowed on men for their faith (Rom 3:21-24)."

For "Their faith?" You see what I mean by contradictions? You would be all over me if I had said such a thing. And you don't even see it when Mr. Knoch does it.

"Hitherto man has sought to display his righteousness through his deeds, and failed. Now God displays His righteousness by justifying those who believe, and it is an unqualified success (Rom 3:24-26)."

Here is how Paul says He now displays His righteousness: "Not of [our] works, lest any man should boast. For we [our lives, our good works] are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:9-10). Now when I say the same thing, why do you say I am "reversing the process?" Do you really believe that verse 9 contradicts Rom 2:6 "Who will render to every man according to his deeds?" Is this verse never to be repeated? I think it is what Paul believed and is therefore taught. But you don't want me to do that.

More of Mr. Knoch:

No man, of course, could acquire God's righteousness by means of his deeds. At best he could only establish one of his own. Nor can a man acquire his own righteousness by believing. It is God's righteousness that is reckoned ours by faith.

It is not unrighteousness that is reckoned for faith. It is: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20). Now, since it is HIM living HIS life in me, how could I boast ofsomething that is not even mine to boast of?

"This shows one of the vital distinctions between the evangel for the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision. In uncircumcision Abraham received this favor quite apart from what he had done (Rom 4:1-6). Just how it was "reckoned" to him we hope to see when we consider the passage itself."

Absurd! Israel itself was called 'while as yet uncircumcised.' They died in the wilderness "yet uncircumcised." They "became types of us," (1Co 10: 6). Paul himself, as with all of us, was called "while as yet uncircumcised".

Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

What we are when God drags us to Him is what Paul was on the road to Damascus. What we do AFTER the 'passing of the death angel' is what my paper is concerned with, just as is the letter to Titus, and every letter Paul wrote.

"Paul goes on to say that the Uncircumcision who believe, like Abraham, overtake this divine righteousness, while the Circumcision who seek it by works of law do not find it (Rom 9:30). Because they are ignorant of God's righteousness."

What they are ignorant of is God's chastening grace, just as isA. E. Knoch and mainstream Christianity. What they are ignorant of is: "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom 2:6-7).

"They seek to establish their own (Rom 10:3). The only One Who knew no sin was made a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him "

HIM living His life in us, chastening and scourging us to conform to His image; grace,"working out our own salvation," NOT US WORKING OUT OUR OWN SALVATION. "So that, my beloved, according as you always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, be carrying your own salvation into effect, for it is God Who is operating in you to will as well as to work for the sake of His delight" (Php 2:12-13 C.V.). "Carry your own salvation into effect?" Is Paul trying to have it both ways? I think not.

"(2Co 5:21). Paul considered his privileged place as one of the Circumcision a hindrance, and deemed it refuse, because it demanded a righteousness of his own, which he could not supply, and kept him from appropriating God's righteousness in Christ (Php 3:8,9)."

How does this square with Mr.Knoch's teaching that the circumcision will be saved by works? It is a self-contradicting doctrine.

And this is exactly the mindset of the "carnal" Corinthian Christians, who "could not be spoken unto as unto spiritual but as unto carnal even as unto BABES IN CHRIST" (1Co 3:1). So what was Paul to do? "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" (1Co 3:2). And what was that 'milk for babes?' "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1Co 2:2). Colossians 1:24 would have choked these Corinthians to death. All they could receive is all you and the Concordant brothers can receive at this time. "Neither yet now are ye able [to receive the meat of Colossians 1:24: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:"]. So I understand why you don't want to hear about works. We are all where God has us at this stage of our development. My 14 year old son doesn't like to hear about work either. It's not like he can help the fact that he is only 14.

Your message is exactly what Paul meant when he said "they [the Israelites in the wilderness] are types of us."(1Co 10:6 and 11). They, like you and mainstream Christianity, thought that being in Abraham or being in Christ, and having put the blood of the Lamb on their door post was all there was to it. "Christ and HIM crucified." They thought that having been baptized in the sea and in the cloud and eating spiritual meat, was all there was to it. "And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?" (Num 16:3). Korah also thought the 'called' were the same as the 'chosen.' Typical of you and mainstream Christianity, he could see no difference. After all "THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY CHRIST’S WORK ON THE CROSS." What does this scripture mean to you? "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church (Col 1:24). As I understand your above statement you don't consider anything to be "behind of the afflictions of Christ." Apparently you don't think that "dying daily" needs any emphasis in the life of the believer. You are right where the adversary wants you. Nothing is "behind of the afflictions of Christ in your flesh." You see no need to "go on unto maturity" (Heb 6:1). Apparently you feel that admonition is for the circumcision and not for you. To you there is nothing 'behind of the afflictions of Christ' because you do not identify with his death. What does 'buried with Him in baptism' mean to you? What do you think 'die daily' means? What does this scripture mean to you? "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Php 1:29). Does "Christ in you" not coincide with dying daily in your theology? If you don't answer anything else in this letter at least let me know what Colossians 1:24 means to you. You will notice that Mr. Knoch does not comment on this in his commentary. Neither he nor you will ever understand that scripture with your present, "Christ did it all for me on the cross; I don't need to be 'crucified with Him,'" theology.

Be sure to read 'After The Counsel of His Own Will'. There is a section in that paper on the purpose and function of grace.

Did you read Ecclesiastes 3:18? Are we not all born with "the mark of a man?" That mark is only on the "rich and poor, free and bond, great and small."

I know you will probably think that I am straying from grace, but I am going to close with a quote from the apostle the Concordant brethren claim to honor:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith" (Rom 12:1-3).