Is Salvation Conditional on Doing Good Deeds?

When we put our trust in Jesus Christ, we gain salvation from sin and God’s judgment. This salvation is a free gift that we accept by faith. We are saved by faith and not by doing good deeds (Eph 2:8-9).

However, where saving faith exists, it is always accompanied by good deeds (James 2:17). These good deeds contribute absolutely nothing to our salvation. But they do accompany saving faith.

That is not to say that the good deeds performed by people who are saved come remotely close to perfection. Even the most holy Christian often sins (James 3:2). Nevertheless, it should be seen as a fact that good deeds accompany saving faith. If someone is making little or no attempt to do what is right in their life, if there are sins that they know exist and are not repenting of or battling against, that is a sign that they don’t have saving faith.

An issue of language

So far, so good. What I have said up to this point is standard evangelical teaching on salvation.

But this raises a question. If good deeds contribute nothing to our salvation, yet they always accompany saving faith, is it right to say that salvation is conditional on doing good deeds?

This is really a matter of how we use the English language, of what exactly we mean by ‘conditional’. If we mean that good deeds contribute towards our salvation, then salvation is certainly not conditional on doing good deeds. But if we mean that good deeds must be present in a kind of incidental, non-contributory sense in the life of someone who is saved, then salvation is conditional on doing good deeds.

An analogy

Let me give an analogy to help explain what I mean.

Suppose there is a surgeon who is going to perform an operation on someone. To do the operation, the surgeon needs a scalpel to cut open the patient’s body. So the operation is conditional on a scalpel being in the operating theatre.

But suppose too that this surgeon has a wedding ring on his finger that has been there for many years and that he is unable to remove. The operation is therefore conditional on this wedding ring being in the operating theatre.

So the operation is conditional on two things (among others) being in the operating theatre: the scalpel and the wedding ring. But the kind of condition is completely different in each case. The scalpel plays a crucial part in the operation. It contributes to what is achieved. By contrast, the wedding ring contributes nothing to the operation. It is only present as a kind of bystander to what goes on.

In the same kind of way that the operation is conditional on the wedding ring being in the operating theatre, so salvation is conditional on doing good deeds. In the sense that good deeds contribute to salvation, salvation is not conditional on doing good deeds. But in the sense that good deeds are present as a kind of bystander to salvation, salvation is conditional on doing good deeds.

If . . . then sentences

When a sentence in the English language contains an ‘if’ clause and a ‘then’ clause, and the sentence makes sense, it is right to say that some sort of condition exists.

So take the following sentence:

If someone is not doing good deeds, then that person does not have the salvation that comes by faith.

This sentence makes sense and is also correct. Therefore it is right to say that salvation is in some sense conditional on doing good deeds. But, as I have said, these good deeds are only present in a non-contributory, incidental kind of way.

People talking past each other by mistake

Quite often in discussions on various topics, people can find themselves talking past each other because they are using words or phrases in different ways without realising it. This can lead to people who agree about things thinking that they actually disagree.

I can remember a few years ago reading a book by a well known Christian author who said that salvation was conditional on doing good deeds. I was taken aback by this and wondered what he was talking about, until I realised that he was referring to good deeds being present in the non-contributory sense that I have outlined above. He was in no way saying that people earn their salvation, even partly.

I think it is also a fact that, generally speaking, things are much more often conditional on something that contributes to a result than on something that doesn’t contribute to a result. Many people therefore don’t realise that occasions even exist when something, A, is conditional on another thing, B, that doesn’t contribute to A. So if someone says that A is conditional on B, the hearer will often automatically assume that the speaker believes that B contributes towards A. But this is not always the case.

Not rushing to judgment

If we see or hear someone saying that salvation is conditional on doing good deeds, we need to pause and try to find out what they actually mean before concluding that they are a false teacher.

If they really do mean that good deeds contribute to our salvation, then, yes, they are a false teacher.

But if they just mean that good deeds merely accompany saving faith, then that is exactly what the Bible teaches.

 

See also:

Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved

Faith in Jesus without Repentance Will Not Save

Apologizing to God without Faith in Christ Will Not Lead to Forgiveness

What Is the Good News of the Christian Message?

Should Christians Eat Unleavened Bread at the Lord’s Supper?

At His last meal with His disciples before He was crucified, commonly known as the Last Supper, the Lord Jesus made a point of sharing some bread and wine among them. He also made it clear that this sharing in bread and wine was something that His followers should continue to do in remembrance of Him.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all describe this event. Here is what Paul says about it in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

‘23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’ (ESV)

The repeated act of sharing in bread and wine by Christians is described in 1 Corinthians 11:20 as ‘the Lord’s Supper’, and this is how I will refer to it in this article.

In what follows, our focus will be specifically on the bread that Christians eat at the Lord’s Supper.

Those who say that we should use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper

When Christians today eat the Lord’s Supper, leavened bread is usually used, i.e., bread that has undergone fermentation to cause it to rise.

However, there are some Christians who say that this is a mistake. They say that only unleavened bread should be used at the Lord’s Supper, and they argue in this way:

The Last Supper that Jesus ate with His disciples was a Passover meal. At this meal only unleavened bread was eaten. So, when Jesus says that Christians should continue to share bread together at the Lord’s Supper after the pattern of the Last Supper, to properly follow that pattern we need to use unleavened bread.

Besides, in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, when Paul says that Christ is our Passover lamb that has been sacrificed, he mentions unleavened bread positively and leavened bread negatively in the context. This also helps to show that we are supposed to use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper, which was patterned on the Last Supper, which was a Passover meal.

So what should we make of this argument? Does it hold water or are there problems with it?

It is certainly true that when Jesus shared bread among His disciples at the Last Supper it would have been unleavened bread that He used. It was a Passover meal, at which only unleavened bread would have been eaten.

However, I believe that the above argument isn’t actually convincing, as I will explain in what follows.

It is wrong to assume precise correspondence between Last Supper and Lord’s Supper

First, it is too simplistic just to assume that the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper is something that must be carried over to the Lord’s Supper.

All other things being equal, this detail may or may not be something that is necessary at the Lord’s Supper, and evidence for or against would need to be sought (see the rest of this article). But it shouldn’t just be assumed.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 is not about the Lord’s Supper

Second, as far as 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 is concerned, this passage doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. Here is what Paul says:

‘6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ (ESV)

In verses 1-5 and 9-13 of this chapter, Paul talks about how the Corinthians should expel from their congregation people claiming to be Christians who are unrepentant of various sins. Verses 6-8 tie in with this theme.

In v. 6 Paul begins by referring to leaven, i.e., dough that has undergone fermentation. If leaven is added to unleavened dough, the whole lump becomes leavened.

Then in the first part of v. 7 Paul makes it clear that he is using leaven as a metaphor for moral evil, and he tells the Corinthians to get rid of this leaven, which was characteristic of their old way of life but should not exist in their new way of life as followers of Jesus.

Having referred to unleavened dough, this causes Paul in the second part of v. 7 to think about the Jewish Passover sacrifice and meal, and he makes the point that Jesus was the fulfillment of that sacrifice.

Finally, in v. 8 Paul says that Christians should celebrate the Passover festival in a way that avoids malice and evil but embraces sincerity and truth. Importantly, the fact that his references to leaven are used metaphorically shows that his reference to celebrating Passover should also be understood metaphorically. This has nothing to do with literally celebrating the Jewish Passover or the Lord’s Supper. Rather, this ‘celebration’ refers to a lifelong position of taking advantage of the forgiveness and new life that can be found in Jesus Christ.

In short, there is nothing in this passage that suggests that Christians should use unleavened bread when they eat the Lord’s Supper.

Not bothering to refer to the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper

Third, there is a strong argument against the idea that unleavened bread is necessary at the Lord’s Supper. This has to do with which Greek word was chosen to refer to the bread at the Last Supper.

There are four places in the New Testament where we are told that at the Last Supper Jesus took bread, broke it and gave it to His disciples. These are Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 that I quoted above.

In the first century the standard Greek word for bread was artos. This word was used to refer to leavened bread and unleavened bread, and it didn’t specify whether the bread was leavened or unleavened.

However, there was also the word azuma, which referred specifically to unleavened bread.

At the Last Supper only unleavened bread was present, so both words, artos and azuma, would have been appropriate to refer to this bread.

Importantly, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all used the word artos in the passages I mentioned, i.e., the word that didn’t specify whether the bread was leavened or unleavened. They could have used azuma but chose not to. By a simple change of one word for another (azuma in place of artos) all of these authors could have drawn attention to the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper, but none of them bothered to do this.

If these authors had thought that it was important to have unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper because the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened, why do none of them bother to mention for their readers that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened? And why did the Holy Spirit, who inspired all these authors, not cause them to mention that this bread was unleavened?

To my mind, this is a strong point. If Christians are supposed to eat unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper because unleavened bread was eaten at the Last Supper (as it was), we would expect at least some of the passages that refer to the institution of the Lord’s Supper to mention that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened. But none of them do.

Someone might want to argue that first century readers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians would all have known that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened, and that there was therefore no need for any of the authors of these books to mention that.

In reply to this, firstly, it was surely the case that some Gentile Christian readers would not have known that this bread was unleavened. And secondly, quite apart from whether readers knew this or not, we would still expect this to be pointed out if it was theologically significant. 

So the fact that these four passages all pass by the opportunity to highlight that the bread at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was unleavened seems to quite strongly imply that Christians are not required to eat unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper.

Leavened and unleavened bread are both fine

Even if we conclude, as I believe we should, that there is nothing wrong with eating leavened bread at the Lord’s Supper, that of course doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with using unleavened bread instead.

Regardless of whether we use leavened or unleavened bread, sharing in one loaf symbolises the way that we share in the benefits of the death of the Lord for us on the cross.

 

See also:

How Often Should Christians Eat the Lord’s Supper?

Beware of Becoming Attached to Church Traditions

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

What Should the Dress Code Be for Christian Worship Services?